Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Olbermann catch phrases


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann catch phrases

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Classic WP:ISNOT, Transwiki what can be to wikiquote but delete this as it is not encyclopedic The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as aggregation of trivia. Inherently POV-laden and sure to open up the floodgates for other collections of political blather if allowed to stand. Carrite (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely unencylopedic collection of point of view information. --Crunch (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WikiQuotes. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carrite and Crunch.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Olbermann's repeated contributions to common American English speech patterns deserves front line exposure. Certainly he is notable and his nearly thirty year history of contributing to the language is also notable.  The word "political" and "POV" exposes the intent of the opposition here.  Because Olbermann is currently a major political commentator with a daily national TV show, he will attract his enemies who wish to see his perspective minimized (or can I better word that as censored).  It is because of that exposure that also makes his catch phrases so commonly repeated, thus a popular subject to be covered in an article.  Almost half of this article are what have become common sports phrases which he is credited as originating, which he has now adapted into his political oriented commentary.  While all of my contributions to this article are sourced (obviously there are other people recognizing the significance of the subject), it is the unifying effect of a WP article that brings the divergence of this subject into coherence.  I have transferred the content to the far less noticed wikiquote site, but that still serves to diminish its ability to be improved by other editors. Sarcasto (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconds after posting the above, I was warned for WP:AGF. I don't think there is any clearer indication of the political intent of this nomination than that.  Above I am clearly pointing out the political/POV nature of the arguments against.  They used the words. Sarcasto (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm well to Olbermann's left. I just take NPOV very seriously and understand that allowing this to stand will provide a rationale for similar pages for every right wing mass media wingnut that comes down the pike. I can appreciate where you're coming from, it's just not appropriate for Wikipedia, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * please Assume good faith as the nominator I can say it's not about Olberman's Polictics, This article is an Original Synthesis with no WP:RS thus failing Verifiability The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are eleven sources to the article, though several are heavily relied upon. There is no synthesis in the article.  Aside from the lede, no conclusions are drawn at all.  Its a list;  with, as noted, sources that corroborate Olbermann as the origin for these usages. Sarcasto (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * as to not take up unnessecary space here i have added my reasoning more in depth to the talk page of the article The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We are now at 19 sources and counting--including the NY Times. Sarcasto (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is you have only verified he has used catch phrases as every TV personality does none of those source specifically cover his use of catch phrases other than in passing. Every quote you have there is so poorly sourced I am unsure if its a BLP violation to carry them. Its not the number of sources that matter its the quality an content of the sources as 13 of those 18 are clearly not Reliable in any capacity while 3 more are of questionable reliability The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This is comparable to Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th nomination). One of the two main sources, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CountdownWithKeithOlbermann, does not appear to be a reliable source, and the other is also questionable: http://www.sportscenteraltar.com/phrases/phrases.asp As others have said above, this is trivia.   Will Beback    talk    22:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely not encyclopedic; more appropriate for WikiQuote, perhaps not even there. While Olbermann may be notable, these phrases are not. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per above.  No reason to retain.  - F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 23:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge a paragraph to Keith Olbermann, Delete the rest. The sources used in an attempt to establish some sort of notability, , &  show there is a gap in wikipedia's coverage on Olbermann. However, the sources aren't specifically about his catchphrases and would be better incorporated into the Olbermann article. The sources then used to cite each quote are, to be honest, an embarrassment – sometimes I'm glad my real name is not linked with wikipedia! Sources such as facebook pages, TV trope wiki pages, urbandictionary.com and the user-generated sportscenteraltar.com all fail WP:RS and cannot indicate notability. There is also the previously mentioned trivia issue. Bigger digger (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and delete. This is for Wikiquote. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Olbermann is known for his commentary and his politics, but that does extend to notability for his word choice.  No reliable sources dedicate substantial attention independent of the purpose of those words in a wider context.  And as a means of judging the Wikipedia community standard for this topic, even the use of language by people who have been remembered for it for decades -- Yogi Berra, for example -- doesn't rise to the level of a separate article. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I ran a bunch of these individual quotes through Google, there are a lot of repititions and references to them. The overwhelming number of references by less than reliable sources should count for something.  One or two might indicate weakness, but dozens to hundreds of them?  Seriously.  Olbermann is a hot subject for the blogs, his phraseology being attacked or praised.  He is currently political in nature, but does show a 30 year history of this kind of thing.  It is an important element to his style and a proper adjunct to his main article.  I would also allow Merge  as an option, as was suggested has been done to the opposing political viewpoint with Rush Limbaugh.  As I searched, this is the only congealed collection of all, or what purports to be all, of his catch phrases on the internet.  It would be a shame to lose this work. OsamaPJ (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is just a directory of catch phrases made by Rush Limbaugh. No sources discuss them in detail. The article has not enough content outside the catch phrases. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It purports to be nothing more than catch phrases, its a list. That's what a list is.  It sure seems like he, Keith Olbermann not Rush Limbaugh, has a legacy of creating such catch phrases.  The sources, many of them credible sources, do make mention of these catch phrases.  Its not the primary subject of the articles, but the articles revolve back to the same subjects.  NY Times article, I'd call that a reliable source, is all about the lingo.  Spin magazine is a major publication, the catch phrases get several paragraphs.  The Saint Petersburg Times, again a reliable daily newspaper, hit the best quote in their article.
 * "Olbermann and Patrick wrote a top-selling book, The Big Show, and their catch-phrases became instant classics, repeated the following morning around watercoolers across the country."

