Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of items with the phrase and all I got was this lousy T-shirt


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

List of items with the phrase and all I got was this lousy T-shirt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:STANDALONE.  — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 16:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it does not have either a well researched article into "this is a lousy t-shirt", or "this is a lousy t-shirt in the media." Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No well-defined inclusion criteria, there are thousands of varieties of this shirt around the world that anyone can make. Reywas92 Talk 17:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the article and references? Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - the title sent me into a fit of laughter, but I fail to see how this passes (or CAN pass) WP:STANDALONE or WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * re: WP:GNG this seems to be the only article about "this is a lousy T-shirt", and the references provided make the subject notable. It needs turning from a list into an article, with a history and notable examples.Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK  IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK  IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Status took my article to AFD and all I got was this lousy DELETE! - once I'd picked myself up off the floor laughing. Way too extensive - you can get these ANYWHERE, as Reywas92 has said. Way too many variations, plus "this lousy mug", "hoodie", "scarf", "coaster", etc.... Mabalu (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How many "mug"s "hoodie"s "scarf"s are referenced by the "Washington post", "New England Journal of Public Policy ",  " Herald-Journal", " American Civil Liberties Union", "The New York Times", "The Daily Telegraph", or even an astronaut. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete – a funny trend, but a total collection of WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  01:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indiscriminate; yes I agree, it needs a tidy up. But (correct me if I am wrong) wikipedia lacks an article about this trend, and this is a very good starting place. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I came here to say delete, and then had a look at the article, it is not about lousy T-shirts. It includes TV series, songs and books. Every item on the list has a reference, and many of them seem political, or more in depth rather than just holiday T-shirts. This is not an indiscriminate list,  but the starting of a rather interesting article. If the this was turned into a proper article, rather than a list, with a history of the phenomenon and examples with explanatory text then this would make a great article. WP:Vote look at the article and references and think about this not as a list. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the sources, and although the silly phrase has appeared on enough T-shirts to be copied in jest to other types of media, passing mentions in news articles does not give the phrase encyclopedic notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur. Even if every single instance on the list is given a reference, multiple passing mentions do not accumulate to make notability for a phrase like this. Similarly, we do not have an article on "Kiss Me Quick Squeeze Me Slowly" hats or other similar catchy slogan garments. There's no question that such garments exist or that they are widely known, but are they in themselves notable enough for an article? It's a good question, now you raise it. The article, as it currently stands, should be deleted, but there is an argument for a new article such as all I got was this lousy T-shirt which would look at the phenomenon of the garment in itself, but only if it is sourceable from in-depth discussions rather than a multitude of passing mentions. My delete vote for the list still stands. Mabalu (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2013 (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.