Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy


 * 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. AfD arguments need to be based on policy. Those for delete are, pointing to lack of verifiable sources to justify the article. Those for keep are asserting there is notability but not proving it. Tyrenius 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Culturally significant words and phrases from Family Guy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article completely lacks context and fails to show how the phrases have become culturally significant (internet entertainment tabloids and ringtone charts don't help here.) This sort of article can be done properly (see Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons), but Family Guy has not had the same level of widespread cultural impact as The Simpsons has. Without any evidence of widespread cultural significance of Family Guy phrases, this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Richmeistertalk 15:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into Family Guy. "Culturally significant" is a vague enough term at best, although among certain groups Family Guy is a very significant show. Not enough for an individual article, but worthy of a mention within the main article. Tx17777 15:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Merge would be a good idea if you were suggesting to merge into a small article. If you want to argue the term "culturally significant," there are at least a couple other articles you might want to suggest renaming. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is small. The two items worth keeping would fit nicely into a Catchphrases section in Family Guy article. The rest ("whose leg ...") are better suited to FG character pages. / edg ☺ ★ 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Update. I think everything worth keeping is merged here and here. / edg ☺ ★ 02:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This page just wanders, and I doubt that there is really anything superiorly "culturally significant" for this to have its own article. Dannycali 22:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All cited and verifiable, just as much as Culturally significant words and phrases from The Simpsons. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Anyway, how many catch phrases from Family Guy made it into the Oxford English Dictionary? In round numbers...... :) Dbromage  [Talk]  00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Tx17777. Dbromage  [Talk]  00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Tx17777. While the show has commonly identifiable catchphrases (as with many modern comedies), "culturally significant" is overstating it. Re-create if Giggity-giggity-goo starts being used by people not referring to Family Guy. / edg ☺ ★ 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dannycali and Corpx. Merge completed.  If someone feels this article must be preserved, the Family Guy wikia might be a good place for it. Wikipedia is not. / edg ☺ ★ 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is also transwiki'ed (partially &mdash; no deletion or logging on the Wikipedia side). / edg ☺ ★ 17:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What a great job was done of that. Ugh. ShutterBugTrekker 18:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm not assuming good faith, but the parent comment reads like a grievance. If so, can objections be specified? If not, I apologize for accusing ShutterBugTrekker. / edg ☺ ★ 07:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as being patently trivial. The Simpsons this ain't. VanTucky  (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (See, both sides can play that annoying game). Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling something trivial is not "I don't like it." I in fact much prefer Family Guy to the Simpsons, but I have no trouble admitting that none of the content from this article even comes close to the notability of the similar Simpsons article. Family Guy, even if I prefer its comedy, is not the cultural institution that is the Simpsons. Notability is not inherited, and simply because the show is notable does not entail that every aspect of it merits an article. VanTucky  (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of independent sources saying why these are notable Corpx 06:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete The one for the Simpsons is a special case, & considerably more notable than almost any other such list.DGG (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While Family Guy doesn't have the longevity of The Simpsons, its catchphrases and neologisms are already making an indelible impact on American pop culture. The word "giggity," to take edg's example, is used by male teenagers and 20-somethings in response to the sudden appearance of a woman they consider attractive and in their own age group (while an attractive older woman might get American Pie ' 's "MILF"). There already are verifiable sources and the academic journals should catch up soon. Donnabella 21:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL
 * If someone walks into a bar and people shout "Norm!", that doesn't mean the show Cheers merits a separate "Culturally significant words and phrases..." article. If verifiable sources and academic journals "catch up" with giggity, they should be footnoted in the Neologisms section in Family Guy.
 * I don't think it's helpful to treat this article as a referendum on the validity and importance of Family Guy as compared to The Simpsons. The Simpsons "words and phrases" article clearly stands on its own; this article does not, and one can reasonably assume that it cannot be brought to encyclopedic quality at this time. / edg ☺ ★ 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I can see where this article can go. Family Guy neologism are very culturally popular, and significant, and their use has been imitated by many Americans, and is the topic of many different websites found throughout the web. Although, the content of this article may not warrant an article of its own, and may be properly merged into the main article. I believe that the contents of this article deserves to mentioned and noted. RiseRobotRise 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As RiseRobotRise points out, simple Web searches show the popular usage of these words and phrases adapted to the double purpose of conveying the meaning intended for them in the show as well as simultaneously paying homage to the show. Anton Mravcek 21:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Many of the words introduced or popularized by Family Guy have already entered (past tense) into pop culture and slang in a powerful way, and are used to carry meaning besides expression of fandom. I don't care if the eggheads catch up, so don't bug me with that wp:crystal crap. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 20:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of crap, are you saying this article is being held to too high a standard by "eggheads", and we should keep it on the basis of original research? And is that an exception we should apply to all articles, or just this one? (Or just any articles liked by Family Guy fans?) / edg ☺ ★ 23:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Deletionists have a million tricks up their sleeves. One of them has been to turn the phrase "original research" into something dirty and tawdry.
