Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tongue-in-cheek


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Tongue-in-cheek

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is nothing here except a definition, a conjectural etymology, unsourced examples of "tongue-in-cheek fiction", and some usage examples. This is not encyclopedic. Powers T 16:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - another perfectly good, sourced stub about a concept or proverb. Per WP:OUTCOMES, most such articles have been kept; see Talk:Make a mountain out of a molehill, Talk:Sisu, Talk:House concert, Articles for deletion/Backroad, and Articles for deletion/Velleity. You may note that the same nominator was involved in a few of these, and in each case he lost. His continued nomination of such articles suggests an inability to learn his lesson, or a lack of willingness to go along with clear consensus of the community. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)  See also Articles for deletion/Objects visible from space. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)  See as well: Articles_for_deletion/Precedents/Archive, Talk:Grain of salt, and Talk:Lipstick on a pig.  My point is that many, but not all, such idioms are kept, and this is of the same ilk. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What the heck does Objects visible from space have to do with anything? And, yes, when you pick-and-choose the right discussions, it's easy to say "in each case [I] lost".  You missed, for instance, Articles for deletion/Prout patet per recordum, Articles for deletion/Bozo (etymology), Articles for deletion/Interweb (second nomination), and many others on which I've commented on the consensus side of things.  Powers T 17:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer you, (1)there is a common saying that "it's so big as to be visible from space", (2) Prout patet per recordum appears to have been re-created, and (3) I never implied that all such discussions ending in a "keep", only that most of them. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) But the article is about the actual objects, not the saying. (2) It was not recreated; the consensus merge was never carried out because the target article requires a great deal of work before the merge can occur. (3) You implied that because I'm always on the wrong side of such discussions, that I should stop nominating these sorts of articles for deletion.  That claim is nullified by evidence that I'm sometimes on the consensus side.  Powers T 21:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cross-wiki Redirect to Wiktionary. Dictionary definition with no encyclopaedic value. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions).    Snotty Wong   chatter 20:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand and source better --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete by WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is entirely about the expression.Steve Dufour (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this is dictionary material, not encyclopaedic. Icalanise (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is this article, as it sits, a lame dictionary definition-type article? Yes. Would it be possible for this to become a really good and interesting article if someone talented spent the time? Yes. Therefore, it should stand, because we're not here to hack away imperfect articles which may improve over time... The phrase is prevalent enough and potentially interesting enough that a good article can and ultimately will be written, I think... Carrite (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have some evidence that there is an encyclopedic article here waiting to get out? What is there to say about tongue-in-cheek that hasn't already been said in humor, sarcasm, or other related articles?  Powers T 11:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it Read what Carrite wrote because I agree with her. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete  This is not a dictionary.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Definition of idiom + origin + examples of usage = dicdef. There's nothing else to be said about this idiom. Deor (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not just a form of words; it is a distinct facial expression. This expression has been studied and written about in sources such as The semantics of facial expressions....  The assertions that there is nothing more to be said about the matter are demonstrably false. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a quotation and a page number for that journal citation? When I search for ""The Semantics of Facial Expressions" +tongue +cheek, I find the author using the expression "tongue in cheek" (in its normal figurative sense) but not discussing a facial expression involving one's tongue in one's cheek. You wouldn't adduce a source you haven't actually seen to justify a "keep" opinion, would you, Colonel? Deor (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP.  He  iro ' 23:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GNG etc. Claritas § 09:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article isn't just a definition, but explains this notable expression. Isn't it also a genre?  I've seen it used in reviews of shows before as a searchable category.  D r e a m Focus  21:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, highly notable term. Of interest linguistically, psychologically, socially, within literature/the arts... J Milburn (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Noteability now well established due to improvements by the Colonel and Richard Arthur Norton. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand: in its current state I agree it is little more than a dictionary definition, only including the meaning of the phrase, the etymology, and some usage examples; however there is clearly room for the article to become much more encyclopaedic; we delete articles on unencyclopaedic subjects, we improve uncyclopaedic articles.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  18:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand: lots of potential for developing the stub for this idiomatic expression. I would like to see it include references to entire works (rather than just single expressions) that are tongue-in-cheek, such as mockumentaries. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 02:30, 2 September 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.