Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bread and butter


 * 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. As an article about the superstition, rather than the phrase.  Sandstein  06:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Bread and butter

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Textbook dictionary content - definition, usage, examples, and etymology. Nothing encyclopedic here. Powers T 14:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —Powers T 14:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Textbook encyclopedia content – Whole paragraphs of prose, referenced to reliable sources (well, partially at any rate), in much greater depth than any dictionary would. Nothing dictionary-like here. Just a reminder: words and phrases are also acceptable topics for encyclopedia articles. +Angr 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whole paragraphs, prose, referencing, and depth of coverage are stylistic issues, not content issues. Stylistically, yes, this is certainly not suitable for most dictionaries.  But I was speaking to the content, which is precisely that which would be covered by a comprehensive dictionary entry.  Powers T 22:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Stripped of a few OR/pop culture references (which didn't seem to have any references to say what they actually meant in context) it's just a dicdef, and the references that are left are very dubious; who refers to a Russian web page as a reliable source on an English phrase?- Wolfkeeper 18:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to me we need a List of superstitions that we could merge this to. In lieu of that, soft redirect to wikt:bread-and-butter. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, weak keep, this is about the superstition, not the phrase, so NOTDIC doesn't really apply. There's not much that can be said about the superstition, but there's a lot of sources that include this as a superstition:. I still think we need List of superstitions, we don't even mention walking under ladders anywhere I can find. Fences  &amp;  Windows  13:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Lists are unsatisfactory as compendia of such contents because they will tend to become bloated. One source I came across today contained thousands of superstitions.  When you have so many, it is better to keep them separate because they are easier to organise and read.  And there's less trouble keeping out the unsourced and dubious additions.


