202:. As both the article and talk page demonstrate, it has certainly caught on, and has been discussed in major media outlets (even the Knowledge (XXG) article on series of tubes has been discussed in mainstream media, a newspaper article if memory serves). I fail to see why Wiktionary is a more appropriate venue. Finally, I see little in Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines that would lend credit to a "delete" argument. The only argument seemingly put forward for deletion in the nomination is a general "notability" argument (without reference to any specific policy or guideline either on notability or something else). This is when the concept of notability (as a general, amorphous, undefined concept) is at its
513:. I am a new user who genuinely learned more about net neutrality through the Knowledge (XXG) article. I wanted to learn more - that is why I looked it up on Knowledge (XXG) - and "series of tubes" was the phrase I remembered off the top of my head. I hope this article doesn't disappear just because it is connected to a political figure.
381:- I agree with bCube above. This is notable content and should be kept. If you're going to delete this, keep it a standard and remove ALL articles such as Internets, You Forgot Poland, Bushisms, Interweb, Leet, Jeff K, Internet meme (and all related subpages), and pretty much any article with the suffix _(Colloquialism).--
368:
Can we at least pretend to be dealing with the real world? This is not a notable phrase, even if the random
Internet junkies on some message board like to toss it about. I remember seeing this on the Daily Show and the Tonight Show, but big deal - it's a new story of passing interest. No need for it
458:
It had coverage in the mainstream media because it was an odd comparison. That's what made it news of a lighter variety. That's what would have made it a lovely topic for
Wikinews back when it occurred. If this is not in her to document it as a term which folks on the Internet use, then it is being
447:. Clearly a bad faith nom from a believer of the "Internet is a dumptruck" school of thought. No, but seriously. This had tons of coverage in the mainstream media AND became an Internet meme of sorts. Definitely notable. I don't see how WP:NEO applies to this particular subject. ---
665:
I came here looking to quote the text. It was the first place I came, and I've used this page on occasions to introduce people to the blunder... I would be very disappointed if it went like so many of my other much-loved articles.
575:. There are many articles of this nature (Internet slang, semi-common terms) on Knowledge (XXG), and it is an article that helps to showcase a view on things, and a point in time of our own history, however small it may be.
112:
This article describes a blunder in a political speech; such blunders occur frequently and are not notable. If "series of tubes" catches on as a neologism, this page should be moved to
Wiktionary.
326:
apply the same deletion reason to those articles, couldn't you? That isn't a very good reason to keep this article, though. Why not vote delete instead to counter systemic bias and recentism?
369:
to be on WikiNews as it's not news anymore, so time for it to be gone. Then again, I would have expressed an opinion in favor of deleting "You forgot Poland" too, so what do I know?
302:
238:" represents a failure of the human mind which has transcended its origins, becoming a substitute for wit in our simulacrum of society.
83:
78:
87:
17:
70:
535:
over, as consensus seems to be leaning heavily toward keep at the moment. Perhaps you could reconsider casting your vote(s). ·
599:
articles. Its notability is inextricably linked to the notability of the speaker and the issue he was speaking about. --
459:
used as the name of a non-notable political speech. Either way, I'm not sure what qualifies it as an encyclopaedic topic.
709:
36:
633:. A microcosm of everything wrong with Knowledge (XXG). Article consists mostly of a bunch of unmemorable quotes from
289:
278:. It's already become a catchphrase amongst the Internet community, and various media outlets have talked about it.
203:
275:
708:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
160:— this particular speech blunder is highly notable, as evidenced by the news reactions to it. Look at all the
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
161:
694:
682:
670:
657:
645:
625:
603:
579:
567:
547:
526:
517:
503:
484:
463:
451:
439:
427:
411:
398:
385:
373:
360:
348:
330:
317:
293:
262:
242:
218:
190:
168:
152:
136:
116:
52:
340:- This has already gained notability outside the 'net, as evidenced in the article itself. And not just on
616:
480:
199:
74:
499:
You can just type ~~~~ to sign your posts; you don't have to use that currenttime template for it.
576:
391:
49:
514:
180:
642:
541:
311:
271:
212:
149:
133:
113:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
588:
532:
679:
395:
382:
404:
667:
560:
475:
285:
235:
66:
58:
654:
634:
596:
341:
185:
691:
493:
460:
436:
370:
357:
165:
600:
564:
536:
448:
306:
239:
207:
104:
678:
Informative article, subject has been and continues to be cited in the media. -
638:
621:
613:
592:
523:
500:
408:
327:
259:
255:
424:
394:
articles. Group X and The Tron Guy are just as important as Series Of Tubes.--
280:
345:
231:
226:
Without this article, archaeologists of 2010 will be unable to decipher
690:
notabel and humerous blunder by the man who understands the internet.
206:. Let's work on not overusing notability as a ground for deletion. ·
356:- this is a very notable phrase, and has been mentioned everywhere.
591:. De facto, it's a breakout of content too large to fit into the
702:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
227:
637:
and unenlightening cites to obscure blogs. A paragraph in the
611:
Very notable and relevant to the politics of this issue. --
390:
Collarly, if this is for deletion, you can also remove all
492:. Definitely notable and the page is commonly cited. -
100:
96:
92:
258:. No one will care in 5 years, assuming they do now.
435:. This had lots of media coverage and is notable.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
712:). No further edits should be made to this page.
