Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whoo hoo! (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to Washington Mutual.  MBisanz  talk 01:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoo hoo!
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Last month this slogan for failed bank Washington Mutual was nominated for deletion, but was kept in a no consensus decision. It has sources, but I think especially after WaMu's nosedive just days after the close of the first nom, sale to JPMorgan Chase and the bailout, things have changed and this slogan hasn't found further notability beyond the usual comics using the line as a punchline to bad jokes. I also don't forsee Chase using it as the words are forever tainted.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple independent sources indicate notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Its a silly waste of time and resources to renominate an article for deletion a month after a previous failed nomination. Another mistake by nom is to confuse Wikipedia with Wikinews. The slogan doesn't have to be in the news on a daily basis for it to be considered notable. Once something is notable it stays notable. During its run, it was a renown slogan. Its fame is amply supported by the substantial media coverage, all the while the media does not usually give advertising slogans any significant coverage (due to conflict of interest problems). The worst case scenario is that the article info will be merged into Washington Mutual. However, the article's size is current the ideal, more information will be probably be added to the bank article, and there already are multiple conversations on the Talk:Washington Mutual regarding the article's size. In addition, an article about an advertising slogan is different than an article about a bank, thus making for an awkward merger. So let's just leave this article alone. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * concur to keep, campaign appears notable. MadScot (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Washington Mutual. It would actually make a good paragraph in the story of the company's last days. One problem with the article as it is now is that in several places Washington Mutual is spoken of as if it were an intelligent being. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - WP:IDONTLIKEIT] is not a valid reason to nomination an article for deletion. This article is contains a number of 3rd party sources, which rule out lack of notability -- Flewis (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Washington Mutual. This is not notable enough for an encyclopedia, fine for a blog or a Usenet post tho. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-20t20:05z
 * Redirect, after merging, I said delete the first time, but a compromise is fine. It was trivial then, and it hasn't gotten any more notable since. DGG (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.   -- raven1977 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- raven1977 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Washington Mutual as part of the history of the bank holding company.Bigturtle (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - We strive to be an encyclopaedia of both historical and current topics. Bad speedy renom to boot. Wily D  13:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redir Same reasons as MacBook Air Ad being redired to MacBook Air. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:34, 22 October 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.