Talk:Sticks Nix Hick Pix

RFD discussion: July 2024

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Sticks Nix Hick Pix

Encyclopaedic. — Fenakhay ^{(حيطي · مساهماتي)} 02:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Also bad faith entry to make some point about our inclusion criteria, worse than entries before which failed for the same reason, whose usages had at least a bit of fodder for debate. Fay Freak (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong, unproven and a personal attack. User should be blocked for this statement. Purplebackpack89 15:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You should be blocked for having suggested to block someone for their good-faith input. Also, what he said is fundamentally right. Inqilābī 17:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Prove what Fay said is right. Does Fay have a camera in my brain? Purplebackpack89 17:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: As far as I can tell, he basically meant you assumed words of this class, namely (famous) headlines, are accepted as legitimate dictionary entries- which is clearly not the case (evidenced by the several inputs below), and that creating such entries can be considered to have been done in bad faith due to violation of our basic CFI guidelines. Inqilābī 18:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Inqilābī, this looks like overreach to me, as a neutral observer: why should it be OK for FF to assert that an edit was made in bad faith, but not OK for Pbp to to assert that a remark was made in bad faith?

As you may know, the starting point is to assume good faith, which means that I generally expect any assertion to the contrary to be accompanied with a clear rationale. Which I have yet to see here in either case.

—DIV (1.129.106.197 07:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC))

Delete. We don't do Famous Headlines as entries. All the usage I can find is referring to the original headline either directly or indirectly, so it fails the independence criterion and the use vs. mention criterion. It might make a decent quote in an entry for one of the component words, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Just for clarity, (hypothetically) if this phrase were being used in contexts such as "The flop of Hillbilly Romance in the Midwest looks like yet another case of Sticks Nix Hick Pix" or "It seems that the distributors of Hillbilly Romance hadn't learned that Sticks Nix Hick Pix", then would that be sufficient to justify a WT entry?

It probably looks more like a proverb if not capitalised? (@-sche)

—DIV (1.129.106.197 07:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC))

Delete: we don’t generally have entries for titles of works. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Inqilābī 13:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Strong keep Nominator and delete rationales are unconvincing and play into a false dichotomy. Am concerned that nomination and delete votes are too focused on creator and not entry. Purplebackpack89 15:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: Your substantive reasons are too sketchy and vague to figure out, and the rest is too focused on the motives of the voters and not on the reasons given for the votes. If stating that you acted in bad faith is a personal attack, then indirectly stating that others acted in bad faith is also a personal attack. Can you accept that people can disagree with you for substantive reasons? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz You're about the only one who's actually given any substantive reasons. Inqil and Fay gave no reasons at all, Sgconlaw said "we don't have these" but didn't say way, and Fenakhay simply said "encyclopedic" without saying encyclopedic in what respect. When I talk of a "false dichotomy", what I mean is a false dichotomy between dictionary definition and encyclopedia entry. The idea that there is some bright, hard-and-fast line between dictionary definition and encyclopedia entry is fantasy. There are Wikipedia articles about parts of speech and Wiktionary entries about places and occasionally events too. Furthermore, the term "encyclopedic" has now become a catch-all excuse for deleting or revising almost anything. One frequent usage I've seen of "encyclopedic" is to claim that an entry is too detailed, but that's clearly NOT the case here. Purplebackpack89 16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Well it is true that many encyclopedic entries can be lexicographical and vice versa, however when we say that a term is encyclopedic, it means it is purely non-lexicographical and has zero rationale for inclusion— unlike those tons of encyclopedic entries we keep such as toponyms, anthroponyms, and any abbreviations. Inqilābī 17:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

a) If by encyclopedic you meant "non-lexicographical", you should have said "non-lexicographical" at the outset. And "non-lexicographical" isn't much better because it is also an amorphous idea. Purplebackpack89 17:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: you really shouldn't make assumptions about editors' supposed motivations for voting one way or another. I generally do not—and did not in this case—see who had created the entry (because it is irrelevant), and so had no idea that it was you. Also, I had already expressed the same view in the earlier "Gettysburg Address" discussion which you also participated in that the titles of works are generally not regarded as lexical for the purpose of inclusion in the dictionary, and that it would be difficult to draw a line between including some titles and not including others ("Why not also Love's Labour's Lost, Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo, and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone?"). Wikipedia can deal with these works much better than we can. I didn't see the need for repeating the whole point again, but I've done so now for your benefit. Anyway, if you disagree with current policy, it is always open to you to start a formal vote to amend WT:CFI and see if two-thirds of the participating editors agree with you. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sgconlaw The comment about making things personal is mostly a reference to Fay's screed above where they accuse me of POV pushing without evidence. Purplebackpack89 17:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is really getting off topic. I've started a topic at the Beer parlour about the "encyclopedic" deletion reason (Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2024/July#"Encyclopedic" as a deletion reason. Please continue that part of the discussion there. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Chuck. Proverbs, we include (at least sometimes). Headlines, no. - -sche (discuss) 15:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Hyper-Strong Delete of Fire and Flame. The entry doesn't have a definition on its own, it just explains what the words mean separately. No hard feelings towards the creator. Hythonia (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

delete, per Chuck and Hypthonia. No hard feelings to the creator but it's like a dictionary entry that says "Rural people reject hick films - see rural + people + hick + film + etc." — BABR・talk 00:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

delete, SOP Justin the Just (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Theknightwho (talk),

No reason given by Theknightwho for deletion; their vote should be discounted. Purplebackpack89 01:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89 That isn't how it works; I trust that other users are intelligent enough to realise that I was concurring with the rationales already given, but to spell it out for you: this does not make sense as an entry, because it is plainly SOP, and isn't even used, since any references to it being used as an interesting/notable headline that one time are all mentions, not uses. Theknightwho (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• Failed - needed speedy deletion. P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  BTW although I think this has a snowball's chance in hell of surviving, let's let it wait till a week has gone by, since I complained about PBP's speedy-keep above after 4 days. Benwing2 (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Unambiguous deletion, RFD-deleted This, that and the other (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)