Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never wrestle with a pig

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. Noone has really refuted the argument that this is a dicdef and the policy on that is clear. The premis that sources about the suibject rather then those that mention it has also not been refuted Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never wrestle with a pig

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

This is a WP:DICDEF entry, which is constructed out of some bare mentions of the phrase and is basically redundant to wiktionary:wrestle with a pig. I soft redirected it, but the article creator reverted so here I am.

It's a great phrase, in use as far as I can find in a slightly different form since at least 1946, but I don't think this concept has been discussed sufficiently in reliable sources to warrant an encyclopedia article being written on it. There's also some use of improper synthesis in the writing, by including the Lincoln quote.

We do have a related redirect, Pointless argument, which goes to Eristic. Fences&Windows 00:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per nom. WP is not Wiktionary, nor is it Wikiquote. --N Y Kevin @276, i.e. 05:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, does not belong in an Encyclopedia. Pol430 talk to me 11:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as the creator of the article I'm not going to vote and I'm happy if others decide, but please note that similar articles exist, for example A picture is worth a thousand words. Yes, I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF (part of the reason this isn't a vote), just want to highlight my rationale for creating the article in the first place. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than a DICDEF (I'm tired of seeing that used as a feeble excuse to delete stuff), as it also includes some history of its early use and popularisation. We do phrases (examples abound) and where a phrase has some history associated with it, rather than a single quotable utterance, it belongs here more than it belongs on Wikiquote. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a feeble excuse, it's policy. We're not a dictionary. If you don't want it wheeled out in deletion nominations, then make sure that articles on words or phrases are written using sources that actually discuss them. We can have articles about words and phrases, but they need to be proper articles and not just pseudoarticles constructed out of bare uses of words or phrases (what User:Uncle G calls cargo cult article writing). Have any sources discussed this phrase? If so, present them. I searched for sources (following WP:BEFORE like the good little non-deletionist that I am) and I couldn't find any to use to expand the article, though I did expand the Wiktionary (not Wikiquote) entry with some early quotes in lieu of that. Fences&Windows 02:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with the disclaimer that I am an inclusionist). Andy makes good points above, not that it wouldn't be nice to destub this article. Do we have any notability criteria for sayings/proverbs and such? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this is no mere dicdef. —Angr (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh really? All I see are some mere mentions, i.e. a dicdef. No discussion, no analysis, simply mentions. Have some respect for what we're doing here, have some rigour. Blindly voting keep because you see some cites is not enough. Fences&Windows 03:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes really. Your statement "All I see are some mere mentions, i.e. a dicdef" is a non sequitur, showing that you don't know what a dicdef is. Blindly nominating something for deletion because you don't know the difference between a dicdef and a stubby encyclopedia article is hardly having "some respect for what we're doing here". —Angr (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not a dictionary definition, but it is currently an explication and proposed etymology. On the third hand, the citations suggest some notability for the phrase, and deletion is not for clean-up. Cnilep (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't patronise me. I don't want it cleaned up, I'm beyond that - I tried it, I searched for sources, I concluded that they don't exist. It is not notable, you have shown no significant discussion of this phrase. Vaguewaves are not sufficient arguments. Fences&Windows 03:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why my comment is not a !vote. The page is an explication, thus not far removed from a definition, which makes me hesitate to recommend keeping. But it cites multiple (albeit primary) sources, which makes me hesitate to delete on the basis of notability. Cnilep (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems to me like a valid, encyclopedic article on an English proverb, except I question it's notability. œ ^™ 12:02, 24 December 2010 (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.