- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Teaching grandmother to suck eggs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTDICT WP:GNG WP:SFOD. The wikitionary article does a far better job at explaining the concept/phrase that the article is trying to explain does, and I don't think it's notable of a concept enough for it to warrant an article on Wikipedia. AtlasDuane ( talk) 12:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Qualitist ( talk) 12:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @ AtlasDuane: The wikitionary link does not work, but if there is a piece on wikitionary then OK by me. I created it 10 years ago, wikitionary was not so well known then. Ronhjones (Talk) 16:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Wik-tio-nary. :) ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 23:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 17:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per [1], Harry Oliver's Flying by the Seat of Your Pants, and I'm not exactly sure but there may be some relevant information in Max Cryer's Common Phrases: And the Amazing Stories Behind Them. wumbolo ^^^ 22:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. There is a whole WP Category of English-language idioms; this article could be expanded and developed as this is a notable phrase. There is plenty of good material to expand this article here, here. Britishfinance ( talk) 20:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. While there exist sources confirming the existence of this phrase, by no means does this amount to significant coverage, and I don't see anything that would let us add content to this page beyond what a Wiktionary article would cover. Yes, there is a whole category for English idioms-- but those pages are full of things like the history of its usage, its use in notable media and pop culture, references in literature, political context, etc. (See Mexican standoff, Wolf in sheep's clothing, and Crocodile tears for some good examples.) I don't think that there exists information (yet) that would let this article be expanded enough to be worth having (per WP:WORDISSUBJECT) Gilded Snail ( talk) 04:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Delete My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing that supports this as a topic beyond the dictionary definition. If any coverage could be shown beyond that (i.e., history etc.) then I could see a rationale for keeping. It is odd that the similar concept of Mansplaining is so much more easy to substantiate despite being only recently created - but this is an example of Wiki's recentism. FOARP ( talk) 10:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep Researchgate.net [2] meets WP:GNG. 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 ( talk) 16:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)— 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 ( talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 123Aristotle ( talk • contribs).
- Researchgate doesn't necessarily indicate a reliable source-- for instance, the publication you linked seems to be from the "Environmental Protection Bulletin - Institution of Chemical Engineers". Nor does the use of a phrase in a paper (without further discussion of it) automatically count as significant coverage of that phrase. Gilded Snail ( talk) 15:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Please don't delete this page. It includes useful information about early uses of a phrase I thought was invented by JRR Tolkien. I got to this page from a link on an interesting article about a sort of comparable Chinese expression, "Don't show your axe to Lu Ban." The context is helpful, as I did not understand either axiom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EC4A:6F00:F150:D5E0:22FF:4501 ( talk) 03:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in some form although I think with the presently available sourcing it's better off perhaps in a List of English idioms, which happens to exist already at English-language idioms#Notable idioms in English. Many of the entries there are already cross-wikilinked to Wiktionary. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 21:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep notable phrase (from UK perspective), clearly needs some development and sourcing can be improved, but these are not reasons for deletion. Polyamorph ( talk) 20:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Teaching grandmother to suck eggs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTDICT WP:GNG WP:SFOD. The wikitionary article does a far better job at explaining the concept/phrase that the article is trying to explain does, and I don't think it's notable of a concept enough for it to warrant an article on Wikipedia. AtlasDuane ( talk) 12:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Qualitist ( talk) 12:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @ AtlasDuane: The wikitionary link does not work, but if there is a piece on wikitionary then OK by me. I created it 10 years ago, wikitionary was not so well known then. Ronhjones (Talk) 16:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Wik-tio-nary. :) ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 23:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 17:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per [1], Harry Oliver's Flying by the Seat of Your Pants, and I'm not exactly sure but there may be some relevant information in Max Cryer's Common Phrases: And the Amazing Stories Behind Them. wumbolo ^^^ 22:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. There is a whole WP Category of English-language idioms; this article could be expanded and developed as this is a notable phrase. There is plenty of good material to expand this article here, here. Britishfinance ( talk) 20:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. While there exist sources confirming the existence of this phrase, by no means does this amount to significant coverage, and I don't see anything that would let us add content to this page beyond what a Wiktionary article would cover. Yes, there is a whole category for English idioms-- but those pages are full of things like the history of its usage, its use in notable media and pop culture, references in literature, political context, etc. (See Mexican standoff, Wolf in sheep's clothing, and Crocodile tears for some good examples.) I don't think that there exists information (yet) that would let this article be expanded enough to be worth having (per WP:WORDISSUBJECT) Gilded Snail ( talk) 04:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Delete My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing that supports this as a topic beyond the dictionary definition. If any coverage could be shown beyond that (i.e., history etc.) then I could see a rationale for keeping. It is odd that the similar concept of Mansplaining is so much more easy to substantiate despite being only recently created - but this is an example of Wiki's recentism. FOARP ( talk) 10:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep Researchgate.net [2] meets WP:GNG. 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 ( talk) 16:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)— 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 ( talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 123Aristotle ( talk • contribs).
- Researchgate doesn't necessarily indicate a reliable source-- for instance, the publication you linked seems to be from the "Environmental Protection Bulletin - Institution of Chemical Engineers". Nor does the use of a phrase in a paper (without further discussion of it) automatically count as significant coverage of that phrase. Gilded Snail ( talk) 15:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Please don't delete this page. It includes useful information about early uses of a phrase I thought was invented by JRR Tolkien. I got to this page from a link on an interesting article about a sort of comparable Chinese expression, "Don't show your axe to Lu Ban." The context is helpful, as I did not understand either axiom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EC4A:6F00:F150:D5E0:22FF:4501 ( talk) 03:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in some form although I think with the presently available sourcing it's better off perhaps in a List of English idioms, which happens to exist already at English-language idioms#Notable idioms in English. Many of the entries there are already cross-wikilinked to Wiktionary. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 21:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- Keep notable phrase (from UK perspective), clearly needs some development and sourcing can be improved, but these are not reasons for deletion. Polyamorph ( talk) 20:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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.