Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A rising tide lifts all boats


 * 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. Shanel 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A rising tide lifts all boats
too short to be article or stub? what is an "all" and how does it mean?--Cr0w bar 00:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep a fairly good, clear stub for a widely-used term in United States political discourse. CDC (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per cdc. Bad ideas 01:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * keep famous phrase that could be expanded. Mi kk er ... 02:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. As notable a term as "irrational exuberance." --Kinu 02:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, but are you sure there isn't another term for this. Its possible that this needs to be merged into another economics article but I don't know what off the top of my head. Shortness is not a reason for deletion. Its long enough to establish notability, etc. Merge and Redirect with Keynesian economics. Savidan 02:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect with Supply-side economics instead Ruby 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep'. A redirect to either Keynesian economics or supplyside economics would not the best options as it could be used by either. Capitalistroadster 04:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Widely used phrase and concept. (try a Gsearch). &mdash;ERcheck @ 05:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per CDC and expand. CVG777 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Also note the preposterous nomination statement: what is an "all" and how does it mean?, likely bad faith. -- Curps 06:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep widely used aphorism. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 20:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable and do not redirect. Did the nom even read the article? Turnstep 16:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, considering that the nominator has been banned from wikipedia and that the nomination itself is somewhat incoherent, I'm going to guess that this may have been a bad faith nom. Night Gyr 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.