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.
Non-notable term, not subject to significant coverage in any of the listed sources. Much of the article is original research.
Amisom (
talk) 10:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
keep We have broadsheet coverage in the Guardian and the Telegraph. We had a live use of it in the BBC (but you keep removing that citation). It's rife in Private Eye, and the fact that such uses aren't specifically cited as yet is a need to add citations (and they're widespread in the Eye), not to delete the whole article. You keep claiming "Much of the article is original research.", but haven't stated what. I can understand why non-UK editors might be unfamiliar with this term because it is a local joke and very likely unknown outside the UK, but that's no reason either.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 11:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
What "broadsheet coverage"? None of it is about the term. None of it discusses the term
directly and in detail. There are examples of the term being used by the media, but that just goes to prove that
it exists, not that it's notable. See also
WP:NOT#DICT.
Amisom (
talk) 15:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep There is a topic here but it needs work to generalise it, per
WP:BROAD. For example, I have a friend who was never seen Star Wars and so doesn't know much about it while, today, I heard an interview with a young woman who didn't know about The (other) Avengers. The general concept might be called being
out of touch but notice that this currently directs to a track that I have never heard of. Commonplace concepts like this should be properly covered by the world's greatest encyclopedia.
Andrew D. (
talk) 17:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
They shoudl only be covered if they're notable...
Amisom (
talk) 18:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Call it an idiom, a meme, a trope... it is the job of an encyclopedia to record and explain it. --
Mervyn (
talk) 07:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Laosilika: Which sources contain "significant coverage" of the term? As it stands your vote is classsic
WP:ITSNOTABLE.
Amisom (
talk) 12:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - not a notable phrase - the Derivation section has an uncited origin in a 1960s courtroom and there is a seemingly unrelated reference to
Lady Chatterley's Lover - and the lead contains a link to a disambiguation page - but content aside, this topic is definitely trivial and non-notable -
Epinoia (
talk) 02:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. I've known the term for at least 50 years, but didn't know until today that the origin is probably an urban legend. That is useful and encyclopaedic information, well supported by the sources. The comparison with the Lady Chatterley trial is in one of the sources. Links to DAB pages are no reason to delete (if it were, I could nominate 4,806 articles, which is today's count). I cannot see any
WP:OR This nomination strikes me as
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Narky Blert (
talk) 10:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Narky Blert: Which if the sources listed in the article contain
significant coverage of the term? Ie which of them explore the term "directly and in detail"? Ready when you are.
Amisom (
talk) 10:33, 6 May 2019 (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.
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.
Non-notable term, not subject to significant coverage in any of the listed sources. Much of the article is original research.
Amisom (
talk) 10:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
keep We have broadsheet coverage in the Guardian and the Telegraph. We had a live use of it in the BBC (but you keep removing that citation). It's rife in Private Eye, and the fact that such uses aren't specifically cited as yet is a need to add citations (and they're widespread in the Eye), not to delete the whole article. You keep claiming "Much of the article is original research.", but haven't stated what. I can understand why non-UK editors might be unfamiliar with this term because it is a local joke and very likely unknown outside the UK, but that's no reason either.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 11:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
What "broadsheet coverage"? None of it is about the term. None of it discusses the term
directly and in detail. There are examples of the term being used by the media, but that just goes to prove that
it exists, not that it's notable. See also
WP:NOT#DICT.
Amisom (
talk) 15:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep There is a topic here but it needs work to generalise it, per
WP:BROAD. For example, I have a friend who was never seen Star Wars and so doesn't know much about it while, today, I heard an interview with a young woman who didn't know about The (other) Avengers. The general concept might be called being
out of touch but notice that this currently directs to a track that I have never heard of. Commonplace concepts like this should be properly covered by the world's greatest encyclopedia.
Andrew D. (
talk) 17:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
They shoudl only be covered if they're notable...
Amisom (
talk) 18:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Call it an idiom, a meme, a trope... it is the job of an encyclopedia to record and explain it. --
Mervyn (
talk) 07:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Laosilika: Which sources contain "significant coverage" of the term? As it stands your vote is classsic
WP:ITSNOTABLE.
Amisom (
talk) 12:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete - not a notable phrase - the Derivation section has an uncited origin in a 1960s courtroom and there is a seemingly unrelated reference to
Lady Chatterley's Lover - and the lead contains a link to a disambiguation page - but content aside, this topic is definitely trivial and non-notable -
Epinoia (
talk) 02:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. I've known the term for at least 50 years, but didn't know until today that the origin is probably an urban legend. That is useful and encyclopaedic information, well supported by the sources. The comparison with the Lady Chatterley trial is in one of the sources. Links to DAB pages are no reason to delete (if it were, I could nominate 4,806 articles, which is today's count). I cannot see any
WP:OR This nomination strikes me as
WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Narky Blert (
talk) 10:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Narky Blert: Which if the sources listed in the article contain
significant coverage of the term? Ie which of them explore the term "directly and in detail"? Ready when you are.
Amisom (
talk) 10:33, 6 May 2019 (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.