 * Anyone can type up famous words and phrases from Family Guy in a search engine box and get hundreds if not thousands of results. That's not original research. To hook someone up to an MRI and measure their physiological responses as they use these words, now that would be original research. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Others have already explained the tremendous influence of this show on American slang. Just because the article hasn't been brought up to "encyclopedic quality" (by whose standards, I don't know) under the duress of threatened deletion, doesn't mean that it can't be under any other circumstance. Michiganotaku 20:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Both notable and easily verifiable. Carla Bondicteuresse 21:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator's complaint that the article lacks context is something that can be fixed. But the nominator is wrong about the cultural impact of the show. For a show that hasn't been on as long as The Simpsons, Family Guy has had great cultural impact. Its neologisms which have entered the popular vernacular are already widely used all over the Internet and can be verified with a search engine. We don't demand scholarly journal articles to verify, for example, the sales figures of the latest version of Microsoft Word. ShutterBugTrekker 18:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentNo, because there are other reliable sources for that information. We don't accept the results for a Google search for "I just bought a copy of Microsoft Word". --Richmeistertalk 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Among the many uses of "giggity" by 20-somethings, here's a very small sampling: a 23-year-old female from Florida has "Giggity giggity. Giggity goo." as her username on myspace (her myspace URL is "quiet_gray"). Page 7 of Technique (the student newspaper of Georgia Tech) for November 17, 2006, used "giggity giggity goo" to refer to Lindsay Lohan. The point is: "giggity" and some of the others are easily verified as notable. It might fall short of a silver platter, but not even a golden platter will satisfy Family Guy-haters. CompositeFan 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Extremely notable and easily verified. Plinth molecular gathered 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I seem to see a lot of these Keep votes seem to be from Family Guy fans that want to hold on to anything related about the show. The arguments for the notability of a few "culturally significant terms" is pretty shoddy. This article is not necessary, and the Quagmire article already has a lot of it already.  And as a 20-something male with a healthy social life, I have never heard these terms used in real life. Dannycali 16:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a disgusting show. Having said that, lots of people our age use words from it. I don't know who Dannycali hangs out with. Augurr 20:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or Keep This article should be kept but merged into Family Guy. Yoda317 22:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This information is already merged into Family Guy. As for this article, do we Keep or Delete?/ edg ☺ ★ 23:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The merge into the main article is much better, although I don't think saying that a nn website is a good example of showing notability (in "sideboob"), that's almost spammy. I think a redirect seems alright for now.  The sources on the page only show that the words were used on the show, not how they are "culturally significant". Dannycali 03:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * keep article needs improvment but lets delete it before they got any chance to improve it! does taht make sense? one scohlarly source is due for december or january (depending on reveiw process), an informal source is due out later this monht but their already are plenty of informal sources on the web. even if "sideboob" was not coined by FG, FG inspired the website. its easy to turn up myspace users chusing FG words an prhases for there usernames and we even have one wikipedia user doing that Numerao 13:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you link or otherwise detail the "scholarly source" to which you refer? Cos right now we have giggity-squat plus vague promises. / edg ☺ ★ 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your use of "giggity" is very interesting, and helps prove the point that this word has so permeated the culture it's already experiencing semantic drift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Kr (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 September 2007
 * It does? Are you certain about this? Have you not considered the possibility that I may be simply referencing a term which might have come up earlier in this conversation? Are you going to include in your article a case study of the guy on Wikipedia who uses giggity in everyday vernacular based on my above comment? / edg ☺ ★ 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote an article for Bob's Poetry Magazine on this topic, for the September issue, but it hasn't come out. I sent Bob the proof back just like he asked. I asked Bob and he said that it's someone else's article in the issue that's holding up release. So if you want to put pressure on him about this, the URL is bobspoetry.com. Michael Kr 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC) p. s. I don't know what sources Numerao is talking about, but it wouldn't surprise me if someone's beaten me to the punch on this topic (like my idea for a book of scholarly essays about The L Word). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Kr (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 September 2007
