Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Give him an inch and he'll take a mile

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Give him an inch and he'll take a mile

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page appears to be outside of project scope, per WP:DICDEF. Since all of the information in the article is basically duplicated at wikt:give them an inch and they'll take a mile, I would suggest deleting or replacing with a soft redirect to the Wiktionary item. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I have not really duplicated from Wiktionary. Instead, it is almost entirely my own creation. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Soumya-8974. Sorry if I was unclear. I'm not saying you copied the article from Wiktionary; I'm just saying the article doesn't expand on the Wiktionary entry in a meaningful way. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a colloquialism. So IMO it goes beyond dictionary. There is also an opportunity to expand the entry with popular culture references and regional usage. Perhaps usage in other countries. Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- My point, though, is that this is already covered at Wiktionary—wikt:give them an inch and they'll take a mile lists over a dozen quotations of the idiom, ranging from 1843 to 1982. It also lists translations in Danish and German. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMO It belongs on Wikipedia instead of Wiktionary. However I do not think it is a problem to have this colloquialism in both places. Lightburst (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's common for dictionaries to describe idioms, not just individual words, so it definitely belongs on Wiktionary. According to WP:DICDEF: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history." I'm curious to get input from some other editors though. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wiktionary is the correct wiki project for definitions, including proverbs and idioms. To qualify for an encylopaedia entry there would have to be some additional matter of notability, such as a notable etymological conundrum (as for the whole nine yards). I cannot find any such controversy about this phrase, so it does not meet notability guidelines. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WORDISSUBJECT: such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. I cannot find reliable sources about the social or historical significance of the term. OED doesn't contribute to notability and the only other source in the article is from 1546, a compilation of proverbs. ~~, and I can't find this one listed in there.~~ (edited to add: found it in the source, where it appears to be part of a longer kinda-sorta poem without any commentary or added notice, so doesn't support notability) Schazjmd (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass DICDEF. Neutrality^talk 02:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopedic content, really. Noahfgodard (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - phrases that are likely to have not more than a dictionary definition and some etymology, it's best to leave it to Wiktionary. However, if we want to add cultural impact for context, then an article would be good as well. Cf. Sisu, Chaos, and Moron in a hurry. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete General pharases or idioms are not meant to have a article on Wikipedia WP:NAD. Not passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT. GargAvinash (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2020 (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.