Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy howdy (idiom)


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 09:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Boy howdy (idiom)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:DICDEF, sources are only spouting definitions in circles. No hint of notability as a phrase. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Boy howdy, I'd keep it. It's more than a dicdef; if you move it over to Wiktionary, you'll have to toss out most of it, and what's the value of throwing away good info? It has sufficient refs already, but instead of tossing it out let's add to it and keep this piece of American linguistic culture. (Full disclosure: I wrote the article so naturally I have a personal attachment to it). Herostratus (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Expanding on this... I've written several articles in Category:American English idioms which has 35 articles. All of these are useful for a couple reasons: 1) providing a quick definition and source for the casual user who runs across the idiom in literature and 2) preserving info and references on these idioms, some of which are obscure and vanishing, for future years. Some of the articles also provide paragraphs if more in-depth info about the idiom, but some don't, because I don't have it, which doesn't prove it doesn't exist and mightn't be added later. Sure, you can take Category:American English idioms and pick off a few articles which are (currently) weak, but why? Hey the refs for this article are better than those for Say Uncle and a bunch of others. You want to remove reader's ability to find out what those mean too? Why? I'd like to see a strong argument and consensus accepting "Keeping the reader in ignorance regarding this idiom helps fulfill our mission because ______________", where the blank is hella more than a robotic citing of WP:DICDEF. Herostratus (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Expanding on this... I've written several articles in Category:American English idioms which has 35 articles. All of these are useful for a couple reasons: 1) providing a quick definition and source for the casual user who runs across the idiom in literature and 2) preserving info and references on these idioms, some of which are obscure and vanishing, for future years. Some of the articles also provide paragraphs if more in-depth info about the idiom, but some don't, because I don't have it, which doesn't prove it doesn't exist and mightn't be added later. Sure, you can take Category:American English idioms and pick off a few articles which are (currently) weak, but why? Hey the refs for this article are better than those for Say Uncle and a bunch of others. You want to remove reader's ability to find out what those mean too? Why? I'd like to see a strong argument and consensus accepting "Keeping the reader in ignorance regarding this idiom helps fulfill our mission because ______________", where the blank is hella more than a robotic citing of WP:DICDEF. Herostratus (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete – While the article has reasonable prose, it still covers only definition, usage (which is a subset of definition), and etymology – making it a WP:DICDEF written in long-form, not an encyclopedic topic. Aspirex (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Boy howdy, not enough input for consensus to be determined, so relisting. North America1000 11:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – On Wikipedia, the standard for inclusion is notability, which is satisfied through evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources; the relevant section of DICDEF is WP:WORDISSUBJECT: As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry [...] and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. Unfortunately, I do not believe this standard is met. The Word Detective appears to be a WordPress blog (possibly WP:USERGENERATED)—however, it appears some entires may have been published in newspapers. It's not clear whether the "boy howdy" article specifically has been published in that fashion. The Shelby County Today source is local, online-publication-only, with presumably limited readership. I'm doubtful as to whether it contributes much to the subject's notability. Most of the other references provided in the article appear to only mention the idiom in passing, some of them only show examples of usage. I can't find any other reliable sources that discuss this subject in-depth. Perhaps information about this phrase has a place on another project like Wiktionary, or on a broader list of idioms, but it appears there's simply not enough coverage available to write a standalone encyclopedia article about it. Mz7 (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and draft & userfy instead as this actually has potential for an article but perhaps not now, at least until better is available. SwisterTwister   talk  05:54, 6 February 2016 (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.