Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sticks Nix Hick Pix


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sticks Nix Hick Pix

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable meme that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the article as it stands is WP:OR. buidhe 02:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. buidhe 02:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Alright; it was a crappy article. I fixed it, and it's much better. The original research nonsense and some of the unacceptable refs have been cut out, and some OK refs added. It's not a great article; it's not a big article; but its OK.


 * It's not a big article because there's not a lot to say about it: here's a headline, here's what it means, and here's demonstrations of how its now part of American literate culture. It's enough to meet the WP:GNG I believe. It's an OK article.


 * And it's really famous, really notable. As you can see in the article, it's something that comes up in both middlebrow and lowbrow contexts, enough that allowing people to look it up when they do come across it worthwhile... if you look at the page view stats, you'll see that 30 people a day are accessing the article. And there were a couple spikes, 426 readers on February 19 and 357 on March 31, probably in response to the phrase being mentioned somewhere in the media. It gets mentioned in the media; some hundreds of people want to come here to look it up and find out more about it; that's our job - to help people do that. Let's. Herostratus (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to Herostratus' improvements. Well done. — Toughpigs (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment No one has located any independent RS with independent coverage, so WP:GNG is not met:
 * 1: Not significant coverage.
 * 2–3 are Variety and not WP:INDEPENDENT
 * 4 does not mention the subject
 * 5 is not a reliable source
 * 6 is a passing mention
 * 7–12 may be references to this, but there's no RS saying so and either way they're WP:PRIMARY.
 * There is still OR: "References to the famous headline have appeared in various contexts" "As well, references and variations have appeared in various media over the following decades." need sources and spot checks of following references don't state that their headlines are derived from this one. b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 07:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I added a number of independent references that talk about Variety's use of jargon in general, and "STICKS NIX HICK PIX" in particular:
 * Garner's Modern American Usage by Bryan Garner, Oxford University Press (2009), p. 414
 * Broadway Ballyhoo: The American Theater Seen in Posters, Photographs, Magazines, Caricatures, and Programs by Mary C. Henderson, Harry N. Abrams Inc (1989), p. 117
 * The Skinny about Best Boys, Dollies, Green Rooms, Leads, and Other Media Lingo: The Language of the Media by Richard Weiner, Random House Reference (2006)
 * Good Old-Fashioned Yankee Ingenuity: Unsung Triumphs of American Invention by Harry Harris, Stein & Day (1990), p. 320
 * These sources specifically say that "STICKS NIX HICK PIX" is "frequently-cited", "one of Variety's most quoted headlines," and "the epitome of this style of headline," and that it has "passed into American social history". I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * None of these sources has significant coverage so they don't show notability. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 18:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well but there's sufficient coverage to support a fairly lengthy article... several paragraphs, and all reffed. It's true that there isn't any one single source that has a long exposition on the entity (that would be unlikely to exist), but taken all together, you have sufficient coverage. For instance: Garner's Modern English Usage, which apparently is an important work, describes the entity as "the epitome" of a certain type of headline writing. Garner only has that once sentence, but its a useful sentence. And there are other sources that add a sentence or two. Yankee Doodle Dandy, a famous movie, translates the entity -- that's internal analysis of the entity. Henderson's book describes it as being a part of American "social history" -- that's placing the entity in a social/historical context. And so forth. And we know that there's enough there to make a decent (if not great) article -- because there is one. Herostratus (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A significant part of the article as it stands is primary sourced, which doesn't count for GNG. Also, WP:GNG says explicitly that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Where are the WP:THREE secondary sources which have significant coverage of the subject? <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 21:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, you make a reasonable point. So do I (I think), so it's just a matter of us disagreeing. It's kind of a matter of how you interpret certain passages in the rules... there's only so far you can go with that. (FWIW I've never heard of WP:THREE before, always took "multiple" to mean "two or more"; anyway, I'll go with WP:ONE.)


 * Here's a way to think of it that usually works for me: as I said, about 30 people a day access the article. They are looking for information that will help them better understand what "Sticks Nix Hick Pix" means, when and how it's used, where it came from, and like that. Why give them nothing? Why not give them the something that we already have? Obscure as the subject might be, apparently people want to know about it, it's not ephemeral (headline was written 85 years ago), nor egregiously trivial, nor does it have false or misleading information. Give the people what they want, I say. Herostratus (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like readers would be equally served by a merger or redirect to another article. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 00:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable, reasonably well sourced. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. A rare example of a notable headline which attained fame of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.