Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly


 * 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. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is simply a quote (from the bible, but still just a quote). Wikipedia is not one of a long list of bad ideas, in this case, it's not wikiquote. The article is not linked from anywhere else, and it seems unlikely that it will ever be. It's notable, but only notable for being a quote; and is not in my opinion encyclopedic. I call for it being moved to wikiquote and DELETEd here. Rememberway (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is supported by numerous reliable sources which discuss this proverb in detail. Wikipedia contains numerous proverbs and, as these are a good distillation of ancient wisdom, this is the best encyclopedic knowledge.   It might also be noted that the nomination seems to be associated with conflict elsewhere and that the nominator failed to notify the article creator.  There is thus perhaps an element of harassment in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I just don't like it. Nothing links to it. The see-also is unrelated. It's just a saying, and there's nothing really encyclopedic about most sayings. It's also incompatible with WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's no way for it to improve. In my firm opinion it would be much, much, much, MUCH better in wikiquote.Rememberway (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is clearly much more than a simple quote, it's an analysis of the proverb, its meaning, and its significance. More to the point, it easily passes notability and verifiability.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cúchullain put it well -- the nom's description of this article is simply not accurate. It contains much more, as is pointed out above, is well-sourced, and is notable therefore by wp standards.  And of course, nom's admission that "I just don't like it" speaks for itself -- that's not something we heed in these discussions.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's referenced, so what? It's an ISNOT. A well referenced ISNOT is still not keepable. I don't like things that violate ISNOT, but according to you, every article I don't like, should be kept! We don't need that in these discussions!Rememberway (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "IDONTLIKEIT" is not a reason for deletion. Appropriate sufficient references in RSs reflects notability and is reason for retention.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that this article doesn't violate WP:ISNOT. This article contains much more than a simple quotation.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't go beyond anything, it just chats about this quote and contains a guide on how the term has been used, exactly like in a dictionary and wikiquote. If this is a valid article, then every referenced quote in wikiquote is also a valid article. But they aren't.Rememberway (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said the article contains significantly more than a simple quote, it also gets into the meaning and significance of the proverb. If the proverb had a common title I doubt we'd be having this discussion. There's opportunity to go into even more depth, using sources such as this. It easily passes notability and verifiability.Cúchullain t/ c 20:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It is more than just a simple definition or a simple quote. Has reliable sources covering it.  D r e a m Focus  20:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting saying. I've seen it before in works of fiction. I didn't know it was a quote until I saw this article. 75.45.112.109 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cúchullain, Col. Warden, and Eppee. It easily passes WP:GNG -- it's well-sourced, it's cited in ancient sources, and has been cited widely even into the 21st Century. We have lots of odd articles, and this fits right in with those. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but in spite of all that, it's not actually encyclopedic at all. Not even the slightest little bit. Only the author of it has actually claimed that it is, but he's wrong. And nobody else has at all.Rememberway (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is notable -- wp rubric for encyclopedic, for wp's purposes, as every single editor has suggested. At this point, this is ripe for a snow close.  Nobody at all has agreed with the nom, and six editors have disagreed with him.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral before reading the comments here I immediatly thought it was an article about nothing more than a quote. However it seems that wikipedia has pages about other quotes eg. To_be_or_not_to_be, ooh but how I hate to compare the two, even if it is from the bible, it is still a disgusting quote which unfortunately has been used by a couple of notable people and thus apparently gaind a wikipedia noteworthy status. Personally I think it has questionable noteworthyness in an encyclopedia, but if the rubric allows it, who am I to argue. Keetanii (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we reflect all sorts of "disgusting" information on wikipedia. As long as it is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The rubric says we're not supposed to have articles like this at all.Rememberway (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * keep per others. Its also in Kipling, famously. DICT stuff is just wrong argument William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.