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 Merge into Dalton McGuinty and Ontario general election, 2003, as appropriate at editorial discretion. Cenarium (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

"Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information" WP:ENC. The previous nomination was in 2005, about a year and a half after the events described in the article. The events may have been newsworthy at the time, giving the impression of notability 18 months on, but now, almost eight years on, the article appears to be nothing more than random information. There are existing articles on the politician concerned (Dalton McGuinty) and the broader event (Ontario general election, 2003), into which the nominated article should be merged.

Rainjar (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The string "Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet" -wikipedia -dictionary -encyclopedia in Google returns 33,900 hits. Whether that has any bearing on the matter I don't know. Herostratus (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Stephen Harper Eats Babies" has 499,000 hits and we've survived not having an article on that. --NellieBly (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well that's a good point. I'm not saying the article should be kept. I guess the question is, is this something that is pretty much forgotten now, or something which still pops up in occasional references? Don't know. Herostratus (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand "lasting effect" to be more than just being remembered. See WP:EFFECT. Rainjar (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I don't know. WP:EFFECT is a pretty high bar. If an event is notable per WP:GNG (which I guess this one is) and is part of the lexicon, that seems a reasonable level of notability. If a person says "Oh no, this is another 'Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet' situation!" is someone going to go "oh yeah" or just look at me blankly? If I write a headline for the Toronto Star: "Stephen Harper: Evil reptilian baby-eater from Calgary?" is my editor going to say "No one is going to get that" or not? If not, fine; but if so, then that is a "lasting effect", at least on the political lexicon, maybe. Maybe. Herostratus (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If you're limiting your frame of reference to the place where the event occurred, you might also like to consider WP:GEOSCOPE. Reliance on WP:GNG doesn't address the reason for this nomination. As expressly stated in WP:GNG, ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.". "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As discussed below, there is nothing to suggest the phrase has become notable as a broader part of the lexicon beyond its original context. Rainjar (talk) 08:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking long-term notability. It was a stupid comment. If we had an article for every stupid comment made by or about a politician, the servers would groan under the weight of all those extra electrons and crash through the floor. --NellieBly (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dalton McGuinty and Ontario general election, 2003. Aspects of the person and the election. Then redirect to the politician. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the term itself has ongoing notability as demonstrated in a range of sources (mainly pop culture references), and there's no harm to any BLP in the article remaining in place. Newer sources do need to be brought in, but the article in its present form is sourced in accordance with WP:V and WP:RS. Orderinchaos 06:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A Google search shows no notable usage other than the original political context, which is adequately served by a merger. Rainjar (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not entirely opposed to a merger with Ontario general election, 2003, in the event that that proves to be the option people think is best. Orderinchaos 08:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editing Wikipedia with a constructive motive should have led any editor to do some research before nominating this article for AfD. The Chatham Daily News provides a clear definition for the term: "evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet, a term that surfaced in a press release from the PC campaign of Ernie Eves to describe McGuinty in the 2003 election." [1] There are enough coverage and discussion of this phrase in the media [2] and in GBooks [3] The phrase has also received coverage in scholarly journals [4] WP:IINFO does not apply for political phrases. Yes it is a newly developed political phrase, but it passes WP:RS and WP:N. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An exception for "political phrases"? To be a "political phrase" in the first place, shouldn't it be of broader socio-political applicability, rather than arise merely from a one-time usage, albeit in a political context? The context remains limited to the Ontario general election, 2003, with which it should be merged. Rainjar (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Ontario general election, 2003, the phrase has had virtually no lasting impact. I'm an Ontarian and this debate is the first time in years that I've been reminded of this incident. PK T(alk) 17:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the relevant content to Dalton McGuinty and Ontario general election, 2003. I'm not sure which is a more appropriate target for the redirect though. --RFBailey (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant content to Dalton McGuinty and Ontario general election, 2003. Phrase has had virtually no lasting impact. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:04, 26 April 2011 (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.