Talk:kill it with fire

RFD discussion: April–June 2018
Not sure this needs to be deleted, but it is sum of parts and merely special for the context it is used in, which, given the quotes, does not seem notable. But I have an aversion against phrase book entries in general, so take this with a grain of salt. Etymology section does not apply, the true sense is verbatim (if metaphoric), but origin is what's needed ... Rhyminreason (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems special. Fire isn't relevant to the way it is used. Nobody says "kill it by stabbing!" Equinox ◑ 22:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You say that phrase a lot. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's quite idiomatic. PseudoSkull (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a bit of creative exaggeration that's got slightly popular. You also see nuke it from orbit quite a lot. Ƿidsiþ 14:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the word "it" an essential or invariable part of this expression? Mihia (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: this is a relatively common metaphor, and not really sum of parts, as the intention is usually not to literally burn the item in question. GKFX (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator does not understand how the CFI work (origin is irrelevant). —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Move to kill with fire --Cien pies 6 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * : I was merely explaining my thought process. To be precise, the literal allusion to killing is to a very subliminal degree really literal.
 * This request seems to have failed, but let me explain: The phrase is not idiomatic, because the sense is understandable in any literal translation. I might as well say erradicate it from the face of earth. The figurative meaning is purely from to kill. Adding with fire would simply normalize it to burn it. That's perfectly obvious from the sum of its parts. Hence, its not an idiom under thenmost specific definition of idiom ("especially when the meaning is illogical or separate from the meanings of its component words"). That definition is, to me at least, the most convincing reason to keep a phrase that is otherwise SOP. It's merely an exegarated vulgarity with limited use. It is dialect, sociolect ornwhatever, granted, but barely so. Therefore I found this merrits validation.
 * My last, admittedly confusing sentence in the nomination above means that if there is an illogical or separate sense, then that should be explained in the ety. But I don't see how there would be anything to explain that shouldn't be at kill.
 * There are citations for a mere "kill it" in a similarly figurative sense (1, 2, 3, 4)
 * There's also one example where the ground, ie. the lawn will be killed.
 * Of course, I would say that "kill this with fire" is a misappropriation of the meme. But in the same way, I think the meme is chiefly used in exagerated but literal reaction to spiders. The citations we have simply use it figuratively, but a metaphor, if you might call it that, needs to have a kernel of truth, doesn't it? I say it hasn't lost that, even if directed at things or people, and therefore were a sum of its parts. Rhyminreason (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 14:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)