Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Thing and Bad Thing (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Thing and Bad Thing

This has been marked with {{unreferenced}} for nearly two years, and seems aside from one sentence to be patent original research and just plain...well...stupid, to quote User:SeizureDog from the first AFD. Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 06:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reason these phrases need an encyclopedia entry. Somno (talk) 10:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article seems to be substantially copied from an entry in the New Hacker's Dictionary, alias the Jargon File; the usage is arguably highly notable, and it's one of the expressions from 1066 and All That that has caught on most lastingly. However, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so the article should probably be deleted, even though I'm sure it can be better referenced than this. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not much has changed since the last time this was nominated. The "unreferenced" tag is in fact inappropriate here; the article mentions several sources in its text. The history of the page goes back to 2002, revealing that this was in fact a part of the Jargon File information that was added to the encyclopedia at the dawn of the project. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It mentioned one at the time I nominated this, and it still mentions one (it's just that it's now an inline). I know WP:NOEFFORT is supposedly a bad argument, but it's true in this case, and I just don't see the point of this article in the slightest (not even how other people might find a point in it). Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 07:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination is a Bad Thing. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to cite any policy as to why, or to further improve the article? Don't fall asleep ^zzzzzz 07:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant policy is WP:IMPERFECT. I have already improved the article and might do more. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic. So Good Thing means a good thing, and Bad Thing means a bad thing. May be worth a mention in Wiktionary if capitalising letters for emphasis is really all that remarkable, but doesn't merit an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently unencyclopiedic. A ni Mate 03:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is my least favorite article on Wikipedia. I absolutely hate it. I wish we could fill it with natural gas and float it over a lit candle. And if we couldn't do that, then maybe we could get Gallagher to bring his big ol' watermelon-smashing hammer and smash it. So, basically, I just don't like it, and that's a bad thing. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:42, 16 September 2008 (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.