Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The longest suicide note in history


 * 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. Black Kite 01:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The longest suicide note in history

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This may be a relevant entry for a dictionary of quotations, but wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. The quotation is already discussed in its proper place, the article on Gerald Kaufman. Malleus Fatuorum 14:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge: It covers a notable event in British political history.. Seeing that it is an important topic, i'm pretty sure that it can be expanded. --TIAYN (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not cover any event, it is a quotation. It really ought to be included as part of the United Kingdom general election, 1983 if anywhere else other than the Kaufman article. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, very notable phrase, widely referenced. Everyking (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this phrase is incredibly notable in British politics of the early 1980 (probably before most Wikipedians were born, so that's why we're here. Had it been a passing X-factor contestant it would be a speedy keep). The phrase is notable in the context of the 1983 general election, but has been widely used since. It is referenced in various articles and it makes perfect sense to click through to one article that can explain its origins, impact and afterlife. Deletion makes no sense at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Merging would simply mean that the information was repeated on Gerald Kaufman Michael Foot United Kingdom general election, 1983, Hard left, History of socialism in Great Britain, History of the British Labour Party etc. The phrase is also used (in other contexts entirely)on articles like You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again and Peter Gutmann (computer scientist) where the background isn't strictly relevant but the reader might be curious enough to click through and find out the origins.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I find the argument that a computer scientist once used the phrase means that it deserves its own article to be preposterous. Does every quotation deserve its own article in your view? What about "like being savaged by a dead sheep", or "we shall fight on the beaches ..."? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We shall fight on the beaches. Also Blood, toil, tears, and sweat and This was their finest hour and Never was so much owed by so many to so few.  But Be Ye Men of Valour seems a step too far to me. -- Jttw (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most, if not all, of those are names of speeches. Not quite the same thing as this article, which is simply a quotation. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, this is more like "savaged by a dead sheep" than "we shall fight on the beaches" (the latter is certainly notable).


 * I am convinced by the arguments below that this should simply be moved to 1983 UK general election Labour Party manifesto or similar, or, perhaps better, I believe it was actually entitled "New Hope for Britain", although I doubt anyone would ever look for it there. That also happens to be the title of a 700-page policy document issued in March 1983, which seems to be confused with the 39-page manifesto.  I updated the article to show how it could look with  a focus on the documents rather than the epithet, but have been reverted, so started a new article under the title of the documents.  Also compare the more recent "New Labour, New Life For Britain". -- Jttw (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * keep Useful article, justification for removing it seems more relevant to a merge discussion, and I'd oppose that as well. Artw (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gerald Kaufman, unless someone can think of a better merge destination. Unless there's evidence of significant use elsewhere, can't see its best use as a stand-alone article.
 * Merge to Gerald Kaufman. Redirect to List of political catch phrases The epithets uttered by some public figure deserve mention in his article, or might redirect to an article about a notable speech, but do not need to be spun off into separate articles. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of epithets, and this one does not seem that notable in any event. Edison (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merging to Kaufman is silly. The quote is notable because it says something about the Labour party of the 1980s, not because Kaufman said it. It doesn't tell us anything about Kaufman. I'm disturbed that these merge notes are not about "what helps us best present this verifiable information?" but some ideological dislike. This IS notable. Google isn't everything but: 236,000 hits, 80 Google scholar hits. And look, A BBC article on the phrase itself, a Telegraph newspaper story, C$ news. With respect, can I suggest the mergers are ignorant of British political history?--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * May I recommend that you read the policy No personal attacks and refrain from calling those who disagree with you "ignorant?" Please strike the personal attack. Edison (talk) 05:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't a personal attack.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is from my perspective. Strike it, then stop using terms such as "ignorant," "ridiculous" and "silly" to demean those who disagree with you. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Edison (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the view that this article only belongs in "a dictionary of quotations" (i.e. it's just the epithet, not the manifesto and the problems within the party) isn't based on ignorance, then what is it? