Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. Sufficient time has passed for a full discussion. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas[edit]

This project page looks like an article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the Essay template which was deleted at some point in history. Presumably that resolves the issue. --JBL (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It could just about be an article too. If that is the case it would need more interpretation from sources. But as an essay, it may need more application to Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep: you must have something better to do with your time William M. Connolley (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An unusually well written and concise essay which is entirely in line with policy. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I'll go out on a limb here. Yes, it's tagged as an essay. Yes, it has an alphabetical shortcut. And yes, it looks like it might be useful to throw out in a discussion (though I get the feeling that using it in a discussion would prove controversial). That said, it's just an explanation of what the common saying means. It has no information on its applicability to Wikipedia itself. This, honestly, might be better kicked to mainspace as an article. Or kicked to mainspace and redirected. Or have its connection to Wikipedia expanded. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Since when is "delete things that look like articles" a policy? It's a well known phrase and there's some history described here, so no objection to movign it into article space. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am unclear why this is a Wikipedia essay, as it simply consists of an explanation for an insult. If the intention is to insult someone, but make it appear acceptable via a Wikipedia essay, then I think it would be better to delete it as an WP:Attack page. Alternatively, the phase could be redirected to an appropriate article, possibly Poor Richard's Almanack or some list of slurs. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is it attacking? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) From WP:Attack page: "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject." This is a mindless and irrelevant use of wikijargon. --JBL (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close comment - I originally closed as Keep but as Silktork decided to revert that close I'm relisting, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:03, 20 March 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.