Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're either with us, or against us


 * 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 per WP:HEY. Perfectly good article, neutral tone, with good cites. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You're either with us, or against us
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a sentiment that has been stated several times throughout history by various people, real and fictitious. It's not a logical fallacy, as the article itself notes; and it's not a biblical quote (just a paraphrasing of one), so it's really just a phrase. Phrases per se don't belong in Wikipedia, or else we'd have thousands of articles like "The grass is greener on the other side". Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article consists mostly of a list with an intro that smacks of original research. All the references are for the quotes. I don't think this should be its own article. --clpo13(talk) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a widely used quote, but not enough for an encyclopedic article. This is merely a regurgitation of occasions in which the phrase was used, dashed with some original research. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only is there a severely questionable level of notability, but there is a significant amount of original research, with virtually no references. The only references of the article are sources of examples of usage of the quote, but there are no sources about the quote itself. Calgary (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to false dilemma.  Matt Yeager   ♫  (Talk?)  23:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 00:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as the phrase actually turned up hits on Academic Search Primer. I added some relevant sources to the article and cleaned up some grammar.  Anyway per our First Pillar policy, articles on phrases and expressions are consistent with specialized encyclopedias.  See here and here for example.  As you can see phrases and quotations have been covered in dozens if not hundreds of published specialized encyclopedia.  Thus, the topic is incredibly encyclopedic per our First pillar.  Thus, while the article should be cleaned up further, the point is that it can be cleaned up per the sources available in that first Amazon.com search result and is absolutely consistent enough with traditional encyclopedic standards to merit inclusion.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - In response to you saying "Thus, the topic is incredibly encyclopedic per our First pillar": The word "encyclopedic" has a static definition, meaning that what is and is not encyclopedic is immutable outside of the opinions of the editors here. Something is not granted "encyclopedicness points" by this so-called First Pillar of Wikipedia. This is related the concept set forth in The Emperor's New Clothes; if an article is a piece of crap and irrelevant, it's a piece of crap and irrelevant...no matter what a Wikipedia policy says. As it says in WP:IAR, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I would expand on that to say this: I don't think there's anything wrong with any of the Wikipedia policies. If you think that a Wikipedia policy is saying something which conflicts with improving Wikipedia, then you're reading of the policy is incorrect. Not the policy. Either way, you can set your conscience (if you have one) free via the spirit of WP:IAR. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The topic is indeed encyclopedic per our policies and there is absolutely zero benefit to our project in deleting it, nor is there any good, valid, or logical reason for doing so. This is a fine article about an encyclopedic topic that satisfies our policies regarding inclusion an dthat is entirely releveant.  If nothing else we should keep per WP:IAR, i.e. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."   Deleting this article prevents us from improving and maintaining Wikipedia and so we most keep this useful, interesting, verfiable, and encyclopedic article.  Happy Easter!  --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This comes down to personal definitions of "improving" and "maintaining"; definitions on which, I am surmising, we don't agree. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete At best, this is a user-collected group of un-related quotations, complete with an O.R. introduction. That seems, to me, to violate at least one Wiki policy -- namely O.R. In addition, it seems irrelevant, un-professional, and non-contributory overall to the encyclopedia. Like User:Korny O'Near put it: "Phrases, per se, don't belong on Wikipedia, or else we'd have thousands of articles like 'The grass is always greener on the other side'." Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no actual policy violations though and phrases per se do indeed belong in Wikipedia and there is no reason why a paperless encyclopedia should not have thousands of articles on them. Having such articles provides a great reference and research tool in a manner not found anywhere else.  Happy Easter!  --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several policies which address this issue in different veins: Wikipedia isn't a repository. Of any kind -- of lists, of images, of recipes, or quotes or idioms or anything else. 