Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The terrorists have won

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 keep. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The terrorists have won

Little need of this in a encylopedia. Not notable neologism article Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 12:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, one of the more long-lived and notable memes. Article even provides links and sources. Voice of Treason 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I strongly disagree. First of all, the article is strongly sourced, which is the most important bit. Second, the references section more than establishes notability- a dedicated editorial in the Houston Chronicle, a speech at the Emmys, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, for crying out loud. It's entered the modern lexicon, and as such is notable- and verifiable. Captainktainer * Talk 13:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Easy Keep - it's a highly notable neologism, with good references. WilyD 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep an easily-recognised and commonly used phrase, which has become part of our culture Lurker 13:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think phrases like this are encyclopedic. Is one of at least hundreds of English language cliches and analogies that have attained common parlance in the history of the language. If the article is kept then it needs a major clean-up as it is very POV at present and not at all reflective of the meaning in the UK. MLA 14:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the phrase has no meaning in the UK, why mention it? You wouldn't expect American interpretations of the word Chav in that article, do you? Anyway, the phrase, because it is a political propaganda tool, has much, much more notability, importance, and relevance than your garden variety neologism. hateless 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Hi, sorry that's not what I meant at all. The meaning in the UK currently relates most strongly to the aftermath of the July 7 terrorist attack on London and is related to the belief that life must continue as normal and that we must not give in to grief or fear despite the risk of terrorism. It is an attempt to evoke the no-surrender blitz mentality and so has resonance in the UK. This should be reflected in the article if it stays as it is at odds with the apparent US interpretation. MLA 07:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known phrase, though I've always heard it as "The terrorists will have won." Kirjtc2 14:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the will comment and would suggest a title change if the article remains. MLA 10:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as per Captainktainer's comments. Article is well-sourced and establishes notability. Scorpiondollprincess 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious keep notable part of 9/11 aftermath. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I like shutting down AfDs --DragonWR12LB 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't believe no one has said If we delete this article, the terrorists will have won. WilyD 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, sourced and well-written enough. I've no problem with cliches and phrases on Wikipedia if they're written like this. --Canley 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per obvious. hateless 16:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- phrase has been used repeatedly by various notable figures. Besides, if the article is deleted, the terrorists will... well, you know. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep –(chubbstar) ^{— talk | contrib | 18:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Delete -- violates WP:NOT. NN-Neologism. While the phrase is well-known in commmon parlance, it doesn't hold any particular meaning other than in the context it's spoken. As such, it's not encyclopedic. Morton Devonshire^Yo
  • Comment Could you please explain which portion of WP:NOT is violated? Nothing specific even in the indiscriminate collection of information portion is violated. The fact that it has entered the common lexicon to the extent that it has puts the lie to the claim that it is non-notable. In addition, your statement that it holds no particular meaning other than the context in which it is spoken makes very little sense- what bearing does that have on whether the article is verified and notable? Captainktainer * Talk 21:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[1] Morton Devonshire^Yo
      • Comment I see that, but it doesn't fit under any of those particular named criteria. At no point does it say that we shouldn't cover widely used and controversial elements of the language; the closest we have to a guideline on that matter is WP:NEO, which this article meets very nicely.Captainktainer * Talk 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep but I would hardly compare this to chav in terms of notability. GassyGuy 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article is extremely well sourced and NPOV. The phrase is of iconic notability, similar to the Featured Article Read my lips: no new taxes. 205.157.110.11 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, very well known phrase frequently used in film, television, print, et cetera. RFerreira 23:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as it is definetly a national meme. It's become so cliche that it's become a joke around the country ("If I can't buy this sportscar," he told his wife, "then the terrorists have won.") All the same, it might be an article to keep an eye on, as it could become a target for POV'ers of all stripes. Pat Payne 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, article is well-sourced and phrase is very well-known and much parodied and referenced (in the United States at least). --Paul1337 20:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Paul1337 and others. --Firsfron of Ronchester 07:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I must say I am impressed with what this article states and is very informative. however I must stress that this will be a target for POV and needs to be monitered.

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.