Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lipstick on a pig


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn the article has seen significant improvement over the course of this afd, and I am satisfied with the results. The "delete"s aren't really on any sort of foundation, so I'm calling WP:SNOW too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Lipstick on a pig

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Dicdef and list of differnet uses of the term in popular culture. Most of the article has been tagged with off-topic, and I can't see it expanding beyond a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Anything can become a good article, and the intense focus on this phrase nowadays should give us plenty of sources to work with on its etymology. Besides, not every article in this encyclopedia has FA potential. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Are we going to have to put up with this sort of junk until after the election? Guy (Help!) 22:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing yes. - auburn pilot   talk  22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Um probably it's been used against Cameron at least once and is more imaginative that toff.Genisock2 (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep a significant phrase, and we should have an article explaining both its origins and its notable usage. Granted, the usage isn't included yet, but that's a reason to expand not delete. This article was only created a few hours ago, let's give it a chance to grow.--Troikoalogo (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per 10lb. Not "everything" can become a good article, in spite of HM's cheerful optimism. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 'keep Eh give it time we will be getting to the analysis shortly.Genisock2 (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I removed the off-topic tag because it was used inappropriately, requiring an article to move the content too. Perhaps the user meant trivia or similar? Bastique demandez 22:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My intention was explained on the talk page, under the heading Off Topic. The September 2008 was a fuckup, I didn't see that it was rendered as an article parameter not a date parameter. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Give your fellow editors a break. the article was created yesterday, and you are expecting a top quality article? Research takes time you know.--Voidvector (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue shouldn't be the quality of the article. It's that the article is a coatrack for irrelevant instances where someone has used the phrase, when what matters is discussion of the development of the phrase and discussion of the phrase (compare this to Santorum (sexual neologism) or LOL).  PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, "discussion of the development of the phrase and discussion of the phrase" is in essence "lack of content". My point is that quality of the article will always improve over time, which will address this "lack of content". --Voidvector (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was surprised that there wasn't an article on this phrase beforehand, and as the references show, it has been used a great deal before the current political usage. The article can be expanded, and is the the progress of doing so - to claim NN is to ignore the long time and widespread usage of it -- all of which is cited. Turlo Lomon (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * not sure not seen anything pre early 90s yet. The times doesn't appear to have used it between 1785 and 1985.Geni 23:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at microfish at a library? The internet wasn't widely used until 1988. Turlo Lomon (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No but there is a digital archive of the times that covers those dates.Geni 23:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (but improve). This is one of 196 articles with the English phrases template, such as Almighty dollar, and Nigger in the woodpile, and Fly in the ointment and Economical with the truth etc. Only one of 196 similar articles is AfD! Hmmmm. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just added a ton of references on the talk page of this article for possible inclusion into the article. This is not a passing phrase, but one that has been in the newspapers for years - and there are now the links to prove it. Investigating the times claim - but there are more then one newspaper out there. Turlo Lomon (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A list of trivia is still a list of trivia even if you source it. I don't think anyone is questioning its existence as a phrase, or that it existed before today. Proper sources are only relevant to this article if they explain the origins, or otherwise analyse its usage as a theme. Finding sources just demonstrating it exists is a pretty big waste of time if they don't do that. MickMacNee (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep with the intention of re-nominating after the elections if the current political brouhaha dies quickly - but right now the ball is still in play. We may determine that this phrase has become a significant political icon. Simesa (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Its use in politics alone since 1992 is a history interesting enough to be worth documenting (and I'd still like to know more, and believe there are reliable sources to provide more). I don't understand why people are hostile to this stuff. 86.44.28.222 (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a notable expression, which will probably become the most memorable phrase of this election. Dems on the move (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term is certanly notable now and I think a history of how the term came about is certainly encyclopedic.  The article can certainly be much more than a dictionary definition. Dpmuk (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, offered in the spirit of defending lost causes: At most two examples are sufficient to clarify the meaning. Preferably they should be at least ten years old. Anything more is trivia, and an invitation to hang coats on the rack. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DICDEF. It's obviously a phrase in popular use, but the article will just consist of a definition and a list of times it's been used. Famous people using a phrase doesn't make it notable; reliable publications discussing the development of the phrase do. Just like like taking candy from a baby, stubborn as a mule, like clockwork, and sleep like a baby, this is a commonly used term that doesn't have a notable history, so it belongs on Wiktionary.  Any speculation on it becoming "the most memorable phrase of this election" is purely speculative, and the article should be kept or deleted based on whether or not it has long-term notability now.  If it continues to be used and discussed, then the article can be undeleted and developed into an actual article.  PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Without prejudice to the rest of your argument, you're seriously misunderstanding the second guideline you link to. 86.44.29.244 (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC) stricken, i have serious reading problems
