Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/And that's a good thing


 * 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. The "keep" opinions attack the nominator or discuss generalities, but they don't do the one thing that could save this article: cite reliable sources that cover (rather than just use or mention) this phrase in depth.  Sandstein  15:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

And that's a good thing

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article consists almost entirely of original research and synthesis. Most of the cited sources use a form of the "and that's a good thing" headline, but none of them actually discuss the use of this phrase in other sources. Because the sources only contain uses of this phrase, rather than in-depth discussion about the phrase, it fails WP:GNG/WP:WORDISSUBJECT. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - but with the clear acknowledgement that my !vote should probably be given less weight because this sort of thing is my sort of thing, and that's a good thing (Sorry!). In all seriousness, I'm generally of the view that these sorts of idioms and phraseology that have found their way into common vernacular have a place on Wikipedia. I totally understand why this has been nominated, but I remain of that view.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: I concur with the nominator-- none of the sources cited actually discussed the phrase, all they did was use the phrase. Fails WP:GNG. Helen (💬📖) 00:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Since when is AfD for cleanup? The complaints are about the sources currently in the article. Has the nominator made any attempt been made to discuss this with the article creator? Or to find sources? He seems to have done neither. Absolute worst case this should be kicked back to draft space or userspace. Or there could be a merge/redirect to clickbait. Furthermore, the article creator has virtually no edits. Is it necessary to WP:BITE with this trigger-happy AfD nom?I don't believe GNG exactly applies here in any event. Articles about words and phrases are difficult to write and difficult to source in a way that provides the requisite two news articles we typically demand from run-of-the-mill subjects like biographies and events. It's unquestionable that this is a common clickbaity headline element about which there has been interest, just that separating the wheat from the chaff in doing source analysis is difficult. The author of this article should be commended for taking on such a difficult subject rather than suddenly face an AfD nomination. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am still fairly new to understanding all of Wikipedia's guidelines, and I apologize for arriving a bit late, I had to read quite a bit of material to confidently voice my opinion. I do not feel that the stated reasoning for deletion is valid this early in the article's publication. To refer to WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP: I would argue these complaints are in the clean-up level. If this article is already so irreconcilable that it must be deleted, I would like to see the necessary evaluations of the four criteria of WP:BEFORE, showing a lack of sources that would cover WP:GNG (assuming those are the appropriate notability guideline for this phrase) and that the improvement of this article's sourcing is not possible as per section C of WP:BEFORE as well as WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. In relation to the article's subject, there would have to be a clear case for the strict application of the notability guidelines here. On Wikipedia, this sort of article, discussing cliches, their origins and usage, writing and sourcing can be complex. But this fact alone doesn't merit immediate deletion, and while it could at most be pushed back to draft space, the relevancy of this topic merits being available for public editing. "And that's a good thing" is a strong contemporary example of template-style article headlines, which supplements the growing study of clickbait journalism. Thus, I would argue that this article does merit being kept for improvement, and I am looking for additional sources now to help improve this article. The Star Baron (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments . Respectfully, I think you may have misunderstood my deletion rationale. The problems with the article are not cleanup-level (I think it's actually pretty well written for what it is); rather, there are foundational issues with notability and the synthesis of sources (see WP:SYNTH). While there are many sources that use the phrase in question, there aren't any sources I can find about the phrase in question. (And yes, I did do a WP:BEFORE to look for such sources; I probably should have explicitly mentioned this in my nom statement.) Because of this, it will be next to impossible to create a substantive article on this topic that is free from original research. Consider the following claims from the article: "From 2010 to 2015, use of the phrase starting gaining traction amongst mainstream journalists..." or "When attached to the titles of modern news articles, the phrase's intended effect can be akin to that of clickbait". Neither of these general claims are supported by sources; they are your own interpretations (i.e., synthesis) of the primary sources in the article. While I understand this may be frustrating, Wikipedia is simply not the right forum to present novel claims based on personal analysis of primary sources. We only accept articles that have received significant coverage in independent sources, as outlined in our general notability guideline. WP:WORDISSUBJECT affirms that this general guideline applies to words and phrases as well. To quote: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources." I emphasize subject to reinforce my initial point that there must be sources about this phrase to establish its notability, rather than sources that simply use the phrase. Hopefully this clarifies my rationale, and I welcome any further comments you may have. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misunderstood my deletion rationale. The problems with the article are not cleanup-level. I think you should look at your own rationale. You complain about synthesis and original research; those are cleanup issues, not notability issues and not grounds for deletion. In your response here, you mention a few problematic phrases... my response is WP:SOFIXIT. Why are we here?And you complain about sourcing, but where is your WP:BEFORE analysis? Even in your response here, you've failed the most basic requirement for nominating anything for deletion. Do an analysis and show your work or withdraw this nomination. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In defence of the nomination, I’ve done quite a comprehensive search of the usual places from WP:BEFORE as well as my workplace’s library system and can find no sources speaking about this phrase (admittedly it is a hard thing to search for). WP:WORDISSUBJECT is pretty clear about what is notable. Unless other editors can show me some reliable sources talking about the phrase, I cannot see how this article can stay. Our job as editors is not to make the case for what should be notable but to write about what already is notable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did do a WP:BEFORE, and I found no reliable secondary or tertiary sources about the phrase. Asking me to "show [my] work" when I found no sources is basically asking me to prove a negative, which I don't think is reasonable. If it is true that there are only primary sources on this topic (i.e., sources that use the phrase but do not discuss it), then the synthesis and original research are not fixable; we need secondary sources to resolve those issues. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your nomination statement doesn't indicate that. And please don't pull the "omg I can't prove a negative". Nobody is asking you to do that. You need to say what you did, in detail, in an attempt to find sources, what you found. Until this post you didn't even say you searched for sources. In light of this late declaration, which belies an evident unfamiliarity with deletion on Wikipedia, it is essential that you detail what you did to search for sources. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ... an evident unfamiliarity with deletion on Wikipedia. Oh?. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Provide a WP:BEFORE analysis. I don't care what the AfD stats tools page says. This isn't RfA. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize again for my delayed response, I recently subscribed to the Dolly Parton work schedule, but I am home now and have taken a bit more time to read through everyone's replies and through the guidelines that have been cited. I see a few more people have now gathered here to discuss my page, and I would like to thank all of you for taking the time to participate. Now, if the sole argument pertains to the lack of secondary sources detailing the phrase’s use, and it is in the majority's opinion that the article’s primary sources sufficiently cover this noticed and notable topic, then the limit of possible action taken against this page would have to be to move it to a different space (draftspace specifically) until the page’s established potential is realized. But, I do not agree with the argument that the lack of secondary sourcing alone is enough grounds for draftspacing or even deleting this page this early, thus blocking off further public inquiry and editing and sourcing of the topic. The cited Wikipedia guidelines about clean-up level issues are designed for articles that are notable topics, but need improvements that include finding sources, as per the mentioning of “eventually sourceable” content in WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. And as I and even users in favor of deletion have stated, this topic has characteristics that make it unusually difficult to properly source. The grounds for draftspacing would be a conclusion reached only a week after this article was even published, that the removal of synthesis in this page through sourcing is completely impossible. After being confronted with these issues I have ramped up my search for these sources, but I certainly would not consider my efforts to be exhausted past the satisfaction of reasons 6 and 7 in the listed reasons for deletion in WP:DEL-REASON. If placing a timer on this page before moving it to draftspace became the only option, I would understand, but I would not agree with it. I still believe this topic is prevalent enough as a phenomenon to have the potential to satisfy notability guidelines, and public interaction with the page would greatly benefit the process of satisfying those guidelines. And as for the citing of WP:WORDISSUBJECT, I would argue that “and that’s a good thing”’s role as a cliche in clickbait journalism merits its categorization as a concept through which the larger study of clickbait can be seen and better understood. I agree that secondary sources are needed in order to complete the description of this topic as that concept, which is why this page needs to exist in order for editors such as myself to find and include them. The Star Baron (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What you have described is the definition of WP:ORIGINAL. Wikipedia is not the venue for this kind of thing. