Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political catch phrases (2nd nomination)


 * 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 No Consensus defaulting to Keep. Cannot find any consensus in this discussion between those who feel it should be kept and just needs more referencing, and those who feel it fails WP:NOT or should be on wikiquote. Davewild (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

List of political catch phrases

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Survived one AFD in 2007 due to no consensus; an overlong, unmaintainable list of miscellaneous political slogans, statements, gaffes, and even noises (see the "Dean Scream"). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information Ryan Delaney talk 04:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix the second nomination while you did the same thing. My bad. With that in mind, Delete as an unmaintainable list of loosely associated topics per nom. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreferenced, and once it is, should be broken up amongst those who said the phrases on Wikiquote. Mrprada911 (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is not indiscriminate. It is not too long either and could easily be divided by country if it did grow too long. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but source for notability purposes. This is particularly one of those list articles it's handy to have for things that don't deserve articles, and it certainly is organized by country, so it's more useful than a category of the bluelinks. --Dhartung | Talk 09:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs more references, but a useful, well-categorized List. Klausness (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful, reasonably consistant and apparently accurate list. Needs more references though.ANHL (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic. Should be in Wikiquote. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and add references. I feel this is a viable and useful topic. However I'll borrow a bit of GeorgeLouis' comment above and suggest adding links to applicable Wikiquote articles where, uh, applicable. 23skidoo (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Needs references, but it is useful. Macy (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wikiquote Will (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Double Blue  (Talk) 01:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as discriminate and encyclopedic list. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Certainly requires improvement (references, etc.) but I came across it researching for pol. sci. and found nothing like it elsewhere. I went on to contribute. Excellent insight into political culture of different countries. It is essential Wikipedia survives not as if it were a closed paper encyclopaedia. This article not non-compliant with any of the five pillars and its deletion would remove a source of knowledge not easily replaced by any other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriBCN (talk • contribs) 09:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- further references required however. - Longhair\talk 09:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep --cultural memes of significance. Handy list. ArizonaShine (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's full of quotes, so it belongs in Wikiquote. Martarius (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But it belongs on Wikipedia because of the historical context. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT #1. Deor (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Randomly picked selection of incoherent phrases. Leftfoot69 (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is however not random and focuses on coherent phrases. Typing in "political phrases encyclopedia" on Amazon.com actually gets hits: .  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete straightforwardly given the existence of Category:Political catch phrases as a funnel for all the article's usable content. The article adds nothing to the category; if a catchphrase is notable enough to get its own article or redirect, then categorize and/or subcategorize it (see also Categorizing redirects). For instance, I am not a crook redirects to Watergate; the redirect, but not the article, should be categorized. New redirects to explanatory sections can be created as well. Once that is done there is no reason to maintain its article status, which makes it a mother of POV magnets and nonnotability. However, someone might want to move it userspace before closure so this can be accomplished. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC) I forgot: this is the English WP and very few non-English quotations will be notable here. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even in a worse case scenario the article should be redirected without being deleted as it is clearly a legitimate search term. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've done a number of these phrases now (see my history to give you some examples). My review of the "keep" arguments yields: "not indiscriminate" (but it should be more discriminate, many say "references required"); "not too long" (but it is, considering non-English); "could easily be divided by country" (the category already is, and can be more so); "handy", "consist[e]nt", "accurate", "encyclopedic", "excellent insight" (and so is a category); "well-categorized", "more useful than a category" (a category functions slightly differently in that it creates new breakouts when there are a significant number of subitems, not just one; aside from that, neither is any more useful); "nothing like it elsewhere" (except in the category); "I went on to contribute" (sorry, Yuri, this is actually a prime liability of the list version as a nonnotability magnet). Hope this clears it up. :D John J. Bulten (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki - Seems to be a very arbitary list. I'm sure there are hundreds of catchphrases that could be added that for each country that are of equal significance to the ones currently in existence. Also, this is a list of quotations - exactly what Wikiquote is for. If this type of content is appropriate on Wikipedia, I totally fail to see the point in Wikiquote. Just because it is useful or interesting does not mean that it is appropriate for Wikipedia - if that were the criterion then there would be no Wikiquote, Wiktionary etc. because all content included on those projects would be part of Wikipedia. I agree it's interesting, but it is clear that it would be most appropriately located on Wikiquote. TomPhil 00:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the First pillar, phrases are consistent with many published specialized encyclopedias. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Off the point, your majesty. The books you cite on Amazon are specialised — much like Wikiquote is specialised. To repeat: Delete from WP and move everything to Wikquote. Yours in repetition, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Actually totally on point. Per our First pillar, Wikipedia IS a specialized encyclopedia and thus we need to Keep the article accordingly.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:41, 23 March 2008 (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.