Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't touch my junk


 * 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   no consensus. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  18:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't touch my junk

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Very questionably established notability. Article is just based on the slang word "junk", meaning "genitals", having been used a few times by people in relation to TSA searches. Nothing notable outside the definition of the word "junk" itself. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - or redirect to Transportation_Security_Administration. It seems to be something that could be adequately covered in that section without needing its own article. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Yaksar. C T J F 8 3  20:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be ok with a merge to Transportation Security Administration also  C T J F 8 3  01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. A thoroughly notable political catch phrase, as documented by the numerous sources already cited in the article. Google News turns up a dozen uses just in the last month.  A couple of New Hampshire state legislators just introduced a proposed law to criminalize genital groping that they're calling the  "don't touch my junk bill".  (I could not make this up.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep reliably sourced Internet meme, it has lasted long past the original posting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As Arxiloxos' sources demonstrate, this phrase has taken on a larger life from the initial incident. "John Tyner's mandate about junk-touching has gone national." HuffPo -  The Interior  (Talk) 02:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It's been a little more than three months, so the forgettable nature of the incident and phrase hasn't become obvious yet. Soon, it will go the way of "Don't taze me, bro!" (which is a redirect to something that's almost forgotten now), and "turn on, tune in, drop out" and "T'aint funny McGee" and all the other catch phrases that were briefly popular, but not enduring.  One of the main reasons is that there aren't that many situations where you would find yourself telling someone not to touch your genitals.  By contrast, "Don't bet on it" and "I don't think so" and other variations have lasted for years, simply because there will always be times where that thought needs to be expressed.  Mandsford 03:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Turn on, tune in, drop out has a substantial article. T'aint funny McGee ought to be a blue link too so I'm fixing that now. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a good slogan for inclusionists. :) Notability does not expire and the concept seems to span a variety of topics such as privacy, airport scanners, politics, &c. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable transient meme. Wikipedia is not for funny one-line jokes. MLA (talk) 10:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Slang phrase. Non-notable, however much it's used. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that slang phrases are not ever potentially notable? This seems likely to be incorrect to me; surely with a large enough cultural impact and reliable source coverage a slang phrase can qualify as notable? Kgorman-ucb (talk) 06:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article is sourced and was featured on Did You Know.  The claim that it should be deleted because it will go away is WP:CRYSTAL.SPNic (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, any claim that it is historically notable because it will be remembered a few months from now is not WP:CRYSTAL, I suppose? At this point, everyone here is making an educated guess based on their own experiences when it comes to catch phrases.  Mandsford 16:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - unquestionably notable due to the sheer number of important and sourceable references in popular culture over an extended period of time, not just over one news cycle. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, prefer Merge to Transportation Security Administration. The phrase 'don't touch my junk' has received at least a moderate degree of media coverage and I'm convinced we should cover it somehow; but I'm not convinced it really needs its own article. Like Don't taze me bro, referred to above, we would probably be better off in the long run merging this into another article. At the moment, there just isn't really enough to say here beyond 'this is a catchphrase that exists'. Robofish (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No use. Per above. Highhousefarm1 (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Click the Google news archive search link at the top of the AFD. Over a hundred results.  This gets ample coverage.  Click any of those results from major newspapers and read through it, or just read the headlines and the summaries that appear from the search.  Anyone looking at that believe this isn't notable?   D r e a m Focus  10:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Time will tell whether it'll go down in history, but three months out is still too early.  I'd say close it as a no consensus and visit it again in the future.  Mandsford 14:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. WP:NOTTEMP  Its notable now, so its notable forever.  News coverage in major newspapers has occurred months apart.   D r e a m Focus  15:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Conversely, forgettable now, even more forgettable next week.... all it ever was was just a catchphrase for an incident that wasn't notable under WP:EVENT. None of the articles cited are actually about the phrase itself or it's so-called popularity.   No doubt, "Winning! Duh!" might turn up three months, years from now even, in an article about Charlie Sheen.  But that won't make it something to write an encyclopedia article about.  Mandsford 23:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, well-established and notable. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge, or Keep along with the following article and also a new general article on this topic: - Pandelver (talk)
 * Redirect to Transportation_Security_Administration per above. A clear example of wp:recentism -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 03:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge or Keep along with Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest and also adding a new general article on this topic? See Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey which concerns Aaron Tobey Richmond Airport 4th Amendment Naked Protest and proposal for general article on US civilian aiport security regulation issues and public reactions socialogy, law, cultural phenomenology, international context article - Pandelver (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See also relation to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami and Fukushima I nuclear accidents and US airport detectors noted in Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey - Pandelver (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not related to that case at all. And this expression isn't just for one event.  Totally different AFDs.  And where exactly would you merge them to?   D r e a m Focus  20:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Of the references in the article that even mention the catch-phrase, none of them speak to its notability or impact on society. It certainly is widely used as a rhetorical device, and will continue to be so until it becomes stale, as it is eye-catching and titillating. I don't equate that with significant, however. Furthermore, the article as written focuses more on the event than the phrase itself, which I infer means there is little to comment on in that regard. I also question the claim in the first sentence of the article that the phrase is "commonly used in the United States", as it has no context explaining that its use is mainly to generate hype in the media and no reference to back up that claim. — Bility (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not seem all that notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems to me to be a notable meme. The notability of memes is sometimes difficult to gauge, but I think this has gotten quite a bit of attention in the American media and thus qualifies as notable. I wouldn't be opposed to renaming it TSA Junk Touching Controversy or something though. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that many of these sources (at least in the article) aren’t talking about the use of the phrase don’t touch my junk. I’m not really up on the media sources of the USA but it appears to me that only about half are using the phrase unrelated to the one incident. Of those that do one is a trivial mention (and certainly (by its tone) does not indicate that the phrase is particularly widely used or known. Indeed some of the sources do not actually use the term to describe the activity, but use it to describe the one incident. It seems to me that well over half the sources either do not use the phrase or use it in a trivial manner that does not establish notability. Nor am I seeing any evidacen that this is widely used or in popular use. In fact I am not seeing any evidance that this is in fact even a notable meme.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This article could do with some better sourcing, but I think the coverage is out there. The op-ed by Krauthammer cited in the article discusses the phrase as well as the incident. It looks like the slogan itself has gotten some news coverage:. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2011 (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.