Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taking the piss (2nd nomination)

Taking the piss

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An entry at Wiktionary already exists. A previous AfD nomination with the same rationale closed as keep, but the arguments presented for keep there seem to be of the "I like it" variety. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, South Africa, Ireland, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Agreed that WP shouldn't be a dictionary, but unlike Wolf in sheep's clothing above, this article at least does cite sources discussing the phrase and its origins and use, without the SYNTH. Could probably be trimmed down to a description and a few examples, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whilst not a dictionary I believe this article has value beyond providing a definition for the phrase, including basic etymology and cultural significance across multiple countries. Current refs aren't exhaustive but provide a decent foundation to why this may meet notability standards.Triplefour (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dictionaries also provide basic etymology and general information about usage, whether it's British, Irish, American, etc. That's what Wiktionary does. Some of the article is also OR. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that article does look like an encyclopedic entry about the phrase as opposed to a dictionary definition. SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A fair bit of original content and uncited or poorly cited content has been removed since the preceding comments were made. I don't know if that shifts any of the opinions. Nurg (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has encyclopedic value backed up by references and does not represent a mere dictionary definition. Schwede 66 16:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources that actually discuss the term are dictionary definitions. The rest of the references are just: 'hey look someone used the term here'.

There are no sources in the article showing this has passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT Traumnovelle (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this isn't a dictionary. Additionally the first part of the "Origins" section feels to me like it is itself taking the piss. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 21:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reason given by Schwede66 above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilman (talk • contribs) 17:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. The nomination is one of a series that has overwhelmed our processes. We’re still working on the November 2024 citations drive and I have been working on finding sources for another article that I’m trying to rescue. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]