Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son of a gun


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Son of a gun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing here but definition, usage examples, and an extended discussion of etymology. All three of these topics (definition, usage, and etymology) are the domain of dictionaries, not encyclopedias. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article is not appropriate for our encyclopedia. Powers T 18:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Interesting material, but WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is just a definition and history of an expression. There is a link to Wiktionary at the bottom of the article. That's where it belongs. Borock (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP is not a dictionary. Corn cheese (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this isn't a dictionary entry. It's an encyclopedia article about a figure of speech. Angr (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. What part of this article would be out of place in a comprehensive dictionary?  None of it.  Powers T 00:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything that isn't already at son of a gun doesn't belong in a dictionary entry, unless by "comprehensive dictionary" you mean "encyclopedic dictionary". And if you do, then no part of the article Dog would be out of place in a "comprehensive dictionary" either. But Wiktionary isn't an encyclopedic dictionary, and if you moved this information to the Wiktionary entry, it would be removed again as being encyclopedic and unsuitable for a dictionary. Angr (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed again? Why?  Why would a dictionary (even a dictionary that isn't an encyclopedic dictionary) remove information on etymology and usage and definition?  Powers T 01:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  00:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. It does need clean-up, particularly the "American English" section, but the cited history and the joke attributed to Legrand G. Capers (while not without room for improvement) already bring this beyond dictionary-style etymology. There is also room for expansion regarding use as euphemism, idiom, and interjection. Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're underestimating what can go into a dictionary entry. There's no limit on etymology imposed by simple virtue of it being a dictionary.  And usage is also the domain of a dictionary.  Powers T 20:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In theory, sure, there is not a limit to what counts as dictionary etymology. In Wiktionary, however, the limits are defined (though this is not yet the case for usage notes). Cnilep (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONG Delete Wikipedia is not the urban dictionary. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There is detailed analysis in The Anatomy of Swearing. It's also another name for sonofabitch stew, which appears as son-of-a-gun in numerous sources.  And there's other usage of the title such as Son of a Gun (EP) so we should certainly keep this as a blue link.  There seems to be plenty more we can do with this and it doesn't seem we can rely upon wiktionary to do it for us.  Does anyone actually read wiktionary, anyway?  If you google the phrase then our article is the number one hit while wiktionary is nowhere to be seen.  Warden (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well hell, then, let's shut Wiktionary down and import every dictionary article over here. Never mind WP:NOTDIC; no one reads Wiktionary, right?  Powers T 21:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Or hey, let's shut Wikipedia down and import every encyclopedia article over to Wiktionary. After all, even articles like Dog are nothing more than extended dicdefs, right? Angr (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. Our Dog article is about the creature, not the word.  The article would work just as well if it were called "Canis domesticus" or "Domestic canine" or "Animal that goes 'woof-woof'".  This article, on the other hand, is about an idiomatic phrase, and it includes nothing but dictionary material (usage, definition, and etymology).  There's no underlying concept being addressed, for which an alternative title would work just as well.  Powers T 20:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But a dictionary definition of dog, like Wiktionary's "an animal, Canis lupus familiaris, of the genus Canis (probably descended from the common wolf) that has been domesticated for thousands of years, of highly variable appearance due to human breeding", is also about the creature, not the word. Angr (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A single definition may be, but the other definitions of the word are about other concepts... yet they are all contained in the same entry. That makes the entry as a whole about the word, not the concept.  Powers T 19:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIC advises on the structure and format of our articles. Its summary is "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are.".  This is not a reason to delete. Warden (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, that's a really bad summary of NOTDIC. Fortunately, it's not the summary that's important, it's the rest of the piece, which says things like "Sometimes an article really is a mis-placed stub dictionary entry, that discusses the etymology, translations, usage, inflections, multiple distinct meanings, synonyms, antonyms, homophones, spelling, pronunciation, and so forth of a word or an idiomatic phrase" and "If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted."  Unless you're proposing we somehow write an article about sons of guns and how they've had impact on society as sons of guns, then the clear advice of NOTDIC is that this should be deleted.  Powers T 19:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an encyclopedia article about a phrase. No policy says words and phrases are unworthy of having encyclopedia articles about them qua words and phrases rather than only about what they denote. Otherwise Thou would have to be a biography of whoever was reading it at the moment. Angr (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thou and fuck and the like being the exceptions that prove the rule. Those are words with reams of material written about them qua words.  Can you honestly say the same about "son of a gun"?  And if you can, is there any word or idiomatic phrase about which one cannot?  Where is the line drawn?  Powers T 19:16, 24 November 2012 (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.