Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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 of the debate was Merge (4 clear delete votes, 9 clear keep votes, 8 clear merge votes, 2 partial delete votes and 2 partial keep votes) into one article. --Gareth Hughes 15:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Thing, Good Thing, Right Thing, Wrong Thing

Delete or redirect to thing. --Revolución (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, speedy if possible, while opposing redirects as patent nonsense Wikipedia is WP:NOT a usage guide. SYCTHOS^talk 01:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously - these are articles about specific phrases in common use. (Sycthos: They're certainly not patent nonsense or speedy deletion candidiates - please don't bandy those phrases around carelessly.) — sjorford (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, reworded. SYCTHOS^talk 01:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless this is recognized in academic linguistics circles as a unique form. What's next, Take It Easy, Chill Out (as distinct from "chill out"), and No Problem (as distinct from "no problem")? --Interiot 01:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Right Thing and Wrong Thing--Doc ^ask? 01:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Redirect Bad Thing and Good Thing to 1066 and All That--Doc ^ask? 01:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I linked to Right Thing just a few days ago -- on one hand they are jargon file usage, but on the other hand they go into detail far more than just usage information so I think they're properly encyclopedic. --James S. 02:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I've never heard of this and no credible evidence is given that its usage is widespread. Just because a word or phrase is occasionally capitalized for emphasis, does not bring it new meaning. -- Kjkolb 03:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Phrases in widespread use. Reference to the 1066 and All That book is encyclopedic material. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep—at least Good Thing and Bad Thing. Redirecting to a disambiguation page for the word "thing" is ridiculous—these are phrases. I note that recent edits to Good Thing in particular seem to have made it less encyclopedic than it used to be, perhaps some of the deleted material should be brought back. Why was no rationale given for the deletion nomination? --TreyHarris 09:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keeping these would be a Good Thing. Grutness...wha? 09:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although I'd possibly support a merge. Notable concepts, and there's more to the article than the dictionary definitions. Robin Johnson 14:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Deleting these would be a Bad Thing. Also I find it strange that the nominator just says "delete or redirect" without ever specifying why. I could start a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States of America and just say "delete" with the same logic. JIP | Talk 14:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge them all into Good Thing. They're all essentially variations of each other, and the phrases are, together, probably notable enough for a single article. -- Plutor 14:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly merge & redirect to 1066 and all that (one of my favourite books). Anyone who uses these phrases as capitalised knows where they come from, and anyone else has missed the joke. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I use them capitalised, and didn't know where they'd come from. I'm sorry to have missed a joke, but I think the concepts are notable outside of the book. Robin Johnson 16:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Then other sources should be able to be cited, no? --Interiot 16:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be surprised if they couldn't. (And if it turned out they couldn't, I wouldn't defend the articles.) The Jargon File/Hacker's Dictionary springs to mind, if that counts. (If it doesn't count as a decent source in itself, it may well give some pointers to places that do.) Robin Johnson 16:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as I've seen them in use in many contexts, and they are certainly each worthy of an article. Now if I can just get the "Good Thing" song by FYC out of my head... Turnstep 16:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The FYC example is just a phrase that's repeated in the chorous, without any humor, and without particular emphasis (in that it seems to be more of a stand-in for "girl" than anything). The point is not to pick out any memorable chorous line, the point is to explain how These Four Phrases are notable in and of themselves, beyond what normal emphasis/italics or hints of irony can do to any phrase. --Interiot 16:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • My second sentence about FYC was a semi-joke, not related to the first sentence. I've seen them used in non-FYC contexts: they are certainly no longer tightly tied to 1066. Turnstep 18:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge them all as per plutor. is there really anything to say about "good thing" that wont also be said about "bad thing"? stupid to have stubs on each when you could have one decent non-stub article about the "xxx-thing" phenomenon. Zzzzz 19:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (and redirect) per Plutor. Cultural literacy means that you see the reference and get the joke. The information is worth keeping. Smerdis of Tlön 21:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Good Thing and Bad Thing. Merge Right Thing and Wrong Thing. David | Talk 21:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all; strong opinion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-27 21:18Z
• Merge per plutor Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all to Good Thing; anything that can be said about one of these phrases can usefully applied to all of them, in terms of both usage and cultural origins. - squibix 02:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. One could write paragraphs about Martha Stewart's and her company's usage of the term "Good Thing". The term is at the top of every one of her magazines. To my knowledge, she and her company have never used any of the other terms. --TreyHarris 18:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as separate, linked articles. Any attempt to merge into a single article with redirects raises difficulty choosing which to make the main article. Merging to thing misses the whole point. Merging to 1066 and all that or other original source misses other connotations. As another user already stated, deletion would be a Bad Thing. On no account simply delete. RayGates 19:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Right Thing and Wrong Thing. --Avochelm 13:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, particularly Good Thing. This is a phrase in widespread if not exactly common use, and carries connotations of weight beyond the immediately obvious, by reference to 1066 and all that. In 1066 and all that, a Good Thing is something of historical importance that is regarded favourably - with a clear bias. If something is referred to as a Good Thing, it conveys a humourous implication of bias on the part of the author.

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.