Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourteen Words

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. CitiCat ♫ 05:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fourteen Words

Fourteen Words (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability unproven, doesn't really say anything or add to the encyclopedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep Pretty notable I'd say, don't understand your reasoning re. the add anything to the encyclopedia argument.RMHED 02:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Its clearly not a speedy anything and I meant exactly what I said, it adds nothing. It has certainly taught me nothing yet I had never heard of the term and that is the first article I can say that about in my years here, also its not at all notable, being Fringe. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
      • You say you'd never heard of the term, well now you have, so you have learned something, surely that's the point!RMHED 03:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
        • The point is I still don't know what the article is about. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

<d> Delete Merge and Redirect to The Order or to David Lane. I agree with Squeak. Sadly, the Anti-Defamation League seems to have helped immortalize David Lane by making an article on its site about a 14-word sentence that Lane imaginatively called "The Fourteen Words". If Hitler were alive today, he'd be saying (in Mock German) "Vat a dumbkopf!" Mandsford 02:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Neutral Actually I heard about this on The Discovery channel or something. I think it's notable, yet I'm sure if it should have it's own article. It depends on how much there is to say about it. Rocket000 03:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Here are another Fourteen Words - We must secure the existence of our encyclopaedia and a future for pro-deletionists. Hence, delete for misplaced notability that is not established beyond the agenda of the ADL. Eddie.willers 03:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's worth having a mention in the encyclopedia, but there's no need for a sepearate article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps in the David Lane (white nationalist) article. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The only policy-driven argument is notability so I shall address it. Reliable sources include this, this, and this publication, along with the sources used in the article. It absolutely passes notability guidelines. the_undertow talk 04:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Which is why it can be mentioned elsewhere re Will. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why it does not meet notability guidelines. the_undertow talk 04:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per Will Beback's comment above. No need for a separate article for just this info. - Rjd0060 04:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Not that I am wikilawyering, but I am curious as to how this particular article fails WP:N? I like the fact that people are willing to come to a happy medium, but since this AfD deals with the inclusion of this article implicitly, where does it fail policy as to its staying as a separate article? the_undertow talk 04:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the subject were covered in another article, and this article added no substantial depth of coverage, then the "adding nothing to the encyclopedia" argument would be valid - since the information is already in the encyclopedia. In this case, the sources provided (in addition to the sources noted above in this debate) establish the term's notability, and demonstrate its verifiability. The term is not significantly covered in other articles, so far as I can tell. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 05:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Commment I've changed my position to a merge and redirect to The Order. If there's one thing that all this proves, it's that American Nazis, unlike Der Fuerher, don't know shit about how to write. The fact that it ISN'T covered in another article, like David Lane or The Order, gives us a clue that the authors of those two pieces didn't think "The Fourteen Words" was anything notable. That Nazis feel that this rather bland slogan (We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children) should be their rallying cry is pathetic. Anyway, put it stick it up Mr. Lane's article, since it's part of his rich contributions to the world's literature. Mandsford 12:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've changed to merge and redirect to David Lane (white nationalist), he coined the phrase so it would be best on his article. RMHED 22:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just googled "The fourteen words" after seeing the phrase used without explanation in an article on extremist political groups. This article gave me the info I was looking for. I didn't want an article on The Order or David Lane, but on the fourteen words. Seems to me to meet wikipedia standards of notability etc. Babajobu (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


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.