Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Kill All the Lawyers


 * 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) sst✈  07:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's Kill All the Lawyers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Author deprodded, so here's an AfD. Quote is not notable enough for its own page. Also, entire page is an opinionated essay; would require WP:TNT to fix. Iago Qnsi (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Clerical note: Prior to creating this AfD, there was some discussion about the deletion of this page over on its talk page. - Iago Qnsi (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

My purpose in writing this article is to provide a location for the primary source of a highly cited quote, as well as many citations for how to interpret the quote. The quote has been the title of movies as well as the title for published books, and many news articles and editorials were written on this one-line quote.

However, the original source text for this quote is difficult to locate on the internet using search. In addition, the various articles written about this quote do not cite the contextual primary source document or other articles on the topic. My article includes the primary source text as well as many citations to articles about the quote.

This article is also relevant because the content of the play refers to actual events in the history of England. One of the characters in the scene, quoted in this article, has an entire wikipedia page on the corresponding actual historical person which is more than a page long. Steampowered32 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Steampowered32 (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Steampowered32

The string "Let's kill all the laywers" is the single primary topic of discussion in the first 100 pages of a google search for that string of characters. Additionally, Wikipedia's topic of "Lawyer Joke" cites this exact quote as the archetypal lawyer joke for the page on the topic. That page references the disambiguation page. Steampowered32 (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Steampowered32


 * Unfortunately, having a lot of Google results is not a satisfactory indicator of notability. I recommend you read Wikipedia's general notability guideline so you understand what is and isn't considered notable on Wikipedia (the term "notability" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, which might not match up with a dictionary definition or your mental definition). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- just because the quote is mentioned in Lawyer joke does not mean it is deserving of its own article. - Iago Qnsi (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I realize having a lot of results is not, by itself, sufficient indicator of notability. This topic has many other indicators of notability.  The topic is one of the most quoted lines from arguably the single most famous English author of all time.  The line is the subject of debate in hundreds of articles every year, and this trend is not decreasing.  The phrase is the archetype for another broader wikipedia page, the Lawyer Joke.  This is arguably the single most important Lawyer joke ever.  The phrase has relevance to modern culture, history, and the arts.  I would also like to point out there are many other pages entirely devoted to famous Shakespeare quotes, such as this page.

I propose we let this article sit for a few days so it may have some discussion. I have noted your dissent, and I would like to hear from other editors. Steampowered32 (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Steampowered32


 * Indeed, I brought this page to Articles for Deletion so that a community consensus could be reached as to whether or not the article is notable. - Iago Qnsi  (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Henry VI, Part 2. That'll provide the context for the quote. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is already a disambiguation page called Let's kill all the lawyers that includes a link to Henry VI, Part 2. If this page is going to redirect somewhere, it should probably be to that disambiguation page. - Iago Qnsi (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I submit the following quoted source on the subject of notability, calling the quote a cliche Steampowered32 (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Steampowered32

"These ten words are Shakespeare’s most well-known and lasting popular legacy to the law. Is it one of those key lines that seem to give us a glimpse into Shakespeare’s own mind, or is it merely a joke? From all of Shakespeare’s thirty-seven plays, that one familiar line stands out more than any other as a stinging comment on the legal profession. Its pith and pungency have helped it survive. Shakespeare’s anti-lawyer line, once heard, clings to the mind like a burr. It has been repeated so often that many who have never read any Shakespeare know the quotation. It has passed into common usage and become a cliche that even shows up on T-shirts popular among law students, on souvenir plates, coffee mugs, pillows, and as a title of a movie about a young man’s decision to reject a legal career in favor of becoming a gardener."

- Daniel J. Kornstein, Kill All the Lawyers? Shakespeare's Legal Appeal, University of Nebraska Press, 2005, p.22-29


 * There is potential to merge some of the content of Let's Kill All the Lawyers to the heading of the disambig page Let's kill all the lawyers. - TB (talk) 09:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a terrible dab page, with only one legit entry. The second isn't mentioned in the linked article and the third is just a partial match. That should also redirect to the play. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Famous quote, well worth the article.  DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is imaginably acceptable as any other quote, no serious needs for deletion; at best this could be questioned for its own article but I believe there are no serious for deletion here. SwisterTwister   talk  03:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm going with Keep on this one. It's a notable phrase, with multiple articles providing substantial coverage  on it; and it's a 400-year-old line, so it's not like this is fleeting news converage.
 * The article needs badly to be cleaned up, and I think there's naming cleanup to be done as well; it really should be at either The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers, as I think the quote is usually seen; or at Let's kill all the lawyers, and that DAB page moved. But that's a separate issue from whether the line is sufficiently notable for the article to be kept, which seems pretty clear-cut to me. TJRC (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, but if the article title refers to the quote, it should be downscale, not all uppercase like that. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Merge content into Henry VI, Part 2, but redirect to the disambiguation page. 66.82.144.144 (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per above as a famous and notable quote.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Heinlein would roll over in his grave if I didn't !vote keep on this one. But seriously, very famous quote, well sourced article.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:40, 8 March 2016 (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.