Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000 percent

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. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1000 percent[edit]

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

This phrase is known only for its use in the United States presidential election, 1972, and indeed almost all content in the article is about that election (and not about the phrase, as such). Because we are not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT), the information that it means "highly enthusiastic support" and "became a byword for foolish and insincere exaggeration" is better suited to Wiktionary, together with the usage examples, and the rest of the content belongs into articles about the election. Sandstein 13:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true to claim the phrase is known "only" for its use in 1972. The articles gives examples from well-known writers in the 1950s. It's a standard POLITICAL phrase. 1) Harry Truman used the term in his 1956 Memoirs long before the 1972 election: [ with the “1000 percent support”of Senator Wherry] 2) Politicians in 1954: Thomas had pledged "1000-percent" support for McCarthy, "his objectives, and his methods." [Thomas C. Reeves - 1997] 3) support for a war: profound reluctance to get involved in just about any military endeavor that was not a clear win, that did not have 1,000 percent support of the American people [Georgie Anne Geyer - 2015]; 5) support for victims: "Holocaust compensation was sounded by Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California. While registering “1000 percent” support “to get justice for all of the victims" [Norman G. Finkelstein - 2003]; 6) 10) Congressional support for a bill: We want to go on record here today in 100 percent, indeed 1000 percent support of the bill by Rep. Joel T. Broyhill [United States Senate. Committee on the Judiciary - 1974]. Going beyond politics we have many examples: 7) support for a spouse: "I would have expected 1000 percent support from my husband and yet I got none." [Margaret A. Heffernan - 2004]; 8) supporting missionaries: "Thanks to both of you for your 1000 percent support on this journey." [Emmanual M. Kolini, ‎Peter R. Holmes - 2010]; 9) at work place: “I never lost a dime in salary, never anything other than 1,000 percent support,” she says. “That's a debt of gratitude I never will be able to pay back.” [Joseph Coleman - 2015]; 10) the boss: "You must have 1000 percent support from the CEO" [Frank Pacetta, ‎Roger Gittines - 1995]; 11) for children "and as long as they are positive then we as a family will give them 1000 percent support." [Cincinnati Magazine - Feb 2000 - Page 109] Rjensen (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Rjensen (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD— and is 1000% behind this article (sorry, couldn't resist). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, no matter how many occurrences one can cite, I have a hard time accepting at any occurrence of > 100% is notable here. I'm thinking of such expressions as "giving 110%," and so on. These may well be dictionary entries, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would even be dubious about including this in wiktionary, but if it belongs anywhere, it's there. As it stands it's basically a definition and some examples of usage, which we could come up with for thousands of phrases, and I don't believe a compendium of phrases is one of the purposes of Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adding an extra zero to 100% is not sufficient cause for an article.10000% and 1000000% would likewise be out. Artw (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki rule is that: a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. WP:WORDISSUBJECT the answer to that is yes: One RS wrote: "the '1,000 percent phrase' is possibly the most damaging single faux pas ever". Trent, Judith S., and Jimmie D. Trent. "The rhetoric of the challenger: George Stanley McGovern." Communication Studies 25#1 (1974): 11-18. Also see detailed enycylopedic coverage by William Safire, Safire's New Political Dictionary (1993) pp 796-7; and Josh Chetwynd (2016) The Field Guide to Sports Metaphors: A Compendium of Competitive Words and Idioms pp. 9–10; as well as a full-length scholarly book that uses the term on 20 pages : Glasser, Joshua M. Eighteen-Day Running Mate: McGovern, Eagleton, and a Campaign in Crisis (Yale University Press, 2012). Rjensen (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Of course you've omitted the beginning of that sentence, which is: "In some cases..." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it fits this case well. Its 1972 use is one of the most important faux pas in history --dictionaries never say things like that! and the claim that it is limited to the 1972 election is just false. Babe Ruth was using it in 1920s ["let's bat 1000%"] Rjensen (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well, look, I won't belabour my !vote. But the Babe probably said, 'let's go get 'em boys' and a thousand other things. And I'd argue that "batting 1000%" is different because he's riffing on batting .300 or .400. Anyway, we shall see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"1000%" has a literal meaning in the dictionaries (= a multiply by 10) and a figurative meaning in the history books and in literature and for Babe Ruth: as a metaphor it means very high emphasis, or enthusiastic support. It's widely used in politics as the pre-1960 cites to Truman, McCarthy, Allan Drury show. Since 1972 it also has a sarcastic use. ("he said 1000% but he really gave no support at all") The main dictionaries like OED and Webster's 3rd do not mention this usage. The 1000% term meets the Wiki notability criterion so I think the complaints all vanish.

