Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hang in there, Baby


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hang in there, Baby
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a non-notable subject. Whereas there are many copies of this poster available for purchase, there is little to no commentary on said poster in reliable, second-party sources. Also no editor has shown interest in improving this page since it was stubbed in over a year ago. LeilaniLad (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the poster (and catchphrase) is notable. Like the editor who removed the prod tag said, look at Google News at Google Books. The poster has even appeared on The Simpsons &mdash; not once but twice. What commentary is required? It's a kitten hanging from a branch. And this shouldn't be titled (2nd Nomination). --Pixelface (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, the phrase "Hang in there, Baby" predates the poster. Very, very few of these news hits are referring to the poster, but rather using phrase itself which is in common usage. The article has also had a prior discussion on its deletion just after it was created, hence the second nomination. As there has been no additional work on the article since the stubbing, and only one article has linked to it in the previous year I thought the subject worthy of discussion again. LeilaniLad (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So in your opinion the phrase, which you said "is in common usage", is not notable either? I don't see a prior AFD for this article in the article history or in a search of AFDs *or* VFDs. Articles for deletion/Hang in there, Baby and Articles for deletion/Hang in there, baby and Articles for deletion/Hang in there baby are all redlinks, and I see nothing in the deletion log. There are no VFDs for articles that begin with the word "hang" and for AFDs for articles that begin with "hang", only one contains the word "baby" in the title, this AFD. Now, this article has been tagged with the prod template twice (incorrectly). Where's the supposed first AFD? --Pixelface (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I removed "2nd nomination" from the title. Also, there do seem to be plenty of sources for both the catchphrase and the poster. As intertwined as they are, why can't the article be on the popularity of the phrase with a subsection on the poster? Given that this poster predates the Internet by a long shot, I can't really see many sources being online. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 19:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of sources found by Google News and Google Books searches for the poster designed to eliminate most false positives. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per everyone but nominator. ample sources available as shown by other editors. Edward321 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Concise, interesting, sourced. Greentryst TC 16:50, 6 May 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.