Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No comment

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 Keep. Prodego talk 02:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No comment

common phrase only. Listed for cleanup for 12 months but I cannot see what you can do with this. Not more deserving of an article than the phrase The Prime Minister has my full support. Article is POV, WP:OR etc... but beyond that I cannot see the need for an article on this. Could be transwikied but I cannot see on wiktionary any similar self-obvious phrases. Peripitus 10:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Reluctant delete - if it's been listed for cleanup for a year then maybe there's little to be done. The "no comment" concept is probably notable enough given its many contexts but people have had the chance to clean it up and haven't. - Stevecov 11:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weakest possible delete As much as I know that "No Comment" deserves a page, it does rub off as WP:OR. Yanksox 13:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep I like how the article is now. Yanksox 14:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I think it's worth keeping, regardless of the condition it's in. --Dakart 20:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. While the article, frankly, sucks at the moment, I can't see deleting it either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is a not a phrasebook. I don't think the phrase is particularly notable either. Bwithh 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. -- cds(talk) 22:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Perhaps it deserves an entry on Wiktionary, but Wikipedia's Miranda warning is sufficient. Perhaps a redirect.--El aprendelenguas 23:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep a link to Miranda warning would not cover the current contents and the article is all right. Live and let live. I would support a redirect if a better alternative article was found. Lundse 00:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: sure it needs editing, but it's not POV or OR. It deserves independent life, not redirecting. Besides, the Miranda warning is: 'Stay away from Caliban.' --die Baumfabrik 02:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: and expand on the history. Would be interesting to see when the first use of this was by a President, famous uses, etc. Calwatch 07:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • DELTE OR POSSIBLY MERGE I attempted to repair the article but this proved impossible. Unless anyone can suggest something to merge it with I recommend deletion. Steve 19:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Merge to what? Yanksox 21:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably either Cliché or Oxymoron - Peripitus (Talk) 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I just went through this and took out all the unencyclopedic bits (speculation about how journalists respond to "no comment" statements, legal advice, etc.) I took out all the law related bits, since the phrase "no comment" is a journalistic cliche, not a legal one. What remains is a two sentence stub, and I really don't see how it could be expanded much. So I'd say we should either delete this or redirect it to journalism sourcing or some other appropriate topic. --RobthTalkCleanup? 13:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Robth - you've gone about as far as I think is possible to. The best that could be done if this is kept is to add a list of significant usages. Can't find more than one or two of these anywhere and no significant mention on Wikiquote - Peripitus (Talk) 02:57, 9 June 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.