Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jock Tamson's Bairns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was keep. DS 12:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jock Tamson's Bairns

This claims to be a 'popular adage' in Scotland, but I've never, ever heard of it, and anyway, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is a band with the same name, and they are definitely worth an article, but the adage itself does not. A google search turns up 18,000 hits - but virtually all refer to the band. Recommend deletion after it was deprodded by an anonymous user. Nydas 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment - if we're going to have an article on 'Jock Tamson's Bairns', then we should also have an article on 'wha's like us?' - a Scottish saying that returns a far greater number of Google hits, especially when 95% of the hits for Jock Tamson's Bairns are for the band.--Nydas 16:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
That saying is rarely used on its own as far as I know, but rather as part of a more elaborate toast, which may indeed merit inclusion somewhere. Badgerpatrol 23:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of idioms and proverbs. Cultural significance isn't enough to make this an encyclopedia article. Brian G. Crawford 17:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Whether or not it's widely used, it's still a widely recognised phrase. Where do you think the band's name came from? �The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.195.254.91 (talk � contribs) .
  • weak Keep, Tempted to vote delete per WP:NOT but the notability and cultural significance of the phrase (and the OK quality of the stub) are such that I suggest we keep it. I would suggest that cultural significance IS a decent metric by which to judge such articles. Badgerpatrol 23:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no place here. Newyorktimescrossword 02:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, sourced, genuine phrase. -- GWO
  • Keep, sourced, genuine phrase. Just because the nominator has "never, ever heard of it" does not mean that it does not exist. It is actually an important insight into the Scottish psyche, and is certainly not trivial, nor a dicdef. --Mais oui! 08:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per above. Globaltraveller 12:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per HJMG. --Craig Stuntz 13:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would suggest that allowing phrases and figures of speech into Wikipedia based upon them having been occasionally used is to open the floodgates to articles like a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, crack of dawn, eat my hat, if the wind changes your face will stay like that and don't have a cow, man.--Nydas 13:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Response: None of those have any cultural significance, except perhaps the latter. The issue here as I see it is whether or not this particular phrase is reflective of an aspect of the Scottish national psyche. Badgerpatrol 13:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't there be an article on Scottish egalitarian sentiment, rather than on a phrase describing it? I also note that very few, if any, online Scottish dictionaries and phrasebooks carry this phrase. [4] --Nydas 14:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
If you want to write such an article, then feel free to do so and then request a merge. I personally feel that an article on the phrase itself, and its background, performs the same or similar function in a much more elegant manner and crucially provides a greater degree of verifiability. As for notability- there are numerous websites discussing the etymology, e.g .[5], [6], [7], [8], and many others. Searching for alternative spellings and phraseology may also be rewarding. This aphorism will be found in ANY worthwhile Scots phrasebook. From the look of your user page it sounds like you may be a Scot- if so, I'm surprised that you are not familiar with this phrase. It is very widely used, and notability is not an issue. Whether of not the phrase is culturally significant is; I do believe however believe that JTB satisfies those requirements. Badgerpatrol 14:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply and suggestion:Those links lead to forum posts, a Canadian church and a genealogy site. Most of which I've already looked at and discounted as evidence that this phrase is 'very widely used'.
Now, look at this. These sites have masses of information on the real Jock Tamson:[9][10][11][12]
As a nice twist, link 11 has the true origin of the phrase.
He sounds more than notable enough to be worth a biography. His landscape paintings are worth thousands and he's in the Tate Collection. But, the article as it stands contains nothing whatsoever about him (in fact, it's somewhat misleading). There's no way this article is going to be deleted, but I would strongly suggest that it be rewritten as a biography (including the phrase) rather than a culturally significant dicdef. He certainly merits it, and it's much more in the style of an encyclopedia to do so.--Nydas 17:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you've discounted them, although I would agree that they are probably not of sufficient merit to be included as sources in the actual article- they were not intended as such. I agree that hopefully the article will be retained- an additional Jock Thomson article sounds like a fine idea; if and when it's created there may be scope to discuss a merge and redirect. As for the notability of the phrase- I don't mean to press the point if you don't wish to say, but are you Scottish? I make no claims that the aphorism is widely-used internationally, but it certainly is in Scotland. I do accept that a foreigner or one who has not spent a reasonable amount of time in the country or around Scots is unlikely to have come across the phrase. Badgerpatrol 18:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Most definitely keep. It's a well-known Scottish phrase - and surely us Scots should be the judge of that ? �The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.7.251.247 (talk � contribs) .
I am Scottish and was quite sincere when I said that I had never heard of this phrase. I remain unconvinced that it is popular. The sock puppets that seem to be popping up don't help. --Nydas 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be archaic (but real). Note the dates on the references on this page. --Craig Stuntz 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Done - initial article created, please expand as necessary. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a phrase I've long used myself and have seen being used, if recalled correctly, in the title for something in The Tramway arts/ theatre centre. Bit rushed to dig up references, but it's part of the Scottish national identity. ...dave souza, talk 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep One person's lack of not hearing/using does not discount many other hearing/using the phrase, and it seems to even have quite a legacy (poetry, theatre, popular music). Examination and explanation of its usage adds to the article's viability. Canaen 23:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As per Canaen, I am familiar with the phrase myself and it crops up surprisingly often in Scotland. aslessor 14:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep- My late Grandparents both used this phase. It does have a place in Scotland's history.