 * Keep, because I don't see it as distinctly different than the other 326 items in Category:English phrases and the other 148 items in Category:English idioms. I also just added it to the list of 125 items at Category:Phrases. The heading on the Category:Phrases page states, "The wikipedia does not have (or is not supposed to have) many articles on topics that are words or phrases (because Wikipedia is not a dictionary or usage guide); but many articles are on topics that can be referred to by words or phrases, and these are listed here." I'm very unclear on what the difference is between a topic that "is a word or phrase" and one that "is referred to by a word or phrase." I don't think the current state of WP:NAD gives sufficient guidance on phrases, other than stating that articles are not to be usage guides for words or phrases. Alternatively, the deletion of this article should be done as part of a much larger project to purge WP of all phrases. (FWIW, I also fixed the missing citation.) travisl (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So if I've understood it correctly, your argument is that a) you don't understand the relevant policies b) WP:OTHERSTUFF exists c) you've added a non reliable source which points to some web page somewhere. Is that's a fair summary of your keep vote?- Wolfkeeper 23:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty close. Point "A" was seeking guidance as to whether this topic "is a phrase" or is "referred to by a phrase". Further discussion below has clarified this for me, and shows that this is likely the crux of contention. Point "B" is an argument for consistency, but I appreciate you pointing out the Other stuff exists essay, and won't pursue this line of reasoning. And point "C" was regarding my cite to a U.S. newspaper column that has been syndicated since the 1950s, originally written by the editor-in-chief of the American Heritage Dictionary and carried on since his death in 1994 by his son. But if that's a non-reliable source, yes, your understanding is correct. travisl (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right that this may not be distinct from the other items in those categories. But that's no reason not to delete it.  As Wolfkeeper pointed out WP:OTHERSTUFF is not considered a strong argument at AfD.  Powers T 13:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Textbook encyclopaedic content per the Encyclopedia of Superstitions. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I cannot fault the nominator at all on this one, since the article specifically stated that it was about a phrase, rather than about the superstition. As an article about the superstition, however, it can be every bit as encyclopedic as rabbit's foot.  And the article certainly needs work, not just in adding context, but in removing nonsense like the vague mention of it having only been used in "the 19th and early 20th centuries", whatever the early 20th century is supposed to cover.  Mandsford 13:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The nomination seems faulty as it is contrary to both our deletion and editing policies. Rushing straight to AFD when you find a problem with an article is disruptive because it is disproportionate and uncivil.  There also seems to be an agenda which should be dealt with elsewhere. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel that strongly about it, then the proper forum would be Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, although I cannot see anything in the nomination that would come anywhere close to an incident. With all due respect, the comment directed toward User:LtPowers would, in my opinion, qualify under one or more of these elements in the definition in WP:CIVIL: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict."  On the other hand, I don't see anything in the nominator's comments that would fall under that definition.  Whether there is a history of hard feelings between two editors has no bearing on whether the article should be kept or deleted.  Mandsford 15:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems the appropriate place to discuss the nomination and there will be an admin along in due course - there is no need to go looking for one elsewhere. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I "rushed" to AfD because I feel the topic is entirely unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. It is not something that could be fixed by leaving a note on the talk page of the article.  If you have concerns about agendas and civility, either raise them in the appropriate fora or stop casting aspersions on my behavior.  Powers T 17:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your conception seems to be that you criticise the work of other editors but that your work should not be criticised in turn.   This is not the way it works here.  Per WP:SAUCE, your nomination is fair game.  As we go about the business of saving the article from deletion, we must necessarily rebut the nomination and so demonstrate it is false and/or foolish.  There is nothing personal about this - it is a natural consequence of the process.  Colonel Warden (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You said I "rushed to AfD", that I engaged in incivility, and that I am disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Those are necessarily personal accusations.  They have nothing to do with the merits of the nomination, and everything to do with my on-wiki behavior.  If you truly feel I've been incivil in any way, or that my editing is disruptive, you should go through the proper channels, rather than make such accusations here.  They are irrelevant to the merits of this article.  Powers T 14:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike a rabbit foot which is about a physical item carried for luck, this is clearly about the words themselves. If you want, by all means try rewriting it to not be about that, but I don't think the result will be successful. Even if you were successful, it's not unusual that somebody like Colonel Warden would revert it out of hand and then vote keep.- Wolfkeeper 15:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be most unusual for me to have edit conflicts over such articles at AFD as I usually find myself working alone. I'm not quite grasping the difficulty with the phrase "early 20th century" but will keep it in mind for my next foray. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and restore the earlier version. Listing times it has appeared in notable media, is perfectly acceptable and common for a Wikipedia article. Those who don't like it, can easily ignore that part, while it gives the rest of us something informative to read on how often it has turned up over the years.  People are influenced by television, of course, expressions learned and used from there more often than any other source.   D r e a m Focus  22:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what secondary sources were given that showed that the particular usage that is being described here matched those usages? None. That's OR.- Wolfkeeper 22:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: I fail to see why it should be deleted. This phrase is highly notable via it's usage in media. I recall an example of the Angry Video Game Nerd using it in one of his reviews even though this doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion. Rohedin  TALK 22:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep in the current form. I think the nom's concerns are taken care of now. As is, the article isn't about the words "bread" and "butter", nor is it about all uses of the phrase "bread and butter". It's about the superstition of uttering the phrase as good luck. The given sources verify the material and demonstrate the superstition's notability.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah. There's quotes around the phrase in the intro; and you can't take them away. It's obviously about that specific phrase and usage of that phrase. I mean, how would you translate this into Japanese or something without using that exact phrase? You couldn't you would have to use that exact phrase. The article is about the usage of the phrase. If it's about the phrase itself, that's a dictionary entry; and there's a whole other wiki for that.- Wolfkeeper 16:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yah. It's about a phrase only in that the phrase is uttered as a good luck charm. In its current state the article's not about the phrase itself or any other use of it. Completely different.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a general article on phrases that are uttered as good luck; it's about the usage of the term bread and butter and only the usage of that single phrase. There's a name for a book that describes how a term or phrase is used: a dictionary. It doesn't go beyond that, it just does that. It's simply a dictionary article.- Wolfkeeper 17:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is about the usage of the phrase "bread and butter" as a superstition. It isn't about the phrase itself or any other use of it. And you do not need to respond to every comment in the AfD.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:DICTIONARY. We can't have an article for every phrase that people utter. Gobonobo  T C 20:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article should be rewritten to focus on the superstition, including the clasping and releasing of hands as well as the expression. As others have suggested, the real topic of this article is not a phrase but a superstition. Clean up can help make this clear. Cnilep (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2010 (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.