Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It depends what the definition of is is...

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:17, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

It depends what the definition of is is...
This article claims that "The line has come into modern American English as a catch phrase," and it simply has not. A Google search for the phrase finds no examples of this exact phrase being used to describe anything else but the Clinton Testimony. Therefore, the claim is an overstatement. There should not be a wikipedia article dedicated to a quirky use of syntax. Kingturtle 06:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * So it's 15-6, with DELETE winning. it's been nearly two weeks. shall it be deleted now? Kingturtle 07:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep --DrizzttBDman 06:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Kingturtle 06:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Mikkalai 07:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete James F. (talk) 07:34, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Tuf-Kat 12:01, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Professor water 12:09, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) This would seem to belong in WikiQuotes
 * Delete Rje 15:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Recommend rewrite, or possibly move to WikiQuote, but this phrase is alive and well and culturally significant... ("On second thought, given that he then attempts to divert attention by making exactly this distinction with reference to Dowd, perhaps it isn't so nitpicky (I guess it depends what the definition of "is" is [sorry, couldn't resist]).; "Mr. Moore's grinning assertions during convention network interviews that "interpretations - lies - are OK because one is producing a documentary with a political agenda strikes me as originating in the same elitist culture as "It depends what the definition of 'is' is."; This is a joke, if someone cannot afford to feed their child breakfast in the morning how can you say they're not living in poverty? Let's be realistic. This is getting to the point of "it depends what the definition of is is".; He is trying to determine whether the "food tax" that would be collected at the point of sale for the purchase of food that was used, is or isn't a sales and or use tax. Remember "it depends what the definition of is is?" ; "The question "Do you believe in Evolution?", is simply the request to know if you accept that the evidence presented is consistant with the conclusions publicized. The whole idea of "it depends what the definition of 'is' is" makes me ill. And that is the real question you ruminate on. Are the evidences of an expanding universe and similarity of species enough to convince you that dbbeebs' family tree includes single-celled creatures." [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ad3069d3f60.htm] - JenGod
 * Just because others use this quirky bit of syntax does not mean they are referring to Clinton saying it. moreover, people have used the same is is sentences before Clinton ever did. i see this article as an attempt to create something that really isn't there. Kingturtle 17:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete whatever it is, it's not encylopedic. put in wikiquote under 'misquotations'.  any useful content about the scandal should go in the Monica Lewinsky scandal article. Michael Ward 18:23, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, I guess. I have actually heard this used as a reference outside Clinton's testimony, to refer to semantic arguments in general, but just because this phrase's 15 minutes of fame has stretched to 20 probably isn't sufficient for an encyclopedia intended to be timeless. That is, I believe that all JenGod's citations ARE specifically based on Clinton's testimony, and find Kingturtle's conclusions based on the Google search innaccurate, but I really hate neologisms, and feel they need currency for a longer period than this has, so far. Niteowlneils 18:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is some sort of politcal rant, is all. Wyss 01:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * How short our memories are. If this was current we'd never think of deleting it. Famous, notable, well-written&mdash;an obvious keep. Everyking 04:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--DrizzttBDman 06:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)--DrizzttBDman 06:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: It has entered into popular American culture. That doesn't mean it should be kept.  First, we're not writing a dictionary at Wikipedia.  Second, it's POV.  Third, discussing the context of the original remark ("You mean there's no sex?" "There is no sex?"  "Yes.  There's no sex?"  "No."  Later: "Did you lie when you said there is no sex?" "Depends on what the meaning of is is."  Pinheaded lawyer mangles English and uses "there's" when he means "there has been," and this gives the witness a chance to gleefully answer "No" because, indeed, at that present time there was no sex taking place, and then that refusal to do the lawyer's job for him by correcting his grammar and answering an incriminating question that wasn't posed becomes a catch phrase for evasion) is not discussing the usage today.  Geogre 04:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neutralitytalk 06:12, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Josh Cherry 00:51, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. (Shrug) In my experience, it does have some significant use as a catchphrase. It's in decline, and in a few years will probably be as forgotten as "To the best of my recollection at this point in time" and "I'm just a simple country lawyer." I think it's valuable to document these things. There are any number of times I've been reading an old novel and a phrase, obviously a popular phrase of the time pops up and there's no easy way to find out what it means. Like "Mother, mother, mother pin a rose on me" (1920s) or "So's your old man" (c. 1900?) Just my $0.02. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:59, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Although maybe a mention in List of catch phrases is sufficient. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) Now it's mentioned there. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jayjg |  (Talk)  04:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mrwojo 21:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or delete, depending on what the definition of definition is. Pedant 22:50, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a case of people with POVs, along with some good hearted people who want re-writes. Zenosparadox 04:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC).

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.