Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumping the shark


 * 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 per WP:SNOW, though I'm assuming good faith on the nom's part. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Jumping the shark

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: not encyclopaedic Snowman 19:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rethink: striking out above; although, it is not used in England much. I expect that a consensus will benefit the page. Snowman 21:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The term has a good deal of widespread, documented usage as it relates to the entertainment media, enough for it to be relevant to contemporary society. I don't see any problem with the article. Notability is established, citations are provided, there's no original research...the nominator's only argument is that it's "unencyclopaedic", which is hardly an argument at all. Calgary 19:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Calgary.  J- stan  Talk Contribs 20:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the few instances where the name of a website became entrenched in American culture. EVERYBODY knows what it means when a television show "jumps the shark", and the term has spread beyond TV to encompass any change for the worse.  Mandsford 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep keep keep! A very bad nomination to start with, per all above. Dalejenkins | 20:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This article IS encyclopedic. NHRHS2010  Talk  20:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons above. Oysterguitarist 20:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above Seancp 20:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep — Nominator fails to show rationale; basically he is saying "I don't like it," which per the essay is not an argument. Briguy52748 21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]
 * Speedy Keep and WP:SNOW this one. There are plenty of reliable third party sources demonstrating the terms notability. Also "not encyclopaedic" by itself is not a valid reason to delete an article because that argument is synonymous with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Farix (Talk) 21:33, 18 August 2007 (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.