Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I did not have sexual relations with that woman


 * 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   merge to Lewinsky scandal. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not have sexual relations with that woman

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't seem like it's enough information for a separate article. Existing information should be merged with the Lewinsky scandal article ScienceApe (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

*Speedy delete as G12 copy-vio from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june98/historians_1-26.html ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 03:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of every sentence uttered by every head of state or every politician. Isn't this covered adequately in the Bill Clinton article or one of its spin-off articles Lewinsky scandal? This is like having an article about Mark Sanford's spin-doctoring about "physically crossing the line" with women other than his wife without "having sex" with them, or an article about Larry Craig's "wide stance" in a men's room stall. Edison (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title belongs as a quote in either Bill Clinton or Lewinsky scandal, not as an independent article. A redirect is absolutely not necessary. I understand that Ask not what your country can do for you is a redirect to Kennedy's inaugural address, but this isn't exactly in the same league. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the article is deleted, please maintain a redirect. It would be a perfectly valid pointer, just as "Ask not..." is a valid pointer to JFK's inaugural address. As for whether or not this article should be an article, I am not sure. &mdash;harej (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect deletion is heavy handed, this is somewhat notable riffic (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per SpacemanSpiff. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (no redirect) Bazj (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I think that "but I didn't inhale" is the most commonly used Clinton catchphrase, with a sarcastic "I feel your pain" a close second, but we can't have a separate article for each memorable sentence ever uttered by an American President (please, don't respond by saying "Yes we can!) Not likely as a redirect, no sense in merging either.  I'm fairly certain that this gets mentioned in the Lewinsky article, unless there was some nitwit who removed it because Wikipedia should not include a "false statement".  Mandsford (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No need for it's own article. In any case, I said it to my wife years before Bill said it to his.... Trevor Marron (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

""Wikipedia is not a repository of every sentence uttered by every head of state or every politician.""
 * Merge (if solid evidence is not stated) Unless sources exist that can prove "quote has gone on to be widely cited as a meme in popular culture, as well as in politics", the article must be merged. --Roaring Siren (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you were a young adolescent male in the northeast USA in the 90's, like me, you would know this phrase obtained almost cult-like status.  Definately significant.  Baileyquarter (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Being in a country far from the United States, I still dare to say this is a very known expression to me and that I have heard it in many parodies on American movies. I don't know how it can be proven with sources, but I do believe it's more to do with common sense. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't agree with this, it's not a random line from a random politician. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe the content removed on April 7, 2009 should be used at least for proof in this instance, if not even to improve the article. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Lewinsky scandal. Is there wikiquote?  If so, something should be in there.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to Lewinsky scandal. Drawn Some (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to Lewinsky scandal Gang14 (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - commonly used by police and other interviewers as an example of dissembling; Clinton's use of a directional pronoun is a variant that indicates lying. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Possibly the defining phrase of Bill Clinton's presidency. Notability should be no problem whatsoever. It's right up there next to "Read my lips: no new taxes, and "Ich bin ein Berliner." (both solid articles)--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to Lewinsky scandal. Take it over to Wikiquote. They specialise in that kind of thing. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete We should record the notably stupid things that politicians do in a suitable article about the event, or about the politician. However, it is not encyclopedic to make an article with a title Clinton supporters will see as an attack, and which Clinton detractors will use as a coatrack to list everything bad Clinton said, carefully quote mined. There is no WP:SECONDARY source asserting that there is something notable about the actual statement (apart from the incident itself, and all the attempts by the Clinton side to avoid admitting misconduct, and the attempts by the other side to force admissions of sexual impropriety). Further, the article is unavoidably WP:OR (e.g. who said the statement is a "meme"?). The politician is covered in excruciating detail, as is the scandal, and there is nothing of additional value in this statement (not without secondary sources asserting there is such value). Do not merge because that will encourage every POV-pusher to start making attack articles so every notable person's stupid statements end up as redirects. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good point. I agree, and also think no merge should be made. ScienceApe (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think a merge/redirect will neccessarily cause a POV problem. We'd clearly have to trim out a lot of this for due weight, but redirects are not subject to NPOV. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to Lewinsky scandal. It can grow there and be relaunched if it really deserves to be it's own. This seems awfully soapboxy and pointy as is. -- Banj e  b oi   13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no Redirect - I see zero evidence or sourcing that this phrase has evolved into a meme, as the article claims. It'd warrant an entry in wikiquote for sure, and probably in the Lewinsky scandal article in the context of his initial rebuttal.  No redirect because it is a highly improbable term for a user to search for. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How did you determine this probability? WP:R specifies that if someone finds a redirect useful (as several of us do) that is reason enough. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I determined it through common sense. This isn't a notable, standalone meme on par with, say, Read my lips, no new taxes.  Despite #5 of KEEP there, I do not feel it is useful in the slightest to direct users to the Lewinsky scandal. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The ability to sense what people are going to type from miles away is hardly common. You should use your powers for good, like finding out Kim Jong-il's computer password! Jokes aside, there's evidence to suggest that plenty of other people find this useful. -- Explodicle (T/C) 18:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The ability to hide behind sarcasm when one realizes that their position is weak is all too common, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true. I'm completely oblivious to how weak my argument is. -- Explodicle  (T/C) 19:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This phrase has become quite popular, even after the scandal. Should be kept... —Preceding unsigned comment added by R32GTR (talk • contribs) 11:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect to Lewinsky scandal per the above posters. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets notability guidelines. Very substantial coverage in reliable sources. Enormous cultural and political significance that continues. Should be included in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant to wikiquote. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination proposes merger not deletion and so this process is faulty from the outset. The topic has massive notability and I have just added a citation from one of the hundreds of sources which specifically discuss this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 11 July 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.