Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes

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. - Mailer Diablo 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Series of tubes

This article describes a blunder in a political speech; such blunders occur frequently and are not notable. If "series of tubes" catches on as a neologism, this page should be moved to Wiktionary. Pcu123456789 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator says Move to Wiktionary or delete. -Pcu123456789 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has already caught on. bogdan 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this particular speech blunder is highly notable, as evidenced by the news reactions to it. Look at all the new stories. Dicklyon 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable blunder ::mikm t 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments (by me and others) at Talk:Series of tubes. As both the article and talk page demonstrate, it has certainly caught on, and has been discussed in major media outlets (even the Wikipedia article on series of tubes has been discussed in mainstream media, a newspaper article if memory serves). I fail to see why Wiktionary is a more appropriate venue. Finally, I see little in Wikipedia policy and guidelines that would lend credit to a "delete" argument. The only argument seemingly put forward for deletion in the nomination is a general "notability" argument (without reference to any specific policy or guideline either on notability or something else). This is when the concept of notability (as a general, amorphous, undefined concept) is at its most dangerous. Let's work on not overusing notability as a ground for deletion. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Without this article, archaeologists of 2010 will be unable to decipher blag posts from 2007. Like the Time Cube, "series of tubes" represents a failure of the human mind which has transcended its origins, becoming a substitute for wit in our simulacrum of society. Anville 20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge some vastly reduced version to Ted Stevens. No one will care in 5 years, assuming they do now. Recury 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - You could apply the same deletion reason to You forgot Poland and Internets. It's already become a catchphrase amongst the Internet community, and various media outlets have talked about it. bCube(talk,contribs); 21:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, and that's already been attempted. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You could apply the same deletion reason to those articles, couldn't you? That isn't a very good reason to keep this article, though. Why not vote delete instead to counter systemic bias and recentism? Recury 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This has already gained notability outside the 'net, as evidenced in the article itself. And not just on The Daily Show. -- Kesh 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a very notable phrase, and has been mentioned everywhere. Jayden54 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can we at least pretend to be dealing with the real world? This is not a notable phrase, even if the random Internet junkies on some message board like to toss it about. I remember seeing this on the Daily Show and the Tonight Show, but big deal - it's a new story of passing interest. No need for it to be on WikiNews as it's not news anymore, so time for it to be gone. Then again, I would have expressed an opinion in favor of deleting "You forgot Poland" too, so what do I know? GassyGuy 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with bCube above. This is notable content and should be kept. If you're going to delete this, keep it a standard and remove ALL articles such as Internets, You Forgot Poland, Bushisms, Interweb, Leet, Jeff K, Internet meme (and all related subpages), and pretty much any article with the suffix _(Colloquialism).--Super Jamie 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Collarly, if this is for deletion, you can also remove all Internet Phenomena articles. Group X and The Tron Guy are just as important as Series Of Tubes.--Super Jamie 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't work that way; see WP:INN. Recury 03:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary and delete per nom. Anomo 10:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This had lots of media coverage and is notable. VegaDark 21:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a bad faith nom from a believer of the "Internet is a dumptruck" school of thought. No, but seriously. This had tons of coverage in the mainstream media AND became an Internet meme of sorts. Definitely notable. I don't see how WP:NEO applies to this particular subject. --- RockMFR 05:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It had coverage in the mainstream media because it was an odd comparison. That's what made it news of a lighter variety. That's what would have made it a lovely topic for Wikinews back when it occurred. If this is not in her to document it as a term which folks on the Internet use, then it is being used as the name of a non-notable political speech. Either way, I'm not sure what qualifies it as an encyclopaedic topic. GassyGuy 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep extraordinary amount of coverage. - crz crztalk 15:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable and the page is commonly cited. - Mattva01 21:51 , 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- You can just type ~~~~ to sign your posts; you don't have to use that currenttime template for it. Recury 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am a new user who genuinely learned more about net neutrality through the Wikipedia article. I wanted to learn more - that is why I looked it up on Wikipedia - and "series of tubes" was the phrase I remembered off the top of my head. I hope this article doesn't disappear just because it is connected to a political figure. cpwb2 21:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You too. Recury 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, umm, this isn't worth potentially getting in trouble over, as consensus seems to be leaning heavily toward keep at the moment. Perhaps you could reconsider casting your vote(s). · j e r s y k o talk · 22:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has become an internet meme, akin to Zidane headbutt. -DMurphy 00:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many articles of this nature (Internet slang, semi-common terms) on Wikipedia, and it is an article that helps to showcase a view on things, and a point in time of our own history, however small it may be. Slokunshialgo 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I think I smell WP:SNOW. De facto, it's a breakout of content too large to fit into the Ted Stevens or Net neutrality articles. Its notability is inextricably linked to the notability of the speaker and the issue he was speaking about. --Ssbohio 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable and relevant to the politics of this issue. --^hello,gadr e n 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A microcosm of everything wrong with Wikipedia. Article consists mostly of a bunch of unmemorable quotes from The Daily Show and unenlightening cites to obscure blogs. A paragraph in the Ted Stevens article would have worked just fine. Thunderbunny 20:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too notable to get rid of. --Piemanmoo 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here looking to quote the text. It was the first place I came, and I've used this page on occasions to introduce people to the blunder... I would be very disappointed if it went like so many of my other much-loved articles. User:FarQPwnsME 22:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Informative article, subject has been and continues to be cited in the media. - Minkus 07:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notabel and humerous blunder by the man who understands the internet. Cburnett 16:39, 8 January 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.