Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall of Shame

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 (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of Shame

This neologism is a metaphor, not a meme. Just because it has appeared in usage doesn't make it encyclopedic. Aaronbrick (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a definition of an occasionally-used phrase. <eleland/talkedits> 06:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. No idea what is meant by "This neologism is a metaphor, not a meme." --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that it's a concept which has no meaning on its own. Aaronbrick (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't see why this is proposed as an AfD rationale. For comparison,

Islamofascism is "a concept which has no meaning on its own"
Allegations of Israeli apartheid is "a concept which has no meaning on its own"

Both of these examples have gone through extensive AfD, WP:RM, WP:RfAr and/or other cycles. "Not having a meaning on its own" has no other implications than this: such concepts only have a meaning given them by people. The same applies to (for instance): Truth, the Poincaré conjecture, and nearly any other concept one can imagine. Such reasonings are not part of Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have your methodology under control, which I appreciate. Still, both those examples are obviously about going concerns. There is no evidence that any of the politicans quoted as saying "Wall of Shame" were referring to the same thing. By this standard we should have articles for every metaphor used in a political speech. Aaronbrick (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't say that: I said whether or not it is a metaphor is as irrelevant in an AfD debate as whether or not it is a sheep. Of course we don't have articles on every sheep that ever existed (did you hear me say that?). But we have on some, here's an example: Dolly. If you had said "Wall of Shame is a meme" (which it isn't according to what you said), then that would have been an argument with some weight in an AfD debate while we try to avoid articles about (for example) internet memes, in line with Wikipedia:Notability (web).

Re. "There is no evidence that any of the politicans quoted as saying "Wall of Shame" were referring to the same thing." - There is evidence they were referring to different things: some were referring to the Berlin wall, others to other walls. See references in the Wall of Shame article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep This passes the wp:neo sniff test, and is used well beyond the bounds of a singlular instance. It is a common phrase, as is Hall of shame, ~~which would be a good topic to redirect to this as well~~. Valid, notable, heavily used in multiple communities, transends any singular use, keep. Pharmboy (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already is a redirect, as both phrases are heavily used and transend wp:neo. Pharmboy (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Francis. -Justin (koavf)·T·
keep Keith Harris - newsmedianews. This is a valid term which has been adopted into general usage and which is eminently identified in its use with the Berlin Wall. It is fitting that such a term continues to describe barriers that are viewed in similar manner to the Berlin Wall.

C·M 13:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article is an original synthesis in violation of WP:SYN, and it is mostly unsourced. The well-sourced application of the phrase applies to the Berlin Wall, but that can be handled at Berlin Wall. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I can't see a delete based on WP:SYN applying here. First, wp:syn isn't a reason to delete nor does it claim to be. It is a reason to improve (or please show me where it is in wikipedia policy). Second, what little that *may* meet syn could easy be edited out and is limited to Criticism of purpose section. This is the proverbial Throwing the baby out with the bathwater approach to AFD. Pharmboy [User talk:Pharmboy|talk]]) 15:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:SYN maybe transwiki as a dicdef to Wiktionary. --Strothra (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable.Bless sins (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Separation barrier, a long-standing article in good shape that discusses precisely the same thing, only in much less loaded terms. Jpatokal (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the same thing as Wall of Shame/Hall of Shame, which can be 'imaginary' as well. Pharmboy (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2008 (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.