Talk:a house is not a home

RFD
These are a few of the proverbs that, it seems to me, we have been erroneously keeping because they are SoP, without a figurative meaning AFAICT. I've only included some from a to e to not flood the page, but there are more like this. I'd be interested in any general principle that make these keepable, presumably as set phrases sensu lato. DCDuring TALK 19:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's it right there, DC. I've always assumed such entries are set phrases (even though we don't usually label proverbs with "idiomatic" or "set phrase" tags). Two points of principle, actually: They are (a) proverbial insofar as they give famous advice or provide famous characterizations, and (b) set very firmly and precisely in the English language through a significant history of usage. There's no need to analyze the content of each one individually. As long as they fulfill (a) and (b), they most certainly do belong here. -- · (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What is good evidence that something is a proverb? DCDuring TALK 01:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, (a) and (b) are the criteria: A proverb is a set phrase that gives famous advice or that provides a famous characterization. Admittedly, both "set" and "famous" can be a bit slippery, but I'd be inclined to say that every entry below manages to pass this not-terribly-demanding test. -- · (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We seem to be confident that we can identify a set phrase, though there is often disagreement.
 * Are we supposed to also vote on what it "famous"? How, for example, could we trust our judgment about the fame of obsolete or archaic proverbs, which are, if anything more in need of inclusion than current ones? Does the recency of fame make something less proverbial? If we can't trust our judgment what sources could we trust? Should we just rely on editions of Bartlett's? Are there other sources? Are there such things as modern proverbs? Modern SoP proverbs? Should we just leave this entire realm to those willing to undertake a serious phrasebook? DCDuring TALK 11:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You ask too many questions, provide too few answers, and seem to sneer at any that are provided. All I can say is Potter Stewart test. Equinox ◑ 14:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've provided answers that have been rejected or ignored. Eg, 1., if books say an expression is a proverb, then it IS a proverb (ignored or rejected in the case of make new friends, but keep the old) and, 2., any expression used as a proverb is idiomatic and includable because such use is a speech act. I'd add that the expression needs to be a set phrase sensu lato. I'm trying to solicit any other views based on real cases that seem marginal to me. DCDuring TALK 14:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It almost seemed to be true that we think a proverbial expression is includable if (only if?) it is applied figuratively or has some phonological features (rhyme, alliteration, two parts with same stress pattern, etc). DCDuring TALK 14:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In my Wiktionary I would keep (almost)added 2 Sep, 2015 all of these, as they seem to be set phrases sensu lato and to perform one or more speech-act functions. Whether we call them proverbs or phrases (or even cliches) is immaterial to whether they meet CFI, though any expression that is considered a proverb is ipso facto likely to have a significant speech act function. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * home "a familiar or usual setting : congenial environment; also :  the focus of one's domestic attention"  per MWOnline.
 * Since the edit summary says "seems okay", I must have created this from WT:REE or similar source. Don't much care whether it lives or dies, but I think there might be a reasonable argument from polysemy. Equinox ◑ 08:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The expression Home is where the heart is suggests to me that the relevant sense of home is obvious, quite instantly available to interpret the expression. If this is to be kept it would seem that it would be by virtue of setness or proverbiality. DCDuring TALK 15:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep because proverb dictionaries include it, notwithstanding its transparency. DCDuring TALK 21:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but not sure why. Since deletion lovers did not take the chance to delete it until now, let's keep it. It is succinct, at least. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * RFD kept for no consensus for deletion or even what looks like consensus for keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)