Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's get out of here in film lore


 * 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 it's out of here. Krimpet (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's get out of here in film lore

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivial and an indiscriminate collection of information. It depends on a claim by a film historian who's notability is not asserted. The JPS talk to me  12:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.   --  The JPS talk to me  12:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, at least, for letting me in on a debate, instead of deleting this without a word. I guess I should be honored that you've picked my article about the nearly two million already there.  So many of them are about television episodes from someone's favorite TV series, singles from an obscure album from your favorite recording artist, "characters in the DC Universe", etc.

Oh my, I've run afoul of the Wikipedia administrators and editors. Let me be as obsequious as possible. May I bring anybody some tea and biscuits? I hope that you can take criticism as well as you can give it.

Let's start-- "a claim by a film historian who's notability is not asserted". What's that mean? Do you have your own list of notable film historians? Or should I precede his name with "Noted film historian"?. Granted, you haven't seen the gentleman on television, but at least he's a published author. Mandsford 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - oh dear god. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a collection of loosely-associated topics. The presence of a line in a bunch of different films doesn't make for any level of association amongst the films. We have deleted any number of articles on cliches in film, video games, comic books and the like and this article about a specific cliche is no better. Let's get (it) out of here. Otto4711 14:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's "Oh dear God!"-- exclamation point and dramatically rolling your eyes is optional. This is not in the same category as The Clampetts strike oil.  Among film fans, the occurrence of the phrase is a point of interest.  It's a movie cliche' like the fruit cart that gets in the way of the car chase, or the character who dies before he can reveal a secret.  Lighten up.


 * Delete as crufty crap (WP:NOT). /Blaxthos 15:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Crufty crap"? I never heard the word "crufty" until now.  Guess I haven't been sitting at my computer enough.  I loved the article Mr. President (TV series), which revealed that it was a TELEVISION series.  So THAT's what "TV" stands for.  And the citation to an installment of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" made it more scholarly.  Read any good books lately?  Read any books? Mandsford 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per above and nom.  «  A NIMUM   »  15:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty font. "Steam" (ooohhh!).  And it's green.  You went to a lot of trouble.  And your user page, also very colorful; not very informative, but colorful.   M andsford . Mandsford 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, let's get (this article) out of here. This is definitely a WP:NOT case, connecting a bunch of films only by the dusty phrase "Let's get out of here". Big whoop. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. "Big whoop" from a guy who has written individual articles about all of his favorite shopping malls? And I thought I was the one who had to get a life.  Go buy another album at Disk Jockey, and stop at Orange Julius while you're at it.Mandsford 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above would seem to violate civility policy. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And, of course, only my contribution fails to be civil...Mandsford 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your analysis is correct. TenPoundHammer criticized the article. You criticized TenPoundHammer. --Dhartung | Talk 09:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Riggghhhhttt.... That's one of my favorite manipulative arguments: "I'm not making fun of you, I'm making fun of what you do..." Mandsford 22:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is actually a widespread bit of trivia, but I don't see what the point of keeping a list here is. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, a halfway positive comment. This is actually a widespread bit of trivia.  The point of the ongoing list is to show that the usage is fairly common.

Mandsford 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, don't confuse humour or humor with frivolous. It's great that you're editors and administrators, but frankly, you're no more literate than I am. Go find another article to freak out over.
 * Comment - obsessively responding to every comment has generally not been found to help promote one's cause. Otto4711 19:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting concept, but we aren't for trivia.  Mandsford, your comments are not helping to defend the article and are irrelevant to the issue at hand.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Potentially this could be a decent article, but it should probably be renamed to something like Let's get out of here (movie quote). Also, I would recommend revising the article so as not to imply that Richard Gere said "Let's get out of here" in American Grafitti [sic]. Please consider this a neutral recommendation for now, but if User:Mandsford responds to this recommendation sarcastically, it should be considered a delete recommendation. --Metropolitan90 19:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with you, and I appreciate criticism that takes the form of "improve this" instead of "delete this". Mandsford 20:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If the article could be rewritten, with information taken from and verifiable through the use of reliable sources, and with a focus on information about the cliché, it might be worth saving. In its current form, a laundry list of apperances, the article is inappropriate as demonstrated above and should be deleted. -- saberwyn 00:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:38, 11 June 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.