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're stretching veracity to breaking point, and in a rather insulting way too, both of which are unnecessary. The BBC article you claim is about the phrase is actually about Labour's 1983 election manifesto, as you would have known if you'd read it; it just happens to have the phrase in its title. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's the point. The phrase is all anyone thinks about when the manifesto is mentioned. It isn't just a quote - it is a saying that came to encapsulate a whole chapter in the history of one of the two major British parties, and the leadership of michael foot. The phrase is a cultural icon in itself. That's evidenced by the fact when the BBC write about Food and the manifesto, they are writing about (and titleing it) "the longest suicide note in history".--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The BBC article you claim is about the phrase is actually about Labour's 1983 election manifesto, as you would have known if you'd read it; it just happens to have the phrase in its title." Malleus, if you can honestly say that in all naivety, you ought to withdraw the nomination on the grounds of a total misunderstanding. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that this article appears to be falling foul of some built in biases of Wikipedias: It's not particularly new, and it's not particularly American. Artw (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I initiated this AfD and I'm not American. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and you seem to have a decent grasp of historical subjects. In that case I shrug and admit I have no idea why you started it. Artw (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I started it for the reasons I stated in the nomination. I do not see wikipedia as a dictionary of quotations. Others are perfectly entitled to disagree, but that is my view. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * keepIt seems just about everyone talking about the relivant era of british politics brings up the phrase.©Geni 23:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This has a huge significance in British politics, even more than as a US president saying, "I am a donut" or "read my lips". Besides which, if you delete it, I hope the unquiet spirit of Michael Foot (greatest prime minister we never had) comes and haunts you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a scary thought; Michael Foot was scary enough when he was alive. BTW. I thought "the greatest prime minister we never had" was John Smith? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * CommentI really do not want to have an article about every epithet uttered by a politician, especially if it extends to Dick Cheney ("Go fuck yourself!") and George W. Bush"They misunderestimated me." These phrases got lots of press coverage, but do not deserve articles any more than the present article.Instead, individual epithets or catchphrases are redirected to an article about the speaker, or about the speech, or to the article which has a collection of such catchphrases, List of political catch phrases. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, not Bartlett's Familiar Quotations. Edison (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. Inarticulate phrases which get media attention and then pass should not be listed. Phrases which become historical icons with a life of their own should. This isn't a catchprase - it became the title of a historical period and event. A closed comparison would be "It's the economy, stupid" - although that's a campaign phrase, which this is not. This one is wider.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "I really do not want to have an article about every epithet uttered by a politician"
 * This isn't an article about the epithet, it's about the Labour party's manifesto, the attitude within the Labour party of the time that allowed them to produce such an obviously unelectable document (wow, democratic organisation shooting its feet with process over content, who'd have though it?), and the wilderness years it then consigned the Labour party to. Reading the article I'm disappointed that it's so sparse as to not make this clear, but the topic is far broader than Kaufman's one-liner reaction to it, snappy title though that does offer us. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hrcolyer (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the detail on the manifesto's content would be inappropriate for Kaufman's biographical article. The subject is notable because of its impact, not because of this name given to it; therefore I would like to see this article developed with more detail on the contents of the manifesto and other experts' comments on its background, relation to previous Labour party mainfestoes and those of the other major parties, and its impact on the election.  Such an article could be renamed "Manifesto of the Labour Party for the 1983 General Election" and be the start of a very interesting set of similar articles on modern British political history. Knepflerle (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good idea, and I'd go along with that. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - What the hell? I vote delete for most of the AfDs, but for the life of me, I can not see how this was proposed for deletion. Did I miss something? Merging it with Gerald Kaufman is not going to do it, because it is kept in recorded history without necessarly mentioning his name. -RobertMel (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed a great deal apparently – that this is an article about a quotation when it ought to be an article about a party political manifesto, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have missed anything. It was submitted for deletion, not a rename or a change as proposed by Fatuorum. So, I don't see how it is proposed for deletion. Yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this requires appropriate changes not an AfD. -RobertMel (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You also seem to have missed that rather useful search box. Type in "finest hour" and do a search on that to see what I mean. