Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spill the salt


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Spill the salt

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

Do we have articles on idioms? Anshuk (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Yes, Wikipedia does have articles on idioms. See Category:Idioms (or Category:English idioms). Note that this does not constitute an argument for or against keeping the "spill the salt" article. --darolew 07:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not an idiom but a superstition—one that's already listed in Superstition—and the content of this article is almost certainly false (Brewer's Dictionary, as well as other sources, makes it clear that Leonardo's use was based on a preexisting superstition, not itself the source of the superstition). If there were as much to say about this as, for example, Black cat, a stand-alone article might be warranted, but I don't think there is. A mention in Salt or History of salt could be appropriate. Deor (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep per Smerdis's replacement of the text, provided the article is moved to a more appropriate title—I'd suggest Spilling salt, with the boldfaced potion of the opening sentence tweaked accordingly. (And I still can't see why overwriting and moving the manifestly unsuitable article should be preferable to deletion of the article and creation of a suitable article at a suitable title.) Deor (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are those who say that the modifications section of the GFDL makes it at minimum strongly preferable to preserve page histories and the record of old contributions.  Moving and editing does so; deleting and recreating does not.  I find the difference obscure as well, but where the old page is a bona fide contribution and not libel or vandalism, it seems best to humor them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Be prepared for a surprise ... Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not an idiom, and presenting it as such is the wrong scope for the subject. The idea that spilling salt at table is bad luck is a superstition.  And such a superstition is encyclopaedic for the simple reason that it's already in one encyclopaedia:
 * That's not a particularly good source, though. Here's something to read that provides more:
 * Note the existence of salt. Obviously, we are missing the superstitions and folklore surrounding salt, of which there appear to be many, and on which there appears to be a lot more than a single (unsourced and, from reading the above sources, apparently not quite accurate) paragraph in superstition to write.  There seems to be enough for a breakout sub-article on superstitions and folklore related to salt.  And we can get there from here by moving this article to such a title and using it as a starting point.  Edit without mercy!  Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article has a bad title and no information worth saving, what's the point of "using it as a starting point"? Just write the article you want to write and let this one be deleted. Deor (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the existence of salt. Obviously, we are missing the superstitions and folklore surrounding salt, of which there appear to be many, and on which there appears to be a lot more than a single (unsourced and, from reading the above sources, apparently not quite accurate) paragraph in superstition to write.  There seems to be enough for a breakout sub-article on superstitions and folklore related to salt.  And we can get there from here by moving this article to such a title and using it as a starting point.  Edit without mercy!  Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article has a bad title and no information worth saving, what's the point of "using it as a starting point"? Just write the article you want to write and let this one be deleted. Deor (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the existence of salt. Obviously, we are missing the superstitions and folklore surrounding salt, of which there appear to be many, and on which there appears to be a lot more than a single (unsourced and, from reading the above sources, apparently not quite accurate) paragraph in superstition to write.  There seems to be enough for a breakout sub-article on superstitions and folklore related to salt.  And we can get there from here by moving this article to such a title and using it as a starting point.  Edit without mercy!  Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article has a bad title and no information worth saving, what's the point of "using it as a starting point"? Just write the article you want to write and let this one be deleted. Deor (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article has a bad title and no information worth saving, what's the point of "using it as a starting point"? Just write the article you want to write and let this one be deleted. Deor (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have entirely rewritten the article.  It probably ought to move to a noun phrase title such as spilt salt, but this is a highly notable, easily referenced, quite old and quite widespread belief. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Smerdis/Ihcoyc's version. If there were ever applicable grounds for deletion, they've vanished in the face of that.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to History of salt It has already got a section on Biblical references that part of this entry could be merged with and it would benefit from a section on related superstitions and how they came to be to keep in line with the "history" part of the title. Creating redirects from titles like spilt salt and spilling salt is desirable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 7 April 2009 (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.