Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milking the bull

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. J04n(talk page) 00:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milking the bull[edit]

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

Dictionary definition of non-notable neologism. I am One of Many (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. It will need a fundamental rewrite. Maybe it's suited for Wiktionary that has the goal of creating a dictionary. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Dream Focus. When I commented here first new improvements didn't occur. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 17:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phrase is not a neologism. In the first place, it's not a single word and the words are all quite ancient. And in the second, a quick search shows the phrase to have in general usage back in 1848. Our policy on dictionary matters explains that we should group topics together by their meaning, not alphabetically. This is not achieved by deletion. If we wanted to consolidate the material, then we might merge into list of proverbial phrases and thence to the general concept of futility. What we should not do is simply destroy the link as this would be disruptive, disrespectful to the contributor and unhelpful to our readership. Warden (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started improving the topic and have found notable usage back in the 16th century. The neologism claim is therefore utterly refuted. Warden (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not simply a dictionary definition, but a proper article with content beyond that of a simple definition. And its certainly not neologism if its been around for centuries. Both reasons given to delete are thus not valid. Dream Focus 12:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of Warden's expansion and referencing of the article, and reasoning in this discussion. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Colonel Warden has adequately sourced the article, and the topic's notability is established. dci | TALK 17:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colonel Warden has done a good job! The initial creation of this stub was dictionary like and, given a quick Google search, it appeared to be an introduction of a new meaning for this phrase in English by a translation that was not verified. I would also like to point out the "milking the bull" also has a perhaps more common and vulgar connotation in English today.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG, also this is a gay slang phrase but I don't know how popular it is. Insomesia (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With several inline citations on a notable idiom, this article should be kept. I added {{talkheader}} {{WikiProject Linguistics|class=start|importance=Low}} to place it in the right project.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2013 (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.