Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob's your uncle

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. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's your uncle

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOT#DICT. I can't think of a way that this will grow into more than a dictionary piece. I have been unable to find significant credible etymological debate about this phrase. I do not think that a discussion of unsubstantiated folk-etymology is enough to support the existence of the article. The material has already been copied to Wiktionary, and so loss of information is not an issue here. The fact that Wikipedia is the better known project does not justify it encroaching on Wiktionary's subject matter. Howfar (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Nnngh... subject has potential, I believe it to be an encyclopedic subject but not as it is. What is sourced reliably (?) seems to be simply a re-phrased version of the text in the source. Trivia should go regardless. Rehevkor ✉ 18:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe it to be potentially encyclopaedic, could you please help me understand how? If it can be improved to make it encyclopaedic, the article should stay. I just don't see how this could happen. Howfar (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm no expert on the subject, but WP:NOT#DICT specifies "a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject", this could well be one of those phrases, just not in its current form. Rehevkor ✉ 19:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that it hypothetically could be, I just don't think that it is. :) But it's not my decision in the end. Howfar (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - very well-known phrase. I would have been very upset if Lipstick on a pig was deleted by the nominator's logic. There are very many political catch phrases that I think have a place on Wikipedia, and don't know that our current rules would allow them in, under the nominator's logic. OK - tell me about "otherstuff." Smallbones (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the similarity with "lipstick on a pig". "Bob's your uncle" is not a political catchphrase, and does not have political significance. The "political" side of this is really just an interesting folk-etymology. The past and current use of "lipstick on a pig" in a political context gives it encyclopaedic content that "Bob's your uncle" lacks. Howfar (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its an informative article that finally explains this common phrase to a yank who has heard it but didn't previously understand it. The point being, its not a trash article, its knowledge and has no business being deleted except . . . oh, I'm going to lose faith again . . . find another hobby.Trackinfo (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that you are familiar with WP:Assume good faith and WP:Be Kind. I would prefer it if you kept your comments polite and on-topic, as imputing bad-faith to me does not seem terribly productive. Thank-you. It probably includes some knowledge yes, but as we both know, an encyclopaedia is not a dictionary, as Wikipedia policy explicitly states. Definitions and etymologies of words or phrases should not be the sole content of an article. Inclusion of knowledge does not necessarily improve an encyclopaedia. Wiktionary is the proper place for this content, and we don't improve either project by blurring the line between them. Howfar (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-known phrase with an interesting history. I'm not buying the deletion arguments, sorry. Joal Beal (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why not? Can you make clear why you believe this phrase belongs in an encyclopaedia rather that a dictionary? I am willing to be convinced of the rationale, but no-one yet seems to be interested in explaining it. Cheers. Howfar (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, the citations need to be properly moved to Wiktionary (eg the Worldwidewords.org link). Then move the disambig page to this location. (It contains the wiktionary template box.)
Note: Our last paragraph ("A more probable theory...") is a blatant copyright violation of the content from Worldwidewords.org (with minor corrections and changes). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete There's nothing here that couldn't/shouldn't be in Wiktionary. Simply rewriting a dictionary article in text form leaves it still a dictionary article.- Wolfkeeper 20:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook dictionary article. Definition, usage, and etymology all belong in dictionaries. Powers ^T 20:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable eponym. Please see From Aristotelian to Reaganomics, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 26 May 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.