Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teaching grandmother to suck eggs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)[reply]

Teaching grandmother to suck eggs (edit | 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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wik-tio-nary. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[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.