Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eating crow

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. Notable, and is not simply a dic-def based on the "Origin theories" and "Notable examples" sections. Malinaccier (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eating crow

Flagrant violation of WP:DICT, the article is about the term, not any kind of encyclopedic concept. Transwikied to http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eat_crow. As transwiki is complete, and there is no encyclopedic content to this article, it should be deleted, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DICT#Dealing_with_mis-placed_dictionaric_articles. Mintrick (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Explaining the metaphors and histories that underlie traditional idioms like this makes for an encyclopedia entry. The information contained in this article goes well beyond a mere restatement of the words of the article title, because the relationship with the actual meaning is not obvious. Part of a large series, see Category:English idioms. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A dictionary article is about "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.". All the article does is explain the origin of the phrase, its variations, and etymology. That is straight-up dictionary content. Give me one example of how this article is encyclopedic. Your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is spurious.Mintrick (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - While the "other stuff exists" essay has its problems, the existence of a category devoted to these idioms suggests that they constitute a definable whole and that their non-obviousness and literary resonances means that they are not the sort of thing that has no possibility for expansion; and only articles without that possibility are the definitions you seek. (See also Category:English phrases and Category:English proverbs. No, this is not an invitation to mass tag them all for deletion.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mintrick believes "idioms probably don't belong on Wikipedia" and to his credit has been editing accordingly by trans-wiking content to Wiktionary (I hope he continues). However, WP:DICT does not say idiom's are not allowed. In fact it says "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary article." The Eating crow article talks about more than just eating crow, but the concept of 'being wrong and eating' in general, which includes other idioms like eating one's heart out, eating one's shoe, eating dirt, etc.. which can be expanded upon. Also, the section on Rudyard Kipling is encyclopedic content that would be lost if the article is deleted - Kiplings short story centers around the concept of being wrong and eating, it's relevant and notable due to the concepts central place in the story (not just a random example), the early usage of "eating crow" (conceptually and directly), and Kiplings place as a canonical author (influence). Green Cardamom (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that because it is policy. Mintrick (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even though you personally believe "idioms probably don't belong on Wikipedia", you have not demonstrated the article "violates policy" because there is nothing in WP:DICT that explicitly prohibits idiom articles. The policy is more open ended, WP:DICT says One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary article, in other words, we give articles a good faith opportunity to mature into full fledged encyclopedia articles without cutting them off when they are young and developing. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kipling's use of this idiomatic expression does not make the article any more encyclopedic. Many dictionaries make a point of including quotations showing uses of words or idioms by famous authors. --macrakis (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess that's a matter of opinion because I think it does make it more encyclopedic. Dictionaries don't go into conceptual symbolism in literature, rather just straight examples of usage. Without an encyclopedia article, there would be no place for discussion of Kipling's story. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Conceptual symbolism"? Why is it insufficient to include the Kipling quote in the Wiktionary entry? --macrakis (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep informative, encyclopaedic. Why would anyone want to delete this? --Moloch09 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it violates policy? Because it belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia? Mintrick (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete Yes, it is informative, but no, it is not encyclopedic. It is about a particular idiomatic phrase. Should we also have articles about "kick the bucket" (currently mentioned, appropriately, in the euphemism article), "throw up" (as a phrase separate from vomit), "eat one's pride", etc.? --macrakis (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As required by WP:DICDEF, since it is a dictionary definition which has been transwikied to Wiktionary already. Edison (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above; if this page is not encyclopedic enough, I think the appropriate response is to make it more encyclopedic. There does not seem to be a clear consensus as to whether the current page is enyclopedic or just dictionary material (and I'm not sure how I feel about that), but that's not really what the discussion needs to focus on. People arguing to delete have not presented a tight argument that this page could not be made encyclopedic. This would be necessary in my eyes, to justify deletion. Cazort (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment I think it would be appropriate to add discussion about how crow actually tastes to this article. This source: [1] says that crow tastes similar to Mallard duck...which is generally considered fairly tasty. Here's a second source saying it tastes like Mallard: [2]. This topic is frequently discussed in the context of crow hunting: [3], [4]. Cazort (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the source is serious, the taste of crow goes under the crow article. An article about "eating crow" (the expression) is not the same as Crow (food), which is probably not worth separating from crow. --macrakis (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the articles, some make references to the expression, pointing out the irony in the fact that crow actually tastes pretty good. That alone is interesting, and relates as directly to the expression "eating crow" as it does to the main topic. I think the fact belongs both places. Putting the discussion of taste on the crow article misses the irony here. (which is verifiable). Cazort (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see what is or could become encyclopedic here. --macrakis (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re "People arguing to delete have not presented a tight argument that this page could not be made encyclopedic.", I think the burden of proof is on those who think it could be made encyclopedic. --macrakis (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't object to keeping the page as-is. However, the fact that there is additional content (i.e. commentary about the irony that crow tastes like mallard and is generally agreed to taste pretty good), and the sentence relating this to other eating-related idioms, both strike me as encyclopedic content. Cazort (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is about the cultural significance, and it's sufficiently encyclopedic even now. DGG (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. There's not nearly enough of this on Wikipedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2009 (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.