Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open a can of Whoop Ass

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 idioms in the English language. Original consensus for deletion, moving later toward a redirect. --MCB 04:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open a can of Whoop Ass

This article has been listed for proposed deletion. But it has already been deleted via proposed deletion on 2006-05-29 and then re-created on 2006-06-29. (The deleted version can be seen at wikt:Transwiki:Open a can of whoop ass.) This counts as a contested prod.

The reason for deletion given by GassyGuy was "Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This expression does not have encyclopaedic significance. This article is unsourced, and it's unlikely to find any scholarly sources that discuss anything besides a definition and possibly a mention of its use by a celebrity."

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. By our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs) an encyclopaedia article on this subject would properly be at opening a can of whoop-ass. But there's really nothing encyclopaedic to say on the subject of opening cans of whoop-ass. (The actual subject for an encyclopaedia article being fighting.) The fact that both versions of the article contain nothing but random selections of usages of a phrase in films and on television indicate that this really is a mis-placed dictionary article about an idiomatic phrase — giving its meaning, quotations showing it being used, usage notes, and so forth — not an encyclopaedia article about a person/place/concept/place/event/thing denoted by the phrase. Uncle G 18:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 18:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nominator and prior deletion record. -bobby 19:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G4. And that's the bottom line, 'cause Caknuck said so. Caknuck 3:16 20:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Retracting "Speedy" per danntm. Caknuck 14:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 20:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't know if this is speediable, but delete per reasons of my prod and those explained by Uncle G. GassyGuy 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Regular Delete this is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G4, because this was a recreation of an article deleted through PROD. Thus, as Uncle G correctly notes, this is considered a contested PROD, and there is no deletion consensus barring the recreation of this article. However, this is an unreferenced article that keeps close to WP:OR, and has no place in an encyclopedia.-- danntm ^T _C 21:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment My wife game me a can of spicy peanuts with this name, just 3 days ago as it was amusing, originating from Arizona. So there is a thing here not mentioned in the article. This isn't to say that it's a notable product however. Robovski 23:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm shocked by the deletes here, this is an obviously highly well known term that can be sourced and expanded upon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The place for articles on "terms" (in this case, an idiomatic phrase) is a dictionary. This is an encyclopaedia. For there to be an encyclopaedia article, there has to be a subject. The subject in this case would be opening cans of whoop-ass. To back up your unsubstantiated assertion that an encyclopaedia article on that subject can be sourced, please cite some sources that discuss that subject. That assertion remains unfounded without cited sources. Uncle G 12:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, for instance, on page 1 of the 78 Google Books hits was The Dictionary of College Slang, which provides a concise, general definition, and then we have six individual pages of usage, ranging from the cultural to the criminal to the arguably academic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • But once again, these references are simply usage of the term, and not articles about the term. -- Whpq 17:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Not all of them, and that was off of a quick Google. This can easily be expanded, which is the point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Jeff, I'm not sure you understood Uncle G's objection. There's a fair amount of material about the term "to open a can of whoop ass". That's good dictionary material, because dictionaries document terms. There doesn't seem to be material about the actual act of "opening cans of whoop ass", which is what an encyclopedia article would have to be about. Based on agreeing that it's an interesting term with a colorful history, one would conclude that it belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Or, do you contend that Wikipedia should make like a dictionary, and maintain articles on words and usages? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
            • No, I understand it. I'm just not as prone to give up on what's essentially a stub when it's clear that it can be expanded to a more useful article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
              • A useful article on the act of opening cans of whoop-ass, and not on the term and its usage? Wow, what makes it clear to you that this is doable? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Let me put it another, clearer way - if we're using WP:WINAD as a benchmark, I have no concerns regarding the ability of the right editor to improve this past stub status to a useful article within policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • Um.... that wasn't clearer, and you really didn't answer my question. Let me ask 2 very direct ones: Do you think the topic of this article should be the act, or the phrase? Do you think it it generally within the purview of an encyclopedia to document English colloquialisms? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • 1) I think there's room for a study of both in this case. 2) I think it can be in this encyclopedia, but I have a grudging acceptance of the consensus that I'm not a part of on the issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
                      • Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't trying to give you a hard time, so much as just curious where you're coming from. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • None of those are sources that discuss the subject. The fact that your primary purported source is a dictionary should be raising a big red flag. What you have provided are places to find quotations, showing a phrase in use, and a place where an idiom is attested. The "Encyclopedia for the New American Century" says nothing about the subject at all, for example. (It is actually is discussing violence, as is made clear by the prominent boldface heading of the paragraph.) Quotations and attestation are what Wiktionary wants for an article. Wikipedia wants sources, not quotations. As I said, please cite some sources that discuss this subject to back up the unsubstantiated assertion that an encyclopaedia article on that subject can be sourced. You haven't done so. You haven't even turned up any sources that discuss the phrase (most of which discussion is still dictionary territory), let alone the subject that it denotes — which as I point out again, is fighting. Uncle G 20:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. --Improv 14:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to List of idioms in the English language, where this term is already listed.--Elonka 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of idioms in the English language per Elonka, which is the most sensible and least obtrusive option. Yamaguchi先生 06:58, 1 November 2006
• Merge/Redirect per Elonka - this content is already present & does not need its own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dryman (talk • contribs) 20:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect as above - unless the article will be about the above non-notable can on spicy coated peanuts...Robovski 04:02, 4 November 2006 (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.