Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shallow and pedantic


 * 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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Shallow and pedantic
A random phrase from a random episode of Family Guy. Are we going to have an article for every combination of adjectives that's been used somewhere? Kirill Lok s hin 01:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. A combination of two adjectives only becomes notable if Fox News attempts to copyright it. Fan1967 02:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic, total garbage. Brian G. Crawford 02:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 02:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, pointless neologism. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag of Texas.svg|30px]] 02:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, familyguycruft --Deville (Talk) 02:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep why should we delete it? only good can come out of having it listed. no reason to delete it.
 * Keep, googling the phrase gets 10,000+ hits, most of which relate the post-familyguy usage boom, and most do not reference FG. It's a persistent language meme, and people will inevitably search for the meaning and origin of the phrase when they see it used, and they don't understand it.  You can't look it up in a dictionary, and Wikipedia exists in part to answer peoples questions.  Compare with Cowabunga, D'oh!, I've fallen and I can't get up and Great Scott. -- MickWest 03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, cruft, and that phrase was used long nefore familyguy. & as per Kirill.Bridesmill 03:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Long before, like here. "Servile and impertinent, shallow and pedantic, a bigot and sot" - Thomas Macaulay c. 1831, describing James Boswell. Fan1967 03:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete nn. --James 03:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 04:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. J I P  | Talk 07:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN cruft, bad precedent. Marskell 11:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, crift, nn. --Ter e nce Ong 14:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per MickWest. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fancruft for sure. I would be ok with a redirect to Petarded after deletion, though.  young  american  (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete NN cruft Nigelthefish 14:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Save S. Foulkes all knowledge is useful in some way.
 * Strong Keep This will turn out to be another thing that people will see online (it's everywhere now). They'll come to Wikipedia to find out where it's from, only to see that some deletionist destroyed its entry.  Wikipedia's not paper, people. Sparsefarce 18:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * strong keep why should we delete it? what harm is it doing? Joeyramoney 22:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or re-direct to internet phenomenon or Petarded or something similiar. --Hamiltonian 18:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep M o e   ε  02:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Closing comment: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I love Family Guy and I love the phrase but it's still cruft. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:38, 1 April 2006 (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.