Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiche-eater


 * 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 Real Men Don't Eat Quiche, merge at will. Pastordavid (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Quiche-eater

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable neologism. Not worth a stand-alone article seperate from Real Men Don't Eat Quiche. h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see and follow the directions at Articles_for_deletion. Ra2007 (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was the failure of TWINKLE to complete the process, not my own fault.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But it is still not fixed. Ra2007 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, somehow, people seem to think that articles about neologisms are more appropriate than well-established words. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so we could quite easily have articles about the etymology and usage of words much more well known and commonly used than this, but these would fail WP:NOT making this even less notable.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Twinkle failure corrected, article is AFD tagged now. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into main article Real Men Don't Eat Quiche - was a big deal at the time and popularly quoted. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to book article. The major claim to notability of this phrase is probably application against Walter Mondale in a variety of bumper stickers, but they were often variants such as "Mondale Eats Quiche" instead of this word itself. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or keep. This reports a cultural phenomenon whose degree of notability may not be immense but is enough to get mentioned here.  If we had a shortage of disk space maybe this is what we'd be cutting, but that doesn't seem to be a problem. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or (less enthusiastically) merge, per Hardy points. I heard this term in a data structures course, and I consider it borderline jargon in computer programming subcultures. Tparameter (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It still confuses me as to why people think articles on lesser-known words are somehow more worthy of encyclopedia articles than well-known words such as disappointment (which I'm beginning to think shouldn't have been deleted now).--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 04:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did I imply that I embraced such a belief? I never commented on "disappointment", its proposed deletion, or its comparative worthiness relative to "quiche-eater". However, it might be interesting to examine the various differences between the two, which may or may not illuminate the comparative worthiness of each; that is, if comparing the worthiness is the ultimate goal. If this is the actual source of your confusion, I can consider the comparison and comment on it - but this is likely not the proper forum. Tparameter (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Real Men Don't Eat Quiche. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Bearian. Not notable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge not notable enough to get an article, but worth mentioning in the book's article. - Koweja (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Real Men Don't Eat Quiche per nom and other Merge or Redirect rationale. Not notable enough for a separate article. — Becksguy (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into book article. This deserves one or two sentences there, but is not notable enough for a separate article.  Aleta   (Sing)  17:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:08, 8 January 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.