Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulpes pilum mutat, non mores


 * 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 redirect to List of Latin phrases (V). Consensus is that there is not enough material to make this phrase notable/worthy of its own article. A split of the target article can be discussed there if so desired. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Vulpes pilum mutat, non mores

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The phrase in itself is not notable, fails WP:N at that. Additionally, all of the content on this page has been merged into the general List of Latin phrases (V). The phrase as a whole is an unlikely search term, so a redirect probably isn't valid either, yet a debate could potentially be made on the subject of redirecting. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article gives no indication that this phrase is notable for being used outside its original Latin source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect Delete per Not Neologism ATD per Mccapra Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  03:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC).
 * Redirect to List of Latin phrases (V). If it’s from Suetonius I don’t think it counts as a neologism. I would have agreed with the rationale for deletion without redirect except that a google search shows a surprisingly large number of cases of this motto being used, including being printed on t shirts, so I think there is a good chance of it being used as a search term. Mccapra (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep If the content has been merged, as the nomination states, then it should not be deleted – see WP:MAD. List of Latin phrases (V) is a more unlikely search term for a reader wanting information about this classical proverb and the would-be editor will be baffled by the complex structure of that list. Cramming such topics into a list has resulted in bloat so that even the letter V alone is now greater than 30K, contrary to WP:SIZE.  Readers now use devices such as smart phones and voice assistants to access our information and a bloated list would be unworkable for this purpose.  It is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover" and so we should take advantage of this freedom to give each such proverb its own distinct page. Andrew D. (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't merged word-for-word. See the article and the List of Latin phrases (V); it has been condensed to the origin of the phase. Also, the idea that "there is no limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover", while true, doesn't mean that we cover topics that can't be proven for notability. It is just a phrase that would be better suited for Wiktionary. Utopes (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect - to List of Latin phrases (V). The phrase, while certainly existing, does not have sources discussing it in any way outside of translations.  It does not pass the WP:GNG as a stand alone article, but as mentioned by Mccapra, is common enough that it would certainly be a valid search term.  As the entirety of the information in the article is already present in the target list, anything beyond a simple Redirect is unnecessary.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect Insufficient notability and content to warrant an article separate from the list. Reywas92Talk 22:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Latin phrases (V). Phrase is not notable enough to warrant its own article. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2019 (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.