Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neologisms on Family Guy

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of neologisms on Family Guy

I love this show to death, but the list is positively miniscule. I don't believe there is an amount of memorable neologisms (ones that are repeated/enjoy significant cult status) to list that would justify this article. Sunscar 04:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems non-notable to me. RobJ1981 04:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Clay4president 06:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why delete this one and not List of neologisms on The Simpsons? Surely there was a time when that one would've been small too. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Simpsons page has MUCH MUCH more than the Family Guy page has. Clay4president 03:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention that The Simpsons has established prominence and a way of working itself into everyday cultural lexicon repeatedly for 17 years. FG is wildly popular, but not the way the Simpsons is. SliceNYC 21:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete great show but the list is rather unmaintainable. And Cromulent Kwyjibo your always welcome to nominate the Simpson's article for deletion if you wish. Whispering^(talk/c) 22:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When someone creates an article titled "fastizio" you'll regret not having this one. ShutterBugTrekker 23:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article would be in violation of WP:NEO and would likely be deleted anyway. So why keep around a list that just amounts to a listing of WP:NEO violations? (and for what its worth, as somebody who is obsessed with the Simpsons to a very unhealthy level, I think that list should go too. Fancruft like this belongs on the fan sites, like [1]) - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Simpsons is different in that the show has been around for 17 years(with the family themselves being around for 19 years) and much bigger than Family Guy. The Simpsons even managed to get a word into the Oxford English Dictionary(D'Oh). TJ Spyke 02:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but The Simpsons are stale now. Family Guy is fresh and already showing itself to be way more inventive. Michiganotaku 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Give Family Guy a couple of more seasons, and the list will get more flesh on it (more for some letters than others, to be sure). Even now I bet the list is not complete. Michiganotaku 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody's saying the list can't be recreated. The question is whether it should be deleted now. Unlike some articles where we allow time for a user to clean up a page, there's a finite amount of neologisms that won't change within the next couple of days. SliceNYC 03:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love Family Guy, but this list has almost no information, where List of neologisms on The Simpsons has way more imformation
- Comment. Baby with bathwater. Robert Happelberg 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism, neologism, .... Pavel Vozenilek 19:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These words have become of extreme importance to lexicons of teenagers and 20-somethings. Robert Happelberg 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those would be catchphrases and quotes, not neologisms. Big difference. What's listed in this article is fancruft. Sunscar 04:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. In spite of my frequent edits to improve grammar and links in List of characters from Family Guy, this one is just NN listcruft. --Dennette 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bob. Anton Mravcek 23:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Worth it for "giggidy" alone. Plinth molecular gathered 18:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's only a matter of time before "giggity" is added to the OED. Del arte 19:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Giggity/giggidy can and should be made into its own article, since that is more wide-used than, say, slappywag. The question is whether or not a list of all FG neologisms belongs. SliceNYC 19:51, 26 August 2006 (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.