Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're fired!


 * 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 delete. A difficult call because quite a few people had recommendations for the article but only a few policy based arguments were presented. Fundamentally WP:NOT carries the day here. Phrases are included on the English Wikipedia if there is encyclopedic content to accompany the definition. As for whether it should become a redirect, there were different opinions on it, but ultimately once deleted, a redirect is an editorial choice and thereby can be decided by the editors subsequently. It should be noted that this page was at one time a disambiguation page before being deleted at WP:MDP. Mkdw talk 03:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

You're fired!

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

not sourced and it doesn't seem to be relevant enough. you can't have articles about phrases, or else the encyclopedia would be infinitely large. I don't know...

Well, I'm looking forward to see opinions on this. FabulousFerd (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: At this point, it's pretty clear we're not keeping this, but totally unclear if it's delete or merge, so I'll let this run for another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on this matter, except to say that you clearly can have articles about phrases, per Category:Phrases. Then again, check out the category description! I don't think I've ever seen one quite like it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Transclude to Termination of employment or Layoff. May violate WP:NOT and the catchphrase section also may violate WP:V. NgYShung  huh? 15:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The phrase is used a catchphrase and a title for a variety of publications and other media. It should be kept as some kind of dab page to help readers get to the topic they are looking for. Andrew D. (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Urban Dictionary, WikiQuote, TVTropes, Catchphrasepedia, etc. There are notable subjects which have uttered those words, and if there's sufficient coverage of them doing so, it could be included in those articles, but we don't need articles about popular phrases for their own sake unless we have a whole lot more coverage of the phrase itself beyond simply usage. A redirect doesn't seem like it makes sense as there's no clear target (especially given the exclamation mark). With Trump in the media quite a bit, the recent coverage might tie it to The Apprentice, but the phrase existed beforehand, and that's not even the only well-known pop culture usage (i.e. recentism). We could redirect to termination of employment, but with the exclamation mark that seems awkward. I'm not quite sure about a dab page, and I think that could be evaluated on its own irrespective of this AfD. After all, the subject of the AfD isn't the article title (except insofar as there's the question of a redirect), but the article subject -- and the article subject is the phrase "you're fired", not a Wikipedia disambiguation. Update: Not opposed to a Soft Redirect to wiktionary:you're fired. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete While we do have plenty of articles on truly notable catchphrases, this doesn't appear to be one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm the one who proposed the deletion, so I'm not sure if my opinion will matter. Anyway, I think that the article is not notable or relevant enough at all. edit: Oh, and by the way, the creator of the article actually created a redirect to The Apprentice (link), so maybe it should have never been an article. FabulousFerd (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC) --Blocked sockpuppet
 * Merge into The Apprentice or Vince McMahon. This article/phrase has been on wikipedia for 10 years and is unfortunately facing the brunt of just one of it's regular users political ambitions, also because Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn pop culture phrases DO have precedence on this website. GuzzyG (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep it is essentially a disambiguation page for one of the most popular catchphrases of the past decade. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wiktionary entry for "you're fired", although I'm not sure what the exact process is for cross-wiki redirects. I think this is best because the phrase is used in different circumstances and by different tv programmes/people, so there's not a "one-size fits all" redirect, but Wiktionary is able to have different usages/examples etc.  Seagull123  Φ  20:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Apprentice. Tired meme.  Montanabw (talk)  22:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's just a phrase. Should we really have an entry for every phrase uttered by someone notable. Generally not encyclopedic. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically, I agree. But a redlink is just clickbait to recreate.   Montanabw (talk)  19:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate. The dab would include a Wiktionary box and links to The Apprentice, The Apprentice: You're Fired!, You're Fired (film) and a see also to Termination of employment and You're Hired (TV series). -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:11, 9 August 2016 (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.