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 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Count your chickens before they hatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Neologism, WP:NOTDICTIONARY, etc. This is not encyclopedic content. Potentially can be transwikied, but probably not worth the effort given the amount of content. Shirik (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I don't think Wiktionary needs this variation on the theme. Polarpanda (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrase probably not notable. --TheGrimReaper 13:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NOT#DICT and does anyone every actually say that one? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gee, this reminds me of the Weird Al Yankovic song "Dare to Be Stupid!". I suppose that it does "sarcastically counter the popular metaphor" (and brilliantly, I might add. Remove the word "don't", and voila! Powerfully imaginative!). Do we require an explanation on how that works? The phrase certainly isn't popular. In fact, it's kind of lame. Mandsford (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion to save delete I created the page. I have a suggestion to save the delete (although I have no issues with the deletion of this page here). In case the page Don't Count Your Chickens Before They Hatch --which is also proposed for deletion -- escapes deletion, then this page Count your chickens before they hatch could be a redirect to the other page. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if that's a plausible search, but then again, "why not" I think is a valid argument there too. I could be persuaded either way for the redirect. --Shirik (talk) 06:27, 14 December 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.