Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yo, Blair

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 06:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yo, Blair

Although the incident may be somewhat comedic, it certainly does not warrant its own article. Not too long from now, this incident is going to be an insignificant memory; this is a perfect example of recentism. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge There has to either be some good existing topic, or a suitable one to suggest, to hold unusual and notable exchanges between heads of state (or representatives of heads of states) like this. Well sourced enough to be something worth keeping around in some form, but as the original nominator said, it's very much a case of recentism to give it it's own article. LinaMishima 02:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Transwikify to wikiquote LinaMishima 03:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -/- Warren 05:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. I didn't find this incident notable even when it first broke. --Ricaud 08:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not delete these do onot seem to be reasons for deletions, though, according to the policy of Wikipedia. --random, 08:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it was mentioned as headline news, as well as being used in many news commentary shows, such as The Daily Show. It was shouted out in parliament, which is pretty notable. I'd say merge, but is there really anywhere to merge it to? -- Darksun 11:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Shouted greeting not worthy of existence in its own right. Suggest mergeto 32nd G8 summit as alternative Ohconfucius 09:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Who can say whether it will have a lasting impact on language (which is more significant than the incident itself)? It's remarkable just how much has been added in a few weeks. The "Yo" article is not very good. There may be scope for merger. Wikipedia is iedally placed to preserve this sort of thing. --IXIA 14:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Who can say whether it will have a lasting impact"? None of us can, and since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's a bit early to assume that it would. I don't hear people yelling "Yo Blair!" as I walk down the streets. Metropolitan90 is right; this is recentism; maybe recreate in a month or two if lasting impact is established. -- H·G (words/works) 19:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

*Keep notable, no where to merge to --Vsion 15:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep or Rename to "Yo Blair" conversation. It is not just a greeting, but a conversation of significant importance, between two "powerful" figures discussing the handling of a major middle east crisis. It also mentioned about Bush's disagreement with Kofi Annan on the ceasefire plan, and about applying pressure to Syria. --Vsion 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information. This is beyond trivial, and lowers the value of Wikipedia purporting to be an encyclopedia. It is simply chat show fodder that will be forgotten before the fall. Agent 86 17:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The reference to "the fall" of itself betrays a misunderstanding of the effect in the UK. Historical books are littered with this sort of episode. And the issue is not the episode itself, but its effect. You can be sure that books on linguistics will pick this up. Why does Wikipedia so often smugly shoot istelf in the foot by not recognising its unique ability to capture such trends? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IXIA (talk • contribs) .
      • Comment: This is an encyclopedia; we're trying to collect knowledge and information, not quotes and political punditry. The Wikiquote project is a much better place for quotable things like "Yo, Blair". If you want to write a lengthy dissertation on the political significance of it, or whatever, start a blog. -/- Warren 03:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as recentism. --Metropolitan90 18:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- H·G (words/works) 19:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC) Warren 03:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I haven't finished reading it yet...--Greasysteve13 07:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable recentism bias relating to a minor phrase that wouldn't merit a footnote in an article about UK-US relations during the Blair era. MLA 08:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia has hundreds of quotes already, why delete this particular one? See Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes. — Wackymacs 09:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Relates to relationship between Blair and Bush/Blair and House of Commons. Also a rare example of a candid exchange between any two figures of such authority. If absolutely must be deleted, consider merging with Yo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F1rasta (talk • contribs)
User's only edits are to this AfD. --Metropolitan90 14:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Already in Yo looks like someone merged the information anyhow LinaMishima 14:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Interesting article. --Guinnog 00:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP Fair Article, deserve to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.26.99 (talk • contribs)
  • Transwiki to Wikiquotes and then delete. "Interesting article" is not a valid reason for keeping. I agree with the nominator: this is a case of recentism. A note to the anons editing this: please sign your comments with ~~~~ so we can easily tell who you are and what your point is. Srose (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom and Agent86. Arguments that this requires a separate encyclopedic entry seem quite uncompelling - David Oberst 09:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree completely with IXIA. This is the kind of interesting article you don't find in a dull boring encyclopaedia, but which Wikipedia should absolutely contain. Merge if you must, but keep it so that anyone searching Wikipedia for "Yo Blair" can find it. Those of you shouting Recentism should wait six months and nominate it again if you still think so. Magnate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.66.49.133 (talk • contribs) Do NOT impersonate other users Srose (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

... I am Magnate, I just wasn't logged in. You can put your truncheon away now.

... but you are missing the point. Someone spent quite a long time working on that article. It's quite good. It doesn't violate any laws or any of Wikipedia's policies. It's no less valid than articles like All Your Base Are Belong To Us or Read My Lips: No New Taxes. These are the kind of articles that distinguish Wikipedia from less interesting sources of information. By all means delete articles if they violate NPOV or some other policy, but deleting it because you think "not long from now this incident is going to be an insignificant memory" is not a good enough reason. Why not wait and see? Why shift the burden onto re-creating it? See Wiki Is Not Paper Magnate (P.S. I *do* hear people walking down the street yelling "Yo, Blair")

  • Keep - Distinctive phrase of the time. Used frequently in UK media. ATG 16:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Yo Wackymacs! -- Szvest 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  • Keep Has been an important in issue in the United Kingdom over the 'Special Relationship' and is thus worth a page in wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.38 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 10 August 2006
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.