Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumping the couch

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). For those interested my vote count shows 9 to delete, 5 to keep which is short of a two-thirds majority anyway. Furthermore, there is agreement that "Jumping the couch" is a neologism, but the keep voters are arguing that this neologism is notable for some reason, and have backed it up with some evidence. Second, there is at least one delete vote which wants part of the article moved to Jumping the shark, this would probably require at least a redirect to be left behind to remain GFDL compliant. I also get the impression that many of the complaints to this article is that it is awfully similar to the more common "Jumping the Shark" phrase. I would like to point out that my closing of this debate as a "keep" does not mean that it's impossible to merge this article with something else if anybody will be bold and do it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping the couch[edit]

Seems to me to be not-notable. A google search for 'Jumping the couch' and any of the examples name's gives three hits or less. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism. Some of it could be moved to Jumping the shark, as the phrases are so similar that they may be used in many of the same situations. --Several Times 14:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let alone UrbanDictionary. --BradBeattie 15:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism. Hamster Sandwich 18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no different than jumping the shark. It also received a front page link on IMDb yesterday. -user:Fallout_boy
  • Delete, neologism. --Carnildo 23:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Jumping the shark" is not a neologism, whereas "jumping the couch" is. Also, the examples used are highly POV. Punkmorten 14:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the examples are highly POV right now. Sounds like a vote against the content of the article, instead of a vote against the article itself. -Macuxi 03:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think we could even get a little more people on this list. It amuses me. -GamblinMonkey 20:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hardy think 'it amuses me' is a good reason to keep. Surely this is BJAODN? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:58, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Oh, fine. It's non-notable (unless the phrase actually catches on someday) and very opinionated. Despite its humor, it should be done away with. -GamblinMonkey 15:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. JamesBurns 04:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move an example or two to Jumping the shark, which already has a sentence to explain the phenomena - "Hein also uses the 'jumping the shark' concept to describe other areas of pop culture, such as music and celebrities, for whom a drastic change was the beginning of the end." --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 05:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a neologism, so what? I think we need a bit of everything here. Purple Rose 13:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was recently featured on imdb.com's daily news [1]. Yes, it is definitely neologism, but I think this term is gaining enough notability (and notoriety) to be kept here. --Deathphoenix 18:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This particular neologism is getting a fair amount of press coverage, and gets far more hits than indicated above. Seems to indicate "realistic evidence of existence". In time, this phrase may just fizzle out, but it's too early to tell. -Macuxi 03:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At this point, I can't consider this a term so much as it is a current media joke: it's a pun-- the equivallent of having an article about a quip that Letterman said last night in his monologue. It might catch on as slang but even if it did, this article would only serve as a dictionary definition followed by POV examples. BarkingDoc
  • Keep, and for three reasons.
  1. The assertion that this article's topic is "not notable," especially when that assertion is not backed up with evidence or argument, is no reason to delete this entry. There are many entries in Wikipedia that most people would not consider notable. That gives us no reason to delete those entries, however. Wikipedia aspires to be a collection of all human knowledge, whether that knowledge is notable or not. Indeed, perhaps the more esoteric an entry is, the more useful it is; it serves a purpose that is likely not served elsewhere on the web.
  2. That the article is allegedly POV is absolutely no reason to delete it. If it's POV, then alter it so that it's neutral. Many people believe the entry on President Bush is POV. Does that give us a reason to delete that article, though? An article's non-neutrality is no reason, by itself, to delete the article.
  3. The fact that this entry has been referenced by another website, and a significant one at that, is further proof that this entry is serving a useful purpose. Shouldn't we be doing everything to make sure that Wikipedia is a popular and frequently used reference source? Deleting this article would be doing precisely the opposite.

Hydriotaphia 17:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment on the last post - In reply to your points
      1. The pressure should be on the keep camp to prove notabilty. NOT on the delete camp to prove non-notabilty. Proving notabilty (if notable) should be a lot easier, anyway.
      2. I agree here. POV article should be edited, no deleted. Non-notable articles should be deleted.
      3. I personally wouldn't consider being linked to by one site (even a major one) proof that the article is notable. However, I can understand that others would. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)
Reply. Curious. Why should the burden of proof be on the "keep" camp? Because of the open-endedness of the Wikipedia project, it seems to me only natural that the burden of proof for non-notability should be on the "delete" camp. Please explain. Hydriotaphia 06:22, August 11, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jumping_the_couch&oldid=1080183374"