Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Googly Moogly (2nd nomination)


 * 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 as failing WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Googly Moogly
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nothing but a list of uses of the term. No reliable sources found, no way for this article to be anything more than an original research-laden dicdef and unsourced trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing more than a list of instances of the phrases uses. Not really notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the same reasons I stated in the first AFD. I agree that this article has an annoying tendency to attract random, "it was said by X in Y" comments, which don't add anything, but I think the stuff at the beginning about the history of the phrase (full disclosure: I wrote most of that part) in music is interesting (and well-referenced) enough to merit a keep.  If there were some other wiki venue more appropriate for etymology of popular phrases, it might make sense to transwiki it to there (and leave a pointer behind), but if there is no such better place, then I think it should stay (and get cleaned up).  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You do know that there's a giant etymological dictionary of all words and idioms of all languages right next door, don't you? You'll have to make a case that this truly is an idiom, and not just the mere sum of its parts, of course.  Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said above, if there's a better place for this to live, I'm OK with it moving to some other wiki. My main concern is that it doesn't disappear completely.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep — Notable phrase used by multiple well-known figures. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Use is not description and documentation. And until something is documented (in depth, in multiple independent reliable sources) then it may not have an article, whoever utters the words. The world must have already documented things for them to be included here.  Utterance of the heretofore undocumented does not negate our No original research rule. Uncle G (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The topic of the article fails WP:NOTE, in fact, I don't see any sources addressing it in-depth. Drawn Some (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, dictionary material with no encyclopedic value. Mintrick (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't find a reliable source discussing the subject. I have no idea how this survived the first time. Jafeluv (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep For the same reasons it passed an AfD last time. This is a well known phrase in many songs and is popular in older R&B and blues circles.  Contributions/68.244.6.242 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC) — 68.244.6.242 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Is it a well known, popular phrase? Yes. Has it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? No. Popularity is not synonymous with notability. Jafeluv (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Totally unnecessary.  174.146.38.57 (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC) — 174.146.38.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Transwiki, while it is sourced, the main argument people seem to be making about this is that only notable idioms pass the threshold for inclusion in wikipedia. However, this might not be the case with wikitonary. --Rayc (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary's Criteria for inclusion require the the term show evidence of having "entered the lexicon" and, for multi-word terms, that it be "idiomatic" (Don't ask.). We require signs of use in durably archived sources, which some version of "googly-moogly" (with or without "great" or "good", the hyphen, and capitalization) is likely to meet, IMHO. AFAICT, the specific references in the WP article wouldn't count, but they might give someone citing the term a clue what to look for, though Google can readily find the term in books.google.com. It seems mostly to be used as an interjection, like more current version of "great Scott" or "jumping Jehoshaphat." DCDuring (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary would need at least 3 durably archived citations to keep. I disagree in that I think the references in this article can be considered durably archived. Regardless, citations are readily available as noted, and given that it would be kept, certainly we could keep all of these references, durably archived or not. DAVilla (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Delete Frank Zappa is associated so closely with the word to the point where there was a tribute band Great Googly Moogly but I can't find info that says they were particularly notable. Polargeo (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Just listened to them on youtube! Lets not dump this into wiktionary for them to sort out though. Polargeo (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2009 (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.