Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political catchphrases

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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of political catchphrases

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

These are not catchphrases, but quotes, which belong on Wikiquote (where most of the content already resides). For slogans, we have List of political slogans. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are a large number of books that cover/discuss quotes/insults/wit of politicians so a rename may be appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These are quotes; they are not catchphrases. Nor is there any sense of why these particular quotes have been listed togther on this page, whilst thousands of others have not, which for me rules out a rename. Next, the majority of the page content seem to be in languages other than English, which on the en.wikipedia is unhelpful. I see no redeeming features nor any reasonable propsect of turning the page content into something useful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no obvious inclusion/exclusion criteria; not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia; fails WP:LISTN and more suitable for Wikiquote as the nominator says Spiderone 09:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly severely trim. Most of the entries are quotes, and unnotable ones at that, fuddle duddle being a notable exception. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright this collective effort to see one's name in lights. The significant lack of sourcing only compounds the problems. -The Gnome (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2018 (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.