Yesterday (time): The article's content currently consists of a dictionary definition, and a brief touch upon its usage in learning and language.  Sources that could be added are flooded out with things named due to the word, but not about the concept itself.  Furthermore, as the article itself states, the concept of "yesterday" in time is abstract, and far too broad for a dedicated article, and could reasonably be discussed in spin-off articles, e.g Yesterday in fiction , Yesterday in philosophy , etc.  If this nomination passes, I intend to nominate Tomorrow (time) alongside it, since the same rationale applies with that article as well.  I'm not opposed to a potential merger of Yesterday and Tomorrow as an alternative to deletion.  Bandit Heeler ( talk ) 23:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Science ,  and Mathematics .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  It's not just a dicdef.  It includes much more information.  It can be improved, but that is not for WP:AfD .  Bearian ( talk ) 17:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The information is hardly "much more".  As I said, it consists of a dictionary definition, and a very brief touch upon its usage in learning and language.  I am aware that Afd is not clean-up.  Bandit Heeler ( talk ) 21:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I'd strongly urge adding Tomorrow (time) to the current AFD instead of waiting for this one to finish, as it's essentially an identical case.   I tend to lean delete here, but there is some potential information that might go beyond a dicdef -- namely, some sort of comparison of how different languages denote relative time.   But what's here is pretty slight, and would probably be better off in some other article dedicated to that topic (I'm not sure if there is one, or how well one could be carved out though).   Also, the Tomorrow article has a note on children's understanding of the term at different ages, but again, that's probably better off at some sort of article about child psychology and time, or something like that.  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 05:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Certainly not a WP:DICDEF .  Bhivuti45 ( talk ) 10:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Very useful discussion about the hesternal tense , not a WP:DICDEF by any means.  Contributor892z ( talk ) 18:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : not a WP:DICDEF , and we still have " today " and " tomorrow ", so either recommended a massive delete under this reason (which I'd oppose) or leave yesterday alone.  FuzzyMagma ( talk ) 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - all of the 'keep' votes thus far have consisted of some variation of 'not a WP:DICDEF ', not based in policy (just saying 'not a DICDEF' without explaining why is not an argument), and not countering the fact that I already mentioned it's only a brief touch on other subjects.  I haven't seen anything compelling indicating that this is a WP:WORDISSUBJECT , otherwise I would have withdrawn the nomination at this point.  The fact that someone considers the one sentence mention of the hesternal tense  'useful' is not a policy based argument and is purely subjective.  ( WP:USEFUL ).  Bandit Heeler ( talk ) 17:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: keep