Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Cunts in a Kitchen

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary Definition --Porturology 08:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, type of television commercial. Kappa 11:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No it was not a dictionary definition. It was a stub. Dictionary articles and stubs are two different things. The question is whether it is a stub with any hope of expansion, or a stub that has no hope whatsoever of expansion. After reading the article as nominated, I was on the side of deleting it. After reading the article as nominated, it appeared to be no more than an unverifiable concept described in one Stephen King novel, with no hope of expansion beyond the one quotation from that novel. Maybe there was such a class of advertizement, but this surely wouldn't be its name. But after research, I am surprised to find that this is the accepted term for a widely recognized class of advertisement, and is verifiable, with the potential to not be a perpetual stub. Keep. Uncle G 11:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The question I would ask is what is the evidence that this is widely accepted slang. My Google search shows 8 distinct mentions - only 1 or 2 appear to be ad related. The rest are second hand (e.g "or as they say in the industry..."). If this was widely accepted slang, I would expect many maore direct hits. Secondly could this be a back formation i.e. an adaption of Stephen King's termonology by people outside the industry. I feel we should have input from someone in the industry or we may be perpetuating a hoax.--Porturology 12:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article has multiple references that are at least somewhat credible to support its existence. That is enough to keep the article itself. Unless someone provides a credible rebuttal reference to show it's a hoax, final determination of whether this is a hoax or not should be left as an exercise for each reader. Unfocused 15:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Added reference to use in the 80s and 90s. I think the article is significant in that, as the references say, it is not just a definition, but provides an insight into the thought patterns of the advertising industry. Although it's not all over the internet, advertising industry stuff isn't all over the internet in general, interestingly. Gzuckier 16:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A google search on Cs in a K or C's in a K generates about 60 and 50 hits respectively. What a nasty phrase. Dottore So 17:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a dict def. Secretlondon 21:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jwissick^(t)(c) 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Expand as currently written; seems to be evolving beyond a dicdef/slang into an actual summary of the phenomenon. Nae'blis 22:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as verifiable phenomenon and capable of expansion. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This seems quite notable.--Pharos 03:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep' please this is not a dictionary definition so why erase this that does not make sense Yuckfoo 05:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Kappa. --Apyule 07:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Objectionable name, but seems to be a legitimate ad industry term that originated in the 1950's. --Meiers Twins 10:24, 29 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.