Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Eichmanns


 * 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. Consensus leans towards keeping, in that it has enough notability on it's own, and that redirecting to Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy might ignore the other uses of the phrase. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Little Eichmanns

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable. Obviously this phrase attracted a lot of attention in relation to Ward Churchill. It was used by a few people before that in various contexts, but I can't find any sources discussing the phrase itself. Anything related to Churchill's use of it can be covered in Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy; in fact this article doesn't really contain any information that that article doesn't. Prezbo (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect - Sounds like a valid search term. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Per. THF (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect wish editor would have contacted me first, and I would have happily redirected it. Okip  03:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Even though this phrase has a history going back way past Ward Churchill, several of us who looked for a good source on the history of the phrase did not find one. We can recreate the article if such a source appears. Zerotalk 04:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included on the Talk:Ward Churchill, Talk:Ward Churchill September 11 attacks essay controversy and Talk:John Zerzan page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. Okip   05:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Redirect per everyone else . The article needs expansion and sourcing to establish its notability outside the context of the Roosting Chickens essay.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Redirect . Looking more closely, I need to change my opinion.  The broadest notability is indeed Churchill's use, but there's enough in Zerzan's use and other uses that redirecting to any one bio misses the wider use of the phrase.  It might be possible for a reader to jump from the 9/11 essay, to Zerzan, to somewhere else, to piece together the information that is now in one place, but they should not have to. The term gained its broadest notability in Churchill's essay.  However, there is a bit of relevant information about Zerzan's use that is worth retaining.  Perhaps we can expand a footnote of the like in the "essay controversy" article to include this info.  LotLE × talk  09:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for two reasons.  First, the topic was covered before 2001, in particular this 1986 book  which definitively is "discussing the phrase itself" refuting that part of the AfD rationale, but also in Schizophrenic Germany‎ - Page 52 (1961)  etc.  The 2001 WTC attack was indeed terrible, but later coverage of facets of this event it should not be allowed monopolize this term.  Second, I'm very much opposed to redirecting a likely search term to a, if not downright chaotic then at least sprawling, "controversy" article, presently 33k long, and full of confusing quotes, TLTR.  The article up for AfD provides a reasonable explanation, suitable for the average reader, looking for quick information, therefore it fulfills a meaningfull encyclopedic role. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That 1986 book isn't discussing the phrase itself, it just uses it once. What I mean is a source that's actually focused on the phrase itself, describing its history, usage, etc.--like a William Safire column or an entry in an encyclopedia of quotations.  The controversy article clearly explains in the first paragraph what the phrase means and where it was most famously used, there's nothing confusing about it.  This phrase is only "notable" because of Churchill, nobody would have created this article otherwise, so it's totally appropriate for that to be the focus of Wikipedia's coverage.Prezbo (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:GNG is the guideline here. Without Churchill's use of the phrase and the controversy that it caused, most people would never have come across it. It is difficult to justify a standalone article based on this phrase alone, although its context should be fully explained.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment We do have several articles discussing the phrase and its meaning. I can't really find anything new and academically original about the event it has brought up, but that doesn't mean that the subject is not encyclopedic. I don't understand why some people insist on who said first and who thought deeper. Is it really a question of Churchill getting other peoples' credits? The fact is that the sentence became a catch phrase in popular culture and there are tons of sources discussing it. The article is about the phrase.


 * I think this is a question of deciding what is the scope of the encyclopedia. The limits are not necessarily very clear. But we do have tons of articles on lighter catch-phrases (¿Por qué no te callas?) and and a category on "neologisms". This subject seems to fit their. Maziotis (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS remains a very strong argument. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Plausible search term, but this turn of phrase is neither common nor important enough for its own article. (Is this band name taken?) / edg ☺ ☭ 19:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having known of this common and important (and now notable) phrase long before Churchill used it, I disagree with redirecting it to whomever has most recently given it publicity. If I am looking for information on this pop-culture phrase used by Anne Sexton in her poems; by Alf Lüedkte in his books on German history; or by John Zerzan in his theories, I'd rather not be escorted to an article about one man's opinions on the causes of the 9/11 attacks. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per my comment above. The catch-phrase is an event in itself, with enough speculation to have a full article about it. Since we can cover catch phrases as an encyclopedia, I can't see a single argument to deny this one. To the people who argue that this is "just not good enough" I have say that you have to provide a more clear argument. Maziotis (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per LotLE. -- Cycl o pia talk  22:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Many people have voted "keep" on the grounds that the phrase is notable and it would be good to have an article on it.  I agree with that sentiment.  The problem is we have no sources.  The fact that it has been used here and there in places we can find is not good enough, since bringing those examples together and making an article out of them would be a perfect example of Original Research. Zerotalk 10:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't have sources in the article, which calls for a tag on the lack of sources. But the people who are arguing for "keep" do base their position on the existence of notable sources. Maziotis (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * None are given above. Apart from some discussion of Ward Churchill, mostly vitriolic, I have only seen sources using the phrase, not any about the phrase.  Zerotalk 12:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this entry is better suited for Wikiquote. Or Wiktionary. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wkiquote, certainly. Although it wouldn't solve the issue raised here for inclusion. Wiktionary, no. It is not an actual word. As for the need of having sources discussing the phrase itself, I don't think you could be further from the truth. ¿Por qué no te callas? has sources concerning an event, where the phrase is a reference. Ward Churchill wrote an essay with some hundred words and somehow that expression, little eichmanns, is the center of attention through out the media. Maziotis (talk) 16:35, 2 March 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.