Keep-definitive & an essential part of the Scottish Ethos.

Keep> Have just found this by chance in a posting today on Runrig Forum, in context of Scotland/England relations. http://runrig.1.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=6714&st=30

(QUOTE. May 10, 2006 02:30 pm) I hope - and trust - that we don't actually 'hate' each other, or not the majority. Sporting rivalry is par for the course and can indeed turn nasty in the emotions and peer-group pressure of the moment, and the temporary psychological need to dramatize the 'us and them' feeling. But otherwise most people would stop short of hate. Resenting, begrudging, envying perhaps on occasion (as with all neighbours), but otherwise rubbing along well enough on a day to day basis. We have far more in common with each other than what divides us. Thankfully! (And Willie, that also applies to Fifers and Sutherlanders! ) ' Willie> I HATE NOBODY : WE'RE ALL JOCK THOMPSON'S BAIRNS . As I've said before it's the Media to blame'''' Isobel R.

Comment: Might be an idea to close this AfD debate slightly early, since consensus seems to have just about been reached and per the main page (which is excellent, btw!). Doesn't seem to me to be a good idea to retain a link from the front page to an article that's up for AfD. Badgerpatrol 01:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep- Could have sworn a large part of Wikipedia's purpose was to collect things that may, on the surface, appear to be meaningless bits of trivia or uncommon expression, but the mere fact that their origin can be determined easily through a search on the site is part of the usefulness of the Wikipedia over inprint dictionaries and encyclopedias.


  • Keep - After all, I learned something by reading it

Kether83 06:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep -- I know and use this phrase, and I'm 19! so not that archaic surely. Appreciate the comment about WP:NOT but I think the quality of the stub and the particular relevance of this adage allow an exception. Mendor 09:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a well known phrase - even if not well known to the person proposing deletion. If Wikipedia was restricted to things I knew about it would be a barren place!--Sjharte 10:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments moved from top of section

Please keep this entry in Wikipedia. It's important historically as so many Scottish people use this phrase and we must keep it in regular usage to prevent it from disappearing altogether. FB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.129.212 (talk • contribs)


This is a well-known phrase among Scots above 40 years old (my 83-year-old Scottish mother uses it quite frequently in the context of realizing that we all have "issues" and that we are all basically "good" nonetheless. (Never recommend deletion of something you don't recognise; it is most likely that you are ignorant on the subject.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.147.110 (talk • contribs)

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.