Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shit happens

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shit happens

Shit happens (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There is nothing encyclopedic to say about this expression. And nearly nothing is said, save the long list of trivia. `'Míkka 22:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • A lot of the time I've becoming across the reason for deletion being given as "not encyclopedic", increasingly often in recent times. I wish I'd stop seeing the word encyclopedic being misused so often on wikipedia, did you know that half the results on google for encyclopedic are to do with wikipedia (indicates the extent of the problem)? Anyway, getting back on track.... encyclopedic is defined as "comprehensive" also "broad in scope or content". If anything, this seems to be the opposite of what you were trying to say. Because you were wishing to instead narrow down the scope and content of the article, making it less comprehensive. Mathmo Talk 21:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. If anything, it's a dicdef with places the term is used. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's certainly notable, but far from encyclopedic. Not to mention, it's dicdef. James Luftan contribs 01:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This is more suited towards Urban dictionary. Spellcast 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It has 2 published references. It is the philosophical observation that bad things happen to people for no discernable reason. It has been an existential philosophy since at least the 1980's. Edison 01:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This is somewhat longer than the article about "We report, you decide" that I was so negative about. There's no truth to the rumor that this is going to be the slogan for CNN in 2008. Mandsford 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Transwiki but it has no place here. JodyB yak, yak, yak 02:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Deletion happens per nom. After discarding trivia, not enough left for an article. Clarityfiend 03:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete although it is notable it is unencyclopedic and it is a dicdef. Oysterguitarist 03:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as trivia list and is not encyclopedic. Useight 04:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to meme (or soft redir to wiktionary), plausible search term but not useful as an article. >Radiant< 08:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 12:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete; dictdef, and the rest is merely a list of people and fictional people who have once used the expression. Melsaran 13:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Originally in the media section, there is mentioning of a 1991 case concerning a bumber sticker that read "Shit happens", where the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that a state law prohibiting lewd or profane stickers and decals on vehicles was unconstitutional (now sourced). In case no consensus for an independent article develops, we should at least have the dab page with wictionary link here. --Tikiwont 14:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete happens. Burntsauce 18:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Ha! So famous people are even using it in delete votes.... lol Ironic. Mathmo Talk 21:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not belong here. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. C'est la vie. --Malcolmxl5 21:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tikiwont and world wide famous. Mathmo Talk 21:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Mowsbury 22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup simply being a stub that needs cleanup for trivia lists doesn't make the entire topic trivial. The phrase, with its boundless cultural and commercial application, is certainly notable and begs encyclopedic treatment. The argument that it "does not belong here" sounds close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Arguing that, being pop culture, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia is elitism, plain and simple. This is a "piece of commercial culture based on popular taste" (the def of pop culture), not "pieces of information of little importance" (trivia). Don't automatically conflate the two. VanTucky (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep just because we dont have the etymology now does not mean we wont have it later. It is a notable idiomatic phrase.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep it's the classic modern social meme, and has sound philosophical meaning; it begs for a proper treatment. Until that happens, stubbify (ie, remove media references). SamBC(talk) 03:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep a really notable phrase, even if it has no single etymology. This is the natural home of such information, and there is no reason why we should be ashamed of it. DGG (talk)
  • Keep per Tikiwont, DGG, Sambc, et al. And yes, a meme is notable. It has three sources and can be improved. Bearian 02:30, 12 August 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.