Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marrying Irving


 * 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 redirect to Jumping the shark. We'll delete and redirect just to be safe. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Marrying Irving

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Neologism tagged as potentially non-notable since 2012. As far as I can tell, the term has not received popular adoption or significant secondary coverage (the reference in the article, second external link, and a Slate.com article by sort-of-coiner Gene Weingarten are the only places I could find it used). Recommend redirection to Jumping the shark, since that section pretty much hits the highlights of this article and covers it with a due amount of detail. (Also - thank you in advance to anyone who helps sort this, I have no idea what categories are appropriate here) creffpublic  a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 21:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect per nom. While searching brings up a few usages of the term in the manner in which this article describes, its all either very trivial mentions or from non-reliable sources.  Furthermore, its almost all in context of "Cathy" itself, rather than demonstrating that it ever had any widespread usage outside of that.  The bits of coverage is probably enough that the proposed Redirect would be fine, but there is not enough for this neologism to have an independent article.  This could have probably actually been boldy done without dispute, rather than going to AFD.  Rorshacma (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I wasn't sure whether boldly redirecting was appropriate, so I figured I might as well take it to AfD to be sure that there was consensus. creffett (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Rorshacma. PK650 (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2020 (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.