Delete as I'm not seeing enough information about the phrase itself, other than in the context of particular examples, and other than as an example of what could just as well be 110%, 1000000%, 2000%. It's mathematical, a malapropism, or a way of expressing enthusiasm or unquestionable support, but in any of those cases it's one of many ways to do so, has some specifically noteworthy examples, but itself is not a distinct encyclopedic subject. I do have a question about whether this content can be used elsewhere. Perhaps there's a common subject mathematically nonsensical support? :) I'm not terribly familiar with the inclusion policies of Wikiquote, but could it support a page on the phrase? There's an awful lot to get it started, here. I wouldn't be opposed to Userfying while figuring out if it can be used elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think comments should be based on the Wiki rule: The wiki rule is that: a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. Notability. it is not true that "it could just as well be 110%, 1000000%, 2000%" -- we have a term that unlike them is unique and notable ["possibly the most damaging single faux pas ever" says RS] and is covered in numerous RS in fields such as politics & sports. Rjensen (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. And I am not seeing the kind of coverage that makes this an encyclopedic subject. I see documented usage. I see talk of particular uses. Where is the in depth coverage of the term, rather than e.g. an example of its use where it could've been any other "enthusiastic support" cliche? What unites the various usages? What is there to say about the topic if you remove specific uses? In e.g. the McGovern example, where is the term itself being discussed apart from its significance in the context of his withdrawal of support? The faux pas was not use of the term, it was expressing enthusiastic support and then withdrawing it, right? That he said it and that it was remarked upon is not coverage of the term itself sufficient to turn it into an encyclopedic subject -- it just makes a particular usage (among others) well documented, appropriate for inclusion in a quote book, dictionary, or particular examples in articles about their contexts (like the article about the campaign). I admit it's an awfully difficult thing to search for sources on, and I may have missed some of what you're referring to, so would be happy to take a look, but I haven't seen evidence of the term passing WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the test of notability is when multiple RS from multiple sources cover it, as happens here. Various critics have given other examples above but none of which get any notability scores whatever. Wikipedia is about notability and that is judged by all the cited RS. Rjensen (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the 1972 usage passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT. See in particular this book which states "The instantly famous "thousand percent" phrase laid the groundwork for the Nixon campaign's charge that McGovern was, as one of their attack ads graphically showed, a weathervane." This article is well-sourced, and at the very worst the relevant parts might be merged into articles related to the 1972 election. If kept as a standalone article it might be trimmed back a bit, to focus on the election incident. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with George McGovern presidential campaign, 1972. Outside of that campaign, the article is just a list of examples, with original analysis. Margalob (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. I wouldn't particularly mind merging this, but this phrase, especially in its relation to George McGovern and the 1972 president election, makes it notable and significant enough for its own article. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – If there is something to WP:PRESERVE, possibly redirect to a relevant section of United States presidential election, 1972. — JFG ^talk 02:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I think it is best to keep this article, if the decision is to delete, I recommend merging to United States presidential election, 1972. The info pertaining to McGovern and the 1972 election seems too notable to delete outright. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one of the 1972 presidential campaigns, either the main page or McGovern's. If it is notable in that context, which seems uncontested by the delete !votes, we can have the content there (and summarizing the non-1972 examples to a short phrase indicating later usage) and avoid dealing with whether there is standalone notability for the phrase. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. the articles makes clear that the political use is not the only significant use, so a merge is inappropriate. -- DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 28 August 2016 (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.