Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political catch phrases

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 no consensus.. CitiCat^♫ 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of political catch phrases

Non-encyclopedic jumble of random phrases. Hopelessly biased towards the present day and to "Anglo-Saxon" political figures. Bigdaddy1981 08:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft, could not serve as navigation, not able to catagorise and this is what we have our sister project for. Pedro | Chat 10:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote (assuming they'll take it). Not really suitable for Wikipedia, as the nominator points out, but could be useful somewhere. Hut 8.5 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I enjoy memorable statements and funny statements and quotable quotes, etc., this list was created simply to be added to by visitors. A "catch phrase" is something that a person says often (as with "perfectly clear" by Nixon), or that has been repeated often enough in the media that it becomes the basis for an imitation ("read my lips"). The real problem with this is that it's got two sources. Yeah, I know, you think everyone's heard of every one of these, but you can't put come up with a lousy footnote? That's why these things are misquoted so often, nobody wants to take the time to verify. Mandsford 18:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very encyclopedic (over a dozen of these have articles), and the fact it demonstrates systemic bias is not a criteria for deletion by any definition. Circeus 02:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics about this. Circeus 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- By the way, pray tell how this article violates WP:NPOV ("hopelessly biased")?? Circeus 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 18:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Information here may be better sorted on the pages of each individual. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 18:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Send it to Wikitionary These quotes are better off there (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivial quotes).--PrestonH 18:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a whole, transwiki to Wikiquote as suggested explicitly above by Pedro and Hut 8.5 and implicitly by PrestonH. In parts, put specific quotes on speaker's article page. -- Lisasmall 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no objective criterea for which quotes make it onto this list -- I see quotes that are funny, stupid, profound, clever, egomaniacal, etc. Inclusion is completely arbitrary. Cap'n Walker 19:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote if they'll take it, or delete it. This is a collection of trivia, possibly original research. Some of these are really "catch phrases" but famous lines. Useight 22:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote, if there isn't an article like this already on there. There are 'Bushism' pages and such on WQ, so I see no reason for this being suitable. It's definitely not WP material. --Joffeloff 18:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Circeus. Many many of these already have wikipedia articles on them. Mathmo ^Talk 04:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonencyclopedic list. JIP | Talk 07:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is definitely not something for Wiktionary, because the phrases are well-known and have been influential for the society. They are not mere dictionary definitions, many of the phrases actually have articles written about them and their impact. Mel sa ran 12:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Firstly, we're talking about transwiki to Wikiquote, not Wiktionary. Secondly, there is no talk of deleting the phrases that have articles about them. Making a link on Wiktionary or Wikiquote directly to Wikipedia is very simple. --Joffeloff 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is useful general content. WP is not the online version of (for example) Encyclopedia Americana, but rather IMO the Encyclopedia of the People. Just because I personally have no use for the Encyclopedia Americana's article on the brown recluse (EA 4:639a) does not mean it should be deleted. However, there should be some criteria established to avoid endless proliferation of phrases one person finds interesting. As a suggestion, perhaps we could require a catch phrase to be annotated with two independent uses in the media to validate its status as a "true" catch phrase. Frazmi 05:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.