'The disk space' argument is old and has already been invalidated. The fact that we have [essentially] limitless disk space doesn't mean that everything flies. Things which are non-notable, poorly-written, plagiarized, un-cited, original research, and/or any number of other things or combinations thereof, are routinely deleted from Wikipedia in keeping with the goal to create a well-written, professional encyclopedia (a word which inherently encompasses things like "no original research", "proper citations", etc). Synthesizing quotes from various sources to form an article about a topic which does not stand on its own is, itself, original research; and that's what this article is (to say nothing of the O.R. intro). Having the advantage of disk space instead of paper, Wikipedia has the ability to contain excellent articles about many more topics than what could viably be covered in a paper encyclopedia. That does not, however, mean that quality-control standards should (or shall) go down. It's like with people -- the fact that you can breed and have kids, doesn't mean you should. Not all limits need to be tested; not all abilities need to be utilized endlessly. Certainly not in situations such as this where the quality and professionalism of Wikipedia would suffer in the balance. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article tends to fulfill all of our policies quite well. An encyclopedia is exactly a repository of lists, images, quotes, etc., it's a compendium of information.  The phrase is well documented, verifiable, certainly notable and phrases are covered by even paper encyclopedias.  All articles can be improved, but as the article does not offer a thesis, it is not original research.  With thousands of new editors joining weekly, we can maintain and improve articles in regards to quality quite fine.  Happy Easter!  --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you're still wrong. You keep saying that this article doesn't violate any policies, which makes me think you aren't personally familiar with our policies. Review WP:NOT (What Wikipedia is not). Note things such as "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" (in light of you saying "An encyclopedia is exactly a repository of lists, images, quotes, etc.", that stands as prima facie evidence that you're clueless about Wikipedia policies). FURTHERMORE, scroll down on that page to where it says "Wikipedia is not a directory", and guess what's #1 on the list? "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms ..." -- again, that's what THIS article is, which is why it needs to be deleted. Also note that, again as I said before, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". So the next time you want to talk about policy, and make statements like "this article doesn't violate policy", please make sure you actually know what you're talking about first. Things like this are a waste of time, and can be confusing to new editors. Again, I vote to delete this article. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article is not a list of "loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms". This article is about a specific philosophical principle and how it has been applied, used, characterized, etc, in history and literature.  If you put this phrase in a list of other phrases, then THAT list might be a list of "loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms".  --JJLatWiki (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - As just another phrase, this is probably one of the most notable of our time. When Senator Clinton and then President Bush used it, it was to do exactly what the phrase is intended to do, polarize the audience and force them to make a decision.  If Bush had said, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" in response to the 9/11 attacks, then "You're either with us, or against us" would not warrant its own article.  That's not what happened, and this phrase became the backdrop of a significant shift in US foreign policy that continues to polarize nations, politicians, and the citizens of those nations.  That said, I would LOVE to have experts in philosophy and political science beef up this article AND with some solid references.  --JJLatWiki (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article isn't about Bush or his foreign policies. Or about Hillary Clinton, and her response to the 9/11 attacks. And both of those things are TOTALLY irrelevant to this article's conformity (or lack thereof) to Wikipedia policy, as well as how well it does (or doesn't) fit into and contribute to the encyclopedia as a whole. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Of course this article isn't about Bush (although that's how it started). But that is how it became notable.  Prior to Bush, it was used only rarely in any kind of writing.  But after Bush used it, the phrase/idiom/sentiment is used frequently in all types of works because it is now much more meaningful and well understood and has become an internationally controversial foreign policy doctrine.  It is part of the zeitgeist and will probably remain that way for years, if not decades to come.  As such, it is much more than just another phrase or "sentiment that has been stated several times throughout history by various people, real and fictitious".  --JJLatWiki (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename He who is not with me is against me (taking Jesus as more canonical than Gaston (Beauty and the Beast)). This article should be considered as a stub-class historical development of a commonly and widely expressed thought (announcing lack of middle ground); for a polished example of this class, see ethic of reciprocity. Considered in this class, it should (and does) read like a historical review of usages that might appear, abbreviated, in Bartlett's. It is certainly WP:N, certainly encyclopedic, it was both of those before 9/11, and if there is WP:OR in a couple sentences that is not a deletion argument. The other deletion arguments read to me like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and wikilawyering. Also, this is an excellent add to Category:Political catch phrases. I will also add a critical source. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There are many common phrases, but I am not sure that they need articles. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  19:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sure that common phrases do need articles. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:46, 25 March 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.