Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cover your ass

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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cover your ass

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

Nothing more than a (poor) dictionary definition, along with some examples of use. There's nothing particularly encyclopedic here, nor do I think it's likely that anything can be written encyclopedically about this common phrase. Readers wishing to know about the meaning and background behind the term can consult Wiktionary. Powers ^T 20:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the WP:DICTIONARY guidelines. Not an encyclopedic term. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I agree previous version of article was substandard, but the current version (Aug 26th 2014) is hopefully upgraded as per WP:HEYMANN. Reasons the term is encyclopedic is that it has been covered by language expert William Safire in several columns here and here, plus merits an entry in his Safire's Political Dictionary here. Plus it and its variants (cover your butt, C.Y.A., etc) has been used in different contexts such as by Minnesota health authorities, that we can treat it as an encyclopedic topic, despite its rather vulgar origin. It is an important term in politics and bureaucracy, and in the interaction between business and government, and has a history which is changing, with different nuances and usages, making it grist for Wikipedia, not just a simple dictionary definition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While several references were added, I don't believe they rise to the level of "significant" as our general notability guidelines require. The Safire articles mention the term only in passing; it is not the primary subject of those articles. His Political Dictionary is, obviously, a dictionary and not an encyclopedia; mere coverage in a dictionary is not an indication of encyclopedic notability. I also hasten to point out that it is not just "simple dictionary definition"s that we reject as being more appropriate for Wiktionary. Complex dictionary definitions -- indeed, entire dictionary entries -- may be quite lengthy and include extensive lexical and semantic data, but they are still inherently dictionary entries, not encyclopedic ones. Powers ^T 18:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Safire work on cover your ass and related terms was not mere mentions, but he discussed it prominently, particularly in regard to politics, with Senators using the term, its history, that part of it was a synecdoche, etc. Safire did not discuss all terms in his columns, but only ones he thought were significant and notable. He was well-respected for his column on language, and his column appeared regularly in a top American newspaper, the New York Times. When Safire discussed a term, he was saying, in effect, that he thought educated people (who care about writing, language, etc) should study this term, that there was variation in usage, change over time, worthy of being written about in a top national news source.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not at all obvious that Safire's Political Dictionary is not an encyclopedia. In my view, a dedicated article in an encyclopedia or similarly organised work of reference is significant coverage. I think this passes that test. James500 (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The political dictionary is entirely about words. That's just about the most concise definition of a dictionary possible. Powers ^T 01:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Colloquilisms are useful in everyday language and having a detailed description of these terms can be especially helpful for non-native English speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelliess (talk • contribs) 20:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but that is what dictionaries are for. Powers ^T 00:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the current Wikipedia version, which describes the activity of CYA with examples in context, is substantively richer than any dictionary definition. It's encyclopedic, what people need.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Not Keep, Encyclopedic or Not Yet Encyclopedic. Let us be perfectly clear that what we are talking about with CYA is not a word, not merely a colloquialism and its dictionary definition, but one of the deepest and most recondite operating principles of modern society. Almost every issue in our society that becomes an 'issue' from the level of the living room, to the classroom, to the board room, to the Oval Office, to the UN General Assembly is deeply governed by this operational principle. There may not be enough scholarly evidence currently to generate a high quality encyclopedia article, but I would be loath to delete the article without a more thorough search of the literature. There may be other articles on the Wiki or branches of science that are directly relevant to the subject that have yet to be tied into this article.Atani (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying keep or delete?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current version (20:48, 26 August 2014‎) goes beyond the dictionary usage and includes the social significance of the term, which is in line with WP:WORDISSUBJECT. BMIComp 21:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice improvement of this article, which goes beyond a dictionary definition now.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2014 (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.