Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stop hitting yourself


 * 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! 03:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop hitting yourself

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not that notable a phrase. Article is unreferenced, and it is not at all clear how this is an encyclopedic topic. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: IP who had removed the speedy replaced it while I was typing this out. I have no prejudice against someone speedying this. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I haven't done an exhaustive amount of research on the topic, but even the Simpsons have covered the phrase with Nelson, more than once. I would find it hard to believe that references can't be found for this "cultural phenomena" that this 46 year old grew up with.  I'm not sure what the policy is here, but it would seem there is enough room for topics like this here, as well as similar phrases such as sticks and stones, etc.  Dennis Brown (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Interestingly, that article already exists. It's in desperate need of some help, too. Just an aside, thought you might be interested :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete is my current !vote, pending someone else having more success than me in finding reliable sources covering this topic in such a fashion that would allow us to give this article encyclopedic content and not just a description of the bullying tactic. I'd contrast this article -- and the coverage I'm seeing of the phrase -- with Have a nice day, which has a surprisingly interesting history and has been studied in various academic disciplines. I don't bring up this superior example to suggest that I simply don't like the article under review here; I bring it up to demonstrate a contrast in the type of sourcing available. I'll be following this AfD -- interested to see how it goes. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ginsengbomb, thank you for mentioning that surprising yet neglected article. I will follow you throughout Wikipedia pleading, begging, and hoping that one day you will have the heart to finish copyediting it. ;) Cunard (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note, some insufferable redlink noob is brazenly admitting to wikihounding me with the above post and deserves to face the music as soon as possible. Please note also that I am kidding. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to wiktionary, which takes phrases. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment This sounds like the way to go. There are a number of mentions in sources out there, but it's really more appropriate on Wiktionary. Nevard (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) No references are cited, this is original reserach;
 * 2) This phrase, if it is actually in common use, is a neologism. 94.197.193.120 (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This page is so trivial I'm surprised it wasn't deleted straight away. 80.249.48.109 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A ridiculous article, probably created as a joke. Bazonka (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the subject matter is amusing, but far more ridiculous articles exist. That does not mean they are created as a joke. Please remember to assume good faith. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, unsourced, no evidence this has ever happened outside of a cartoon. Hairhorn (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is arguing that this isn't a common phenomenon, rather that there is little in the way of credible sources on it. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is finding sources, granted, but many of us remember being on the giving and/or receiving end of "Stop hitting yourself", usually in good humor. Maybe not in your house, but it is certainly common enough.  The NYTimes hasn't written on an article on it lately, but the cartoons are copying real life, not the other way around.  That isn't enough for inclusion, obviously, but it is more common than you perhaps think.  Dennis Brown (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's moot whether or not this is as common as I think, particularly since I made no claim one way or the other. Hairhorn (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per Dennis Brown - it is verifiable and slightly notable, but not supportable by significant coverage, as least as I can see, but perhaps it will get coverage in the future. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I found this article when randomly looking up the phrase and was pleasantly surprised to see that the page existed. You'd be hard pressed to find someone under a certain age in the UK who doesn't know this phrase. I've also read it being used with the meaning 'stop blaming yourself'/feeling guilty.--Pmcmahon1 (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Pmcmahon1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. 131.211.84.85 (talk)
 * Pending at least one source, merge and redirect to List of proverbial phrases.-- Pink Bull  14:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A.k.a. - frankie (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The targets proposed are valid but none here is much better suited to cover cultural phenomenons - frankie (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I think it is telling that this "phrase" is unlike most of the other terms included in the "English phrases" category to which this article belongs. Most of the other entries are notable maxims or sayings, while "stop hitting yourself" can hardly be considered as such. At most, the phrase might make a useful illustrative example in an article on bullying, but does not merit an article in its own right. It is pretty much doomed to be a stub-length almost dictionary-like definition and not a proper article.Agent 86 (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. We're not Urban Dictionary, folks. This one is an easy call. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Neutralitytalk 21:54, 3 June 2011 (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.