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect We ought to have articles on the manifestos of the major parties, or at least sections in United Kingdom general election, 1983. This looks like a good start on such an article, and should be a redirect to that (for those who didn't live through those times, yes this a well known name for the platform of the main opposition party in 1983 and one explanation for one of the largest ever Conservative wins).  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The manifesto is the background to the quotation, but the quotation has also had an afterlife. Merging this makes zero sense.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware the quotation is mainly used as an alternative name for the 1983 Labour Party manifesto, so a redirect to an article on that with an explanation as to how that manifesto got that name makes sense to me.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Merger or move is not performed by deletion.  Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think there is enough to be said about this phrase to justify an article. If the phrase has a place on Wikimedia projects it is in a Wikiquote article about Gerald Kaufman or about election campaigns. The article itself has some inaccuracies: the manifesto was not "over 700 pages long", but merely 37 pages. Michael Foot was not responsible for the suggestion that a manifesto be produced from all conference resolutions; this appears to be a garbled interpretation of the suggestion by Labour right-winger John Golding that it be written from NEC policy documents in order to thoroughly implicate the left-wing of the party in the expected heavy election defeat. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then a merge or redirect, but a delete? Content mistakes can be fixed. -RobertMel (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Intersting snippet, could be expanded, and wikipedia shouldn't be rewriting/whitewashing history. I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to delete this unless they were trying to save the Labor party from some embarrassment. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Keep If it was mentioned in newspaper of the day, then its a notable phrase.  D r e a m Focus  08:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm always amused at your votes for deletion, so invariably devoid of reason are they. But this one marks a new low. Seriously, have you not yet grasped, in your 1,331-day Wikipedia career, that verifiability is not tantamount to notability? True, a lion in Arkansas enjoys drinking milk, a car has been stolen in South Dakota, and a house has burned in Kansas. These events are "mentioned in newspaper [sic] of the day". Does that imply "its [sic] a notable" enough topic to include in this encyclopedia? I should hope not. Other readers make a more cogent argument for keeping this, but your comment does their side no service. - Biruitorul Talk 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at what links to the page this article would have to be reproduced in every article linked. It's a very notable and memorable statement on the Labour Manifesto at the time that has been widely used ever since in all media. The article certainly doesn't need deleted, and I can't see how it could be merged, where would it be properly merged to? I agree with Sam Blacketer that it contains inaccuracy's but not their view that it needs to be deleted. It needs attention and a bit of work.Amentet (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename into something like "Labour party 1983 manifesto". Current title of the article is of questionable neutrality (being popular, it should be kept as redirect page).Fuseau (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutrality isn't a problem. The highly non-neutral description of the manifesto was Kaufman's, not any bias in our reporting of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that the title should be changed to something more encyclopedic and less POV, as Fuseau suggests, in the event the article is kept. Edison (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: compare with Ich bin ein Berliner, Read my lips: no new taxes, It's the economy, stupid, giant sucking sound, There you go again. There seems to be a pro-America systemic bias for politics, as Milk snatcher also got deleted not so long back, despite being more long-lasting than the giant sucking sound. Sceptre (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename  per Fuseau above. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United Kingdom general election, 1983, where this content fits comfortably and belongs, since it is not really a discrete topic. If that article grows too long, create United Kingdom general election campaign, 1983 and cover there. If that grows too long, cover at Labour Party campaign campaign, United Kingdom general election, 1983, and in the unlikely event that gets too big, cover just this topic at Labour Party (UK) manifesto, 1983. But we're a long way from that point, and it does no good to break out short, random bits of something that makes far more sense as a coherent whole. - Biruitorul Talk 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirct Agree with Biruitorul. Seems best, given that this article is arguably notable and poorly written, but is something that shouldn't just be deleted. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:00, 11 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.