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The lack of secondary sources could be used to argue that my two sentences of interpretation as quoted by Lord Bolingbroke are pieces of original research, or rather are only describing context based off of my primary sources. However, I must reiterate the short life of this article, and that the inclusion of only primary sources and contextual statements to demonstrate a phrase’s notability can be seen in multiple long-standing vocabulary and usage stubs on Wikipedia, which “this kind of thing” could be included as (as well as a journalism- and politics-related topic). The article for All singing, all dancing for instance, though it has been suggested to be merged with the film’s page from which the idiom originated, has stayed on Wikipedia because it is still used today in its own evolving context. With the article for Carrot and stick, though the sources showing specific political use of the phrase are from very notable people such as heads of state, the article almost entirely consists of attestations. Articles like Necktie social and Standpatter Republican have even less attestations to support the existence of each phrase, let alone commentary on their origins by a secondary source, yet their articles still exist — and perhaps that’s a good thing. Or an understandable thing, at least. All jokes aside, I am in no way arguing that deletion nominators should go on a warpath and decimate the vocabulary and usage stubs index, though I am aware of the controversy behind its existence. My response to that controversy is that these pages discuss phrases which wouldn't be sufficiently covered by just a Wiktionary definition; they are known in the English lexicon and have specific origins, apply to certain broader subjects, or have a meaning or effect beyond the words themselves. They are marked as stubs because they are hard to source and need to continue being available for development so those sources can be found. With 35 direct attestations of “and that’s a good thing” across 30 years in the same context, this page has surpassed the threshold of being allowed a stub categorization that could be helped by users “further expanding it” as per Wikipedia editors' current standards on phrase usage stubs. I still would understand the draftspacing of this page, but I don't understand how this nomination isn't seen as a very harsh action to take this early, considering the stage this article is already at compared to much older articles covering similarly-structured topics. The Star Baron (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All I can do is refer you to my previous comment. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I already responded to it. There is a standing precedent on Wikipedia of holding articles of this type, concerning phrase usage, that have potential notability but need secondary sources or other clean-up issues including OR, as stubs so they can be further developed. If a larger argument against that entire stub section ends up reaching a consensus, I would understand, but that consensus has not been reached, and that section still stands on Wikipedia today. The Star Baron (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would welcome some examples of this precedent. Every time these WP:ORIGINAL articles are left to stand due to lack of consensus (because people feel they should be there - which is not a thing on WP) I lose a little bit more faith in this website and I'm sure readers do too. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This is completely WP:ORIGINAL. None of the current sources discuss this phrase and I cannot find any RS that do talk about this phrase. WP is not for original research like this - and that’s a good thing. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or Move to drafts My initial reaction was that this was obviously a notable topic, but it doesn't seem like there are any secondary or tertiary sources. All the articles used are examples of the phenomenon described. I'd be surprised if there aren't sources about that trope, but they aren't in the article. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be surprised if there aren't sources about that trope, but they aren't in the article. This isn't how notability works though. If they aren't in the article then what's needed is cleanup, not deletion. I'll concede that draftification is an option though. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That actually is exactly how it works? If there are sources they have to be found and either mentioned here, or added to the page. If they can't be found we have to assume it's not notable. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wiktionary. The sourcing appears to be entirely attestations, and not sources about the phrase. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 20:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The article violates Wikipedia's policy on original research. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  01:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or Move to drafts per BuySomeApples. I didn't find any sources explaining the origin of the phrase or idiom.  Althouth the creating editor cites almost 40 sources they are all just usages of the phrase. Blue Riband► 12:13, 7 August 2021 (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.