It couldn't be said better. Even the National Review takes issue with the names Olbermann is calling. Its a note-worthy subject. I think this much material will make the main article too long, so I strongly suggest we keep this article instead of merge. Trackinfo (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - But we need sources for his catchphrases, which are generally not available in WP:RS. Merging a paragraph into the main article will not make it too long. Bigger digger (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears from some of the sources, that MSNBC posts a transcript of each show. Do they do that every day for a daily show?  If he uses the phrases regularly, that should be documented in the transcripts.  I would assume MSNBC to be a reliable source.  Since he works for the (major) network, would that be considered self-published?  How much volume would be required to show regular or repeated use of a particular phrase.  The article claims that the better documented sports phrases have carried over into the political show.  That should be able to be documented by such transcripts.   It certainly appears that the less than reliable sources itemize and repeat things he has said.  Does that help draw additional attention to the importance of each phrase?  As opposed to the other regular, "and's", "the's" and other common English language words he would use in every day speech.  Certainly the fact that it is being repeated in blogs does emphasize some notoriety to each phrase.  How much of all this stuff is really needed just because this is a proposed AfD, as opposed to the sourcing on a normal article (which is generally much less than is already present in this article)? Trackinfo (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a couple of them from the MSNBC transcripts. From the rough sampling, these appear to be available there.  Trusting the blogs, if challenged, I believe the majority, if not all, of these items could be sourced from the transcript.  WP:RS is not justification to delete the article. Trackinfo (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the argument is whether he said them, it's whether they're notable. Transcripts don't prove notability, they just record what was said, and no editor is suggesting he didn't say these things. Find sources that comment on them. The current article is a complete mess, but I'll have a better look closer to the close to see if the sourcing establishes that Keith Olbermann catch phrases are notable. Bigger digger (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Declaring some phrase to be a "catchphrase" and notable simply on the basis of its appearance in a transcript of the man's show is original research. In order to meet WP:RS without being WP:OR, you'll have to find reliable secondary sources that analyze those transcripts and declare the phrases to be "catchphrases" or otherwise notable.  A Wikipedia editor cannot take it upon themselves to declare something a "catchphrase" simply because it is pithy or used repeatedly.  You have to show cultural context, and that is done through secondary sources. That's true whether this is a paragraph, an article, or a list. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete or transwiki - there is no content except his quotes. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2010 (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.