Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination)

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 snow keep (non-admin closure). Rankiri (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Series of tubes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The material is already covered in Ted Stevens. The article was nominated for deletion twice in 2007 and was kept both times based on the argument that this is a catch phrase that will go big time. So far it hasn't and seems to be only mentioned in the context of Senator Stevens. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the phrase/speech achieved a life all its own outside of Senator Stevens. To merge it back into Stevens' article would make it overlong and a tad unweildy. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there was a strong consensus as to its notability at the previous AfD two years ago, and notability is not temporary. While some of the material is indeed covered in Ted Stevens, the separate article does provide substantial additional information which is sourced. Given the length of the Ted Stevens article (and clear "undue weight" issues) it's not appropriate to merge further information to the main article - hence, the continued existence of this article seems to be the best solution. ~ mazca ^talk 14:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I did not have sexual relations with that woman was redirected to Lewinsky scandal. How about writing an article on Stevens' views and actions concerning the Internet and merge this there? Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our article is cited in the book Wiki Government, which seems an adequate testimonial as to its value. We should not delete articles which are cited as this is disruptive for our readers and users. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per mazca. Undue weight precludes a merge, notability has been established. Interwebs (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the arguments above, note that this topic might seem trivial to the layperson but is a very big deal for policy-makers and people in the telecom industry. Hence the many sources. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's already become part of Internet lore. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed above. Everything counts (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the phrase is notable enough to merit its own article. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 16:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most notable in its own right. The subject eminently satisfies WP:NOTE, it has received significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. See for example discussion in 51 books. -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - I can't say anything without just parroting. WP:SNOW, anybody? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: much more notable than it might seem at first glance, both politically and for the entertainment/internet meme/pop culture aspect. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:34, 18 March 2010 (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.