Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of catchphrases

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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of catchphrases

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contrary to the leader in the article "List of catchphrases is not for a favorite quote, it contains catchphrases that meet the wp:notability guidelines..." I believe this is just a list of favorite quotes, with no indications of notability on the quotes (although some quotes clearly are), and the scope of this article is potentially insane (any media, any culture). Not encyclopedic. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary WP:CFORK of catchphrase. We were working on narrowing the scope and inclusion criteria for a list of catchphrases on this article's talk page and this editor copy-pasted some parts to start this new article, without mentioning it to the rest of us. Elizium23 (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Note that WP:CFORK states that "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." - deletion is therefore not an appropriate action. Note also that the topic has great notability - see Patridge, for example. Note also that we have a substantial category which is directly equivalent and so, per WP:CLN, a list is valid too. Warden (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just search Google News Archive for the word "catchphrase" and any listed catchphrase and you can find results. I added a reference to one. Google book search will probably have more. Books and news articles have been written about the Simpsons, and surely someone has mentioned these notable catchphrases. [1] is a good place to start. Dream Focus 20:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list certainly needs a better lead section, which describes criteria for inclusion in ordinary prose without the inside-baseball link to WP:NOTABILITY, but that is clean-up, not grounds for deletion. Discussion at Talk:Catchphrase seems to be an appropriate move in that direction. There was a list in Catchphrase that was split off when this page was created, and perhaps that needs to be made clearer for attribution and license reasons. The editor who created the page may have been premature in creating a stand-alone list, but again that is not clear grounds for deletion. Cnilep (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apologies to user:Elizium23 for jumping the gun and moving the list of "potential" catchphrases. It was not my intention to offend. However upon looking into the subject I concluded that WP:NOTCATALOG applied to the catchphrase article, and according to precedent a list class article under the wiki project popular culture was in order. The same work on narrowing the scope and inclusion criteria for the list of catchphrases needs to be undertaken. I have worked on the wictionary article to further refine the definition of a catchphrase in accord with the definitions at the following external link. The consensus among those sources appears to be that a catchphrase:

1) attract attention

2) originaties in popular culture

3) is associated with a famous person or character

4) may come to identify the person or character responsible for it

This refinement is necessary to eliminate quotes, slogans, catchwords, idioms, neologisms etc. from the list. The same can be said for the List of political catch phrases. -- Cdw ♥'s ♪ ♫(talk) 02:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have categories for both catchphrases and political catchphrases. having a list of them is a reasonable alternative to the categories, as long as there is some effort made to describe them (source, etc) in the stand alone list article. This list is mostly unsourced, and should only be items which have a linked article, significant article section ("hes dead jim" is an example of that), or are not linked but have references showing notability as a catchphrase. If this stems from an editing dispute, thats definitely no reason for an AFD. I think having the list (and the political catch phrase list, which is much better sourced) separate from the article on the subject makes sense in terms of keeping each article or list readable, so this is not a content fork. All these articles need much better oversight and trimming of crufty material, but again thats no reason for deletion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noteworthy, educational, and of encyclopedic value to society. — Cirt (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list organizes and classifies the various catchphrases movies and shows use everyday, there is no clear grounds for deletion here. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2011 (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.