Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip on shoulder

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. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chip on shoulder

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merely an unsourced dictionary entry that already exists in Wiktionary. The only article in all of Wikipedia that links here is shoulder, and that's merely as a "See Also". Recommend delete under WP:Dictionary. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - again, here is a notable historic, and obviously encyclopedic idiom. What better reaons are there to delete? Bearian (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a Wikipedia policy source for what constitutes an "encyclopedic idiom". As a general rule, encyclopedias do not include idioms, something that WP:DICTIONARY makes clear. FWIW, neither of the encyclopedias I just checked (Britannica and Encarta) include this. Calling it "encyclopedic" when you apparently can't point to an encyclopedia that includes it or to a Wikipedia policy that warrants its inclusion is a tad outlandish. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only argument that would support the position that this is encyclopedic would be a list of articles on idioms that we do have - but that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which isn't a strong argument at AFD either. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous encyclopedias which cover this matter. These include the Encyclopedia of School Psychology, Encyclopedia of murder and violent crime, The Gale encyclopedia of psychology, The Encyclopedia of education, The Encyclopedia of mental health,The Scribner encyclopedia of American lives,Psychology encyclopedia‎,Encyclopedia of murder,Encyclopedia of disability,Encyclopedia of crime and justice‎,Encyclopedia of Social Problems,etc. We observe a pattern of coverage - crime, education and psychology. These are quite encyclopedic, not purely lexical and so we're good. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Feels like we should have an article on this, especially if the term dates back most of two centuries. It'd be an easy keep, with sources - but the trick is finding those sources. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The sole incoming link at shoulder should be changed to point to the dictionary entry for this term at Wiktionary (which is a dictionary). Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's not exactly the same thing, but would a merger to shoulder angel appeal to consensus? Bearian (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a rather loose usage of 'not exactly the same thing'. ;) Merger into Chip would make more sense. —Tamfang (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because "not exactly the same thing" is more appropriately written as "not the same thing whatsoever" in this case, I don't think you'll get many people to approve of the merger. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems to be more than a typical dictionary entry; however, it is unsourced at present. LadyofShalott 21:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It is badly sourced and needs major cleanup if it stays, but this is not a dictionary definition. The suggested etymology and historical discussion (which don't entirely convince me, but are there) approach the sort of 'aim at embracing all knowledge'* seen in other parts of Wikipedia. *to paraphrase the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of encyclopedic. Cnilep (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original reasearch. Nifboy (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To those who think that this article should be kept: that's not the way an encyclopedia works. Encyclopedias are lists of subjects or concepts. The concept of "a chip on one's shoulder" is identical to the concept of "grievance", therefore, if anything, it should exist merely as a redirect to that page. The only ways in which "chip on one's shoulder" differs from "grievance" are those ways that are captured by a dictionary (NOT an encyclopedia), namely: pronunciation, spelling, etymology, and usage. Whereas some idioms need to be in Wikipedia because they represent unique concepts unto themselves (e.g., I would argue that "apples and oranges" represents a particular example of incommensurability for which there seems to be no other good term), "chip on one's shoulder" is not such an example. Another good reason for keeping a word or idiom is its actual historical impact qua term, as in the case of "mokusatsu". "Chip on one's shoulder" does not meet this criterion either, and it should be deleted. (One way I could see this article being revived is by making it about the actual practice of placing a chip on one's shoulder, but that seems non-notable and unlikely to expand beyond a stub, and it is probably better handled in the etymology section of a dictionary.) Bueller 007 (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, the actual practice of placing a chip on one's shoulder to invite a fight comprises about half of the article. I agree that if this were simply a definition of the idiom, it should be deleted forthwith. I disagree, though, that that is all that it is. Cnilep (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you read it incorrectly. Approximately one sentence describes the actual practice. The remaining sentences in that section are examples of literary usage, which—you guessed it—belong in a dictionary. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expandable beyond a dictionary--to a certain extent the nature of a dictionary and an encyclopedia overlap. The statement of the meaning belongs in a dictionary; the explanation of the meaning and extensive examples belong in an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitions belong in a dictionary. Explanation of meaning belongs in a dictionary. Examples belong in a dictionary, too. Powers ^T 14:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. If I saw this page as a definition in a dictionary I would be arguing that it is far too long and detailed and should be severely pruned, this suggests to me that perhaps it is better placed here.Pete the pitiless (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Encyclopedia articles are not just long dictionary entries. The fact that this precise article might not be appropriate for a dictionary (though there is no reason dictionary articles need to be short) does not mean that its content is not of the sort that belongs in a dictionary. Powers ^T 00:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator seems to agree that we should cover the topic in some way - as a description of the behaviour or the sense of grievance. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Removal of this common phrase would be unhelpful to our readership per WP:COMMONNAME. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs sourcing but that is something that can be provided, (maybe you could stubify the article, moving unsourced information to talk?) like the history of the word. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/have_a_chip_on_one%27s_shoulder is a mere stub compared to this, with little history of this colorful term Ikip 02:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Talk about beating a dead horse. Nominator has nominated several related articles at once. Not to Make a mountain out of a molehill, but this is rather ridiculous. Since all the articles are the same, a common expression, why not just nominate all articles for common expressions at once, and save everyone some time? Someone really does seem to have a chip on their shoulder. Dream Focus 06:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have done some work on the article, adding material about the actual physical custom, as suggested by the nominator. This is covered in detail in reliable sources and so the matter is notable. The dictionary aspect then becomes secondary and we have good start on the history of this custom. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitions and usage examples belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ditto DGG. Dictionaries do not provide the breadth and depth with common expressions as well as we can here. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, substantial cultural and historical currency. Everyking (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although rescue tag is appropriate. Should include the British usage in the lead for starters. --FormerIP (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.