Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Thing and Bad Thing

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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Thing and Bad Thing

I'm struggling to find the words to say. This article just seems so stupid. They're just common words that happen to end up said together, how does that warrant an article? What next? articles for good boy, good time, and good job? In technical terms, the article seems to be nothing more than dictdefs and an impossible to prove ~~entomology~~ etymology. I mean can you seriously prove who the first person to use the term "good thing" was? SeizureDog 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless I'm missing something here. How the has this survived for 5 YEARS? That's a Bad Thing. Deleting it would be a Good Thing. Croxley 05:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They were originally four separate articles, an AFD debate a year ago merged them all in here. Hbdragon88 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, ORy. MaxSem 06:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Deleting this would be a good thing, keeping it would be a bad thing. Am I using them correctly? Bobanny 08:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1066 and All That per Sjakkalle. Even if this is reworked, it still amounts to a usage guide entry. Merging would also add to the significance of 1066 and All That in that article, which is currently pretty slim. Bobanny 17:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to 1066 and All That, which is the book these phrases came from. The terms are in broad usage, and probably of some etymological interest, but I'll agree that the lack of sourcing is a Bad Thing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this appears to depend heavily on the Jargon File - all four terms have entries there and the bicycle couriers joke is 'borrowed' with only a little updating for changed technology. The article needs sourcing and rewriting to survive. -- BPMullins | Talk 13:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that the result of a prior AfD led directly to the creation of this article. Nothing really has changed since then. Not sure what this has to do with entomology, but I do believe that 1066 and All That is in fact the source of these phrases, since that book uses them frequently as vague, conclusory value judgments on all sorts of historical events (and that's the joke). - Smerdis of Tlön 14:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Smerdis. I think the last AfD got it wrong. It would be better to have a single article under the title Bad Thing, covering all four terms and with the other three redirecting there. Add citations to the Jargon File which provides the support for 1066 and All That as the source and things will be neater. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it Delete it hard. 4kinnel 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 1066_and_All_That. The phrase as discussed here is fairly commonly used in this specific sense in the UK, particularly in the music press, but I can't see anyone thinking to search for it as an article. - Iridescenti 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is sounds like WP:OR. I have heard the phrase used as "A Good Thing and [A] Bad Thing" or "A Good Thing [or A] Bad Thing". I think this page is kind of useless as a search would not end up there. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or in the worst case transwiki), phrase(s) used relatively often, not quite clear without knowing the background.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all other delete votes. The fact that a previous AFD resulted in the creation of this nonsense is immaterial. Consensus can change so if consensus turns against this junk, good. Or should I say Good Thing? Otto4711 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Ioannes Pragensis reason and per all other keep votes reasoningOo7565 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, weaker, weakest delete Using capitals is a means towards the end of creating expressive language in a textual environment. It is an important thing. I use "Good Thing" all the time in digital communication. BUT....Wikipedia is not The Jargon File. News of this Thing belongs there. Ezratrumpet 03:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 1066_and_All_That per Iridescenti. Mike Christie (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is still a bit of a mess, but it is not inherently unsuitable, "Original Research" about "common words that happen to end up said together", and all that. I would support a rename to simply Good Thing: those who say that the combination title would never be searched for are probably right; it is not common. I think, however, that a merge to 1066 could lose other uses. Best, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I've actually come across this article while surfing Wikipedia in the past... or, rather, the previous article that got merged as a result of the previous AfD. AfD closers should think more about what they're doing before finalizing a decision - this one's now resulted in a rolling delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or move to good thing). Incoming links show that it is a common enough term in talk pages, and so notable outside Wikipedia in peoples expressions of opinion. It is more than a dictionary etymology, and needs to be explained encyclopedicly. But it shouldn't unbalance the 1066 and all that article. --Audiovideo 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. It was only upon reading this AFD that I realised that the article wasn't a joke. Or maybe it is and it hasn't been noticed yet. Suriel1981 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean Up. This could be a good article with a little work put into it. .V. _[_Talk|Email] 04:12, 1 April 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.