Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keeping up with the Joneses
- 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. There is a clear consensus built that, while the article needs citations, the catchphrase is notable enough to have its own article. Maser (Talk!) 07:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping up with the Joneses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Basically, this is a dicdef that has been expanded on with no sources. Wiktionary already has it. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While citations are needed to correct the article, it is not a neologism considering how old it is. It is an integral part of the consumerist society, and is perfectly valid. Zidel333 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a well recognised sociological phenomena. Even BusinessWeek wants to know if it is killing us [1]. Keep, expand and add sources. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, strongly. Do not know if sources have been added since the nomination, but it certainly is reliably sourced in the incarnation I read. This English idiom has been around for a good long time, and explaining its origin goes well beyond a dictionary definition. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, there are no citations. For this article to be valid, it would have to adhere to WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NOR which it looks like it is struggling to do at the moment.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per all above. Twenty Years 15:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but this article is backwards. It shouldn't be about the catchphrase, it should be about the original comic strip, with additiional information about the catchphrase (although not as an "in popular culture" trivia section). The original work is notable through its survival in the catchphrase. --Dhartung | Talk 17:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.