 * This article was nominated for deletion 7 days ago. No improvements have occurred in this time, despite several assurances that this article will get much better as long as it is Kept. This article is 8 months old, so it has had time to mature. There have been hardly any edits in the past two months. It got this far, and stopped. I don't see the initiative to improve it, only to Keep it. / edg ☺ ★ 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe they refuse to continue playing deletionists' games. You improve one thing, thinking, maybe that'll satisfy them. But no, the deletionists have a Halliburtonian relentlessness about them. Fix one thing and they find another to complain about them. Maybe the only way to satisfy a deletionist is do bend to their will unquestioningly the first time around. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would anyone resist making improvements to an article just because the suggested improvements came from an AFD discussion? To me that seems almost like it would border on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point... --Miskwito 22:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The deletionist's tactic is to overwhelm by always being ready with another criticism at the point that the enemy thinks this might actually do the trick, but no, they're ready with something else. Eventually this wears down the enemy to the point they just give up. Cromulent Kwyjibo 02:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you're just using a strawman argument here. For this article, the only requests for improvement I see are things along the line of "find references", which is definitely something any article should have. If you're trying to argue that people requesting reliable references/citations for an article is a "deletionist tactic", then you might want to read up on Wikipedia policy some more. But what it looks more like you're doing is making up arguments on the part of the people you disagree with, then mocking those made-up arguments, instead of actually working to fix the article into something salvageable. --Miskwito 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article was created the very day List of neologisms on Family Guy was deleted. While I can't read the deleted article, the initial version of this article resembles the work of several editors. Interestingly, a start-to-current diff shows no real improvement since the edit creating this article in March. / edg ☺ ★ 15:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Had I known that this article was deleted previously, I think it should be speedied. It's the same article under a different name.  I don't think things have changed much in the last few months to warrant this article to exsist.  I would like to request a speedy delete based on reposted info. Dannycali 04:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You could ask, but it's a bit late for a speedy and my guess is they will leave it to the AfD. It would have been nice of voters here who participated in the previous discussion to have mentioned this, but none did. It would have been nice. / edg ☺ ★ 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you poor thing, you deserve our sympathy! Gimme a break. This is another tactic.
 * It's not the same article. The one that was deleted focused only on word neologisms created by the show's writers. This one takes a broader, much more easily verifiable view. ShutterBugTrekker 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions.   —edg ☺ ★ 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions.   —edg ☺ ★ 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   —edg ☺ ★ 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant points to Family Guy main article and Quagmire article. There's just not enough here to justify a separate article. Squidfryerchef 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The merge is performed here. We're down to Keep, Delete and Vilify the "deletionists". Choose wisely. / edg ☺ ★ 04:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete then. Squidfryerchef 04:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, notable show, article asserts notability, or continue the efforts to merge and redirect without deleting. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The merge is performed here. All that remains is should we Keep or Delete this article. / edg ☺ ★ 18:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Has already been merged, and I can't see any indication of much useful stuff here that's worth keeping. Certainly I don't see the need for a separate article. There are references cited in the article, but only one in-line citation, so it's essentially unsourced, because it's not clear which information has sources and which doesn't. I also don't see any of the people arguing "keep" actually providing any evidence any actual evidence of the "cultural significance" of any of these words or phrases--which after all is what the article is presumably about. What I do see is unsupported claims that lots of people use such words, but unsupported claims can't be used to demonstrate notability or cultural significance. --Miskwito 21:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but shorten title to "Words and phrases from Family Guy." It is clear enough that the words are culturally significant. Jindřichův Smith 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, how is that clear? It's not so just because you say it's so. You need to provide evidence (the definition of "culturally significant" is difficult, but just showing the notability of these words/phrases should be sufficient for now). Aside from "giggity", I really can't think of any words or phrases from Family Guy that could be considered notable. The article barely mentions more than that. What are they? If they're so notable and significant, it shouldn't be hard to find plenty of examples. --Miskwito 23:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Question Does anyone have any strong evidence from a reliable source of the cultural significance of a word or phrase from Family Guy other than Giggity Giggity Goo (the significance of which is covered in Glenn Quagmire)? --Richmeistertalk 20:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Partial Answer Sideboob springs to mind. Look at sideboob.org. Cromulent Kwyjibo 20:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The word sideboob exitsed before it was on Family Guy, and a website with an Alexa rank in the high 300,000s isn't all that culturally significant. --Richmeistertalk 21:02, 1 September 2007 (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.