 * Aside from the fact that PiracyFundsTerrorism misunderstood "Notability is not temporary", I found it funny that he is trying to tie it with Crystal Ball to create a position about "future notability". Seems to me his position is in itself a speculation that says "the phrase could have no future notability". --Voidvector (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't get the issue here. "probably become the most memorable phrase of this election" is quite clearly not a good argument to keep, that's the point he was trying to make I believe. MickMacNee (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Explain what exactly I misunderstood. "Articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future" directly disputes the statement that we should keep the article because it will probably become famous in relation to this election, which is exactly the kind of speculation that doesn't belong on here.  Regarding "future notability", I specifically said that it may become notable in the future, in which case it would be undeleted.  PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- its a notable phrase thats been in use long before this election season in plenty of areas other than politics. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly notable phrase and the article is well-sourced -- most importantly with sources that pre-date the brouhaha over Obama's use of the phrase. The creation of this article clearly was in response to the Obama situation, but this is where Wikipedia is superior to printed encyclopedias -- in taking a topic of current interest and providing historical context. In this case this article shows - in an NPOV way - that the phrase wasn't invented yesterday. Obviously it needs to be policed to make sure it doesn't get weighted with anti-Obama/pro-Palin rhetoric, but otherwise it's perfectly viable as long as NPOV is maintained. 23skidoo (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What has NPOV even got to do with it if the aim is to actually write something meaningful about the phrase, and not as it is now, act as a container for discussion around a list of examples of its use? I honestly would like an answer to the question of what exactly people think is being imparted here as knowledge by this article as it stands now, that arguably doesn't belong in A.N. Other article? I mean, why here and not Obama sexism controversy (for the 2008 example), Rebuttal of the Obama sexism controversy (for the 2004, 2007, 2007 examples), Criticism of Windows / Vista / Itanium, Article about a book not even worthy of its own article?. As for the Governor of Texas 'sourced' factoid, this has got to be the most uninformative sentence ever included on an article, I have no clue as to where that could go, because I have no idea why it is in here. MickMacNee (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable. I just ran some searches ("lipstick on a pig") and exclude anything from this year, and I was seeing sources and references to this cultural staple expression going back past the days of old Dicky Nixon. If anyone is saying Delete thinking this is some new Americanism because of Obama, er, it's not... rootology ( C )( T ) 02:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is. The article as it stands is basicaly an uninformative coatrack with no actual sources talking about the phrase, rather just repeating the phrase while really talking about something else. The propensity to prove something by 'running searches' is probably not the best technique for this type of article. MickMacNee (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A well-documented and notable idiomatic expression.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is notable. If this doesn't belong here, then maybe we should take a look at at the entire category. Article is well referenced, which also helps. -Brougham96 (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I spot checked that category earlier, not one of the articles I saw had anything close to the lack of definition/explanation of the phrase, combined with the amount of rambling trivial pop culture references as this article currently has. So other stuff exists not withstanding, yes I would urge others look in that category, for examples of good articles so they realise what this one should be aiming to look like. MickMacNee (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete dictionary definition... all that can be provided is useage and etymology (which is dictionary content) and trivia (which is unencyclopedic). --Rividian (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Might as well keep. DS (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless more information is forthcoming about the history of the phrase itself, this belongs on Wiktionary, not here.  howcheng  {chat} 04:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a phrase worth having a short article on. The fact that current events provided the instigation for its creation now is not a reason to delete it. SkyDot (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with and, there are literally hundreds of WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources to utilize that were published years ago about this subject matter from which to draw upon for this article in order to provide historical context. Cirt (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article finaly has a couple of sources actually about the phrase rather than just being a verbatim sources of its use, however, the contemporary coatrack of popular culture should still be drastically cut back as being an off topic list of trivia. MickMacNee (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep with sources, worth keeping. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have expanded and sourced the "origins" section, which rather undercuts any deletion arguments. The balance of the more recent material is really a matter for discussion on the talk page rather than a deletion discussion. Recommend this nomination is withdrawn, and we proceed to the talk page.--Troikoalogo (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- people will check sourcing as we go along & in 6 months we will know whether notability has been sustained. Better than creating it then, when all the sources are cold. -- 62.25.109.196 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- phrases should sometimes get there own article, especially if it achieves enough common usage. It should also be on Wikitionary Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 12:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of those instances where Wikipedia excels from the diversity of its contributors.  Republicans can point out that it seemed in poor taste because of Sarah Palin's pit bull and lipstick remark the week before, while Democrats can point out the context of the remark-- and the fact that it's apparently a common remark that politicians use.  By now, we've seen film clips of John McCain also using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" in the same context that Barack Obama did.  This article turns up when doing a google search for "lipstick on a pig", and people who want to hear from both sides can go to Wikipedia rather than a right or left website. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The content you describe is properly recorded under an article titled Obama lipstick controversy, or a similar section of one of the 2008 US election articles. It categorically does not belong in this one, and over the years the ridiculousness of the content with regard Wikipedia's core mission, will only become more and more apparent. Wikipedia is not a political discussion blog or the google current affairs extension, NPOV and proper sourcing is quite irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "over the years", the content of the article can/will change. Right now, the political stuff is relevant to the subject's interest, and, in fact, the reason anyone is writing or reading the article. However, these are issues rightly for the talk page of the article - content disagreement is not ever a reason to delete.--Troikoalogo (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should split off the political stuff and create a new article on Lipstickgate?--Troikoalogo (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know this was meant as a joke comment, but as per my comment above to Mandsford, you've actually shown what is wrong with the current article. MickMacNee (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2008 (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.