Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant sucking sound

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 of the debate was no consensus. NSLE (T+C) at 04:45 UTC (2006-05-25)

[edit] Giant sucking sound

  • Delete nn neologism created by Ross Perot during '92 election any relevant info could either be put on the '92 election page or Ross Perot article. Not worthy of its own article. Jersey Devil 05:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. --Terence Ong 05:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Reyk YO! 05:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; although the article does not assert it, the phrase "giant sucking sound" continues to be applied to modern situations in all kinds of publications; just Google it. Being more than a decade old and still in widespread use, it's hardly a neologism, and the article isn't a dicdef, anyway; it explains the political context. As Category:Political slogans goes, this slogan runs with the best of them in notability.
    Melchoir 08:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Melchoir. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 08:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 09:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Páll :P Computerjoe's talk 09:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Arbusto 10:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Arbusto[o] – Gurch 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Melchoir Crum375 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable neologism Lankiveil 23:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, phrase still in use. 504 hits in Google Books, which is a very significant number for Books (and one not easily distorted by blogging, search engine optimization, etc. It is apt to come up in any discussion of international trade deals or job loss. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC) I am about to search the New York Times for recent references to the exact phrase. Let's see how many there were in the last five years and if the context is limited to Perot. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Ten references, and they pretty much confirm that it's in current use and not just an historical item. A couple: "June 28, 2005: THAT GIANT SUCKING SOUND -- In a stark reminder of the harsh personal toll of the airline industry's slump, the government released figures showing that employment at the major carriers has fallen 34 percent during the last four years...." April 1, 2004, an op-ed piece: "I hadn't been to Mexico since 1996, so it definitely caught my ear when I started to hear two non-Spanish words on this trip that I'd never heard here before: "China" and "India." Mexicans are increasingly aware that these two countries are running off with jobs and markets that Mexicans once thought they owned. You have to feel sorry for the Mexicans: they are hearing 'the giant sucking sound' in stereo these days -- from China in one ear and India in the other." March 5, 2004: "Ms. Grabbe said that the [European] union still worries more 'about the giant sucking sound from Eastern Europe.'" Dpbsmith (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Move to Wikiquote. Wikipedia is NOT a collection of quotes. Bwithh 03:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It wasn't intended to be a collection of quotes. If you like, I can leave the sentence "The phrase has since come into general use to describe any situation involving loss of jobs, or fear of a loss of jobs, particularly by one nation to a rival." and relegate the three examples to footnotes. The point of the examples was to show clearly that this phrase has caught on and is a live catchphrase that is widely used, and not merely in discussing the 1992 election. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ted 03:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to North American Free Trade Agreement. Ewlyahoocom 19:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • But in the article I've cited three cases of recent use in the New York Times—none of them referring to NAFTA. It originated as a reference to NAFTA but the scope is much broader now. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. - CNichols 20:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Lankeveil. --Anchoress 09:01, 23 May 2006 (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.