270:- You could apply the same deletion reason to
559:. This has become an internet meme, akin to
8:
531:Yeah, umm, this isn't worth potentially
641:article would have worked just fine.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
473:extraordinary amount of coverage. -
198:per comments (by me and others) at
24:
254:some vastly reduced version to
403:It doesn't work that way; see
1:
653:Too notable to get rid of. --
496:05:22 , 5 January 2007 (UTC)
421:Move to Wiktionary and delete
695:16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
683:07:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
671:22:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
658:22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
646:20:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
626:05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
604:18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
580:06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
568:00:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
548:22:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
527:21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
518:05:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
504:21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
485:15:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
464:08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
452:05:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
440:21:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
428:10:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
412:03:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
399:03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
386:01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
374:01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
361:21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
349:21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
331:02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
318:21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
294:21:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
263:20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
243:20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
230:posts from 2007. Like the
219:20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
191:19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
169:19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
153:19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
137:19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
117:19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
53:17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
729:
301:, and that's already been
148:It has already caught on.
705:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
200:Talk:Series of tubes
176:- Notable blunder
533:getting in trouble
392:Internet Phenomena
126:Move to Wiktionary
483:
272:You forgot Poland
720:
707:
619:
587:I think I smell
479:
188:
183:
179:
108:
90:
34:
728:
727:
723:
722:
721:
719:
718:
717:
716:
710:deletion review
703:
668:User:FarQPwnsME
617:
561:Zidane headbutt
236:series of tubes
186:
181:
177:
124:Nominator says
81:
67:Series of tubes
65:
62:
59:Series of tubes
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
726:
724:
715:
714:
698:
697:
685:
673:
660:
648:
635:The Daily Show
628:
606:
597:Net neutrality
582:
570:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
508:
507:
506:
487:
467:
466:
455:
454:
442:
430:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
376:
363:
351:
342:The Daily Show
335:
334:
333:
320:
265:
245:
221:
204:most dangerous
193:
171:
155:
142:
141:
140:
139:
110:
109:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
725:
713:
711:
706:
700:
699:
696:
693:
689:
686:
684:
681:
677:
674:
672:
669:
664:
661:
659:
656:
652:
649:
647:
644:
640:
636:
632:
629:
627:
624:
623:
620:
615:
610:
607:
605:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
583:
581:
578:
577:Slokunshialgo
574:
571:
569:
566:
562:
558:
555:
549:
545:
544:
540:
539:
538:j e r s y k o
534:
530:
529:
528:
525:
521:
520:
519:
516:
512:
509:
505:
502:
498:
497:
495:
491:
488:
486:
482:
478:
477:
472:
469:
468:
465:
462:
457:
456:
453:
450:
446:
443:
441:
438:
434:
431:
429:
426:
422:
419:
413:
410:
406:
402:
401:
400:
397:
393:
389:
388:
387:
384:
380:
377:
375:
372:
367:
364:
362:
359:
355:
352:
350:
347:
343:
339:
336:
332:
329:
325:
321:
319:
315:
314:
310:
309:
308:j e r s y k o
304:
300:
297:
296:
295:
291:
287:
283:
282:
277:
273:
269:
266:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:
244:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
222:
220:
216:
215:
211:
210:
209:j e r s y k o
205:
201:
197:
194:
192:
189:
184:
175:
172:
170:
167:
163:
159:
156:
154:
151:
147:
144:
143:
138:
135:
131:
127:
123:
122:
121:
120:
119:
118:
115:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
50:Mailer Diablo
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
704:
701:
687:
675:
662:
650:
643:Thunderbunny
630:
612:
608:
584:
572:
556:
542:
537:
510:
489:
474:
470:
444:
432:
420:
378:
365:
353:
337:
323:
312:
307:
298:
279:
267:
251:
247:
223:
213:
208:
195:
173:
157:
145:
134:Pcu123456789
129:
125:
114:Pcu123456789
111:
45:
43:
31:
28:
639:Ted Stevens
593:Ted Stevens
585:Speedy keep
396:Super Jamie
383:Super Jamie
256:Ted Stevens
162:new stories
655:Piemanmoo
522:You too.
471:Easy Keep
423:per nom.
303:attempted
276:Internets
232:Time Cube
692:Cburnett
494:Mattva01
461:GassyGuy
437:VegaDark
371:GassyGuy
358:Jayden54
290:contribs
166:Dicklyon
601:Ssbohio
589:WP:SNOW
565:DMurphy
481:crztalk
449:RockMFR
299:Comment
240:Anville
84:protect
79:history
680:Minkus
631:Delete
524:Recury
501:Recury
409:Recury
405:WP:INN
366:Delete
328:Recury
260:Recury
248:Delete
150:bogdan
130:delete
88:delete
515:cpwb2
425:Anomo
344:. --
324:could
281:bCube
268:Keep.
252:Merge
224:Keep.
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
688:Keep
676:Keep
663:Keep
651:Keep
614:gadr
609:Keep
573:Keep
557:Keep
543:talk
511:Keep
490:Keep
445:Keep
433:Keep
379:Keep
354:Keep
346:Kesh
338:Keep
322:You
313:talk
305:. ·
286:talk
274:and
228:blag
214:talk
196:Keep
182:mikm
174:Keep
158:Keep
146:Keep
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
48:. -
46:keep
595:or
563:. -
476:crz
292:);
250:or
234:, "
132:. -
128:or
546:·
407:.
316:·
217:·
178:::
164:.
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
622:n
618:e
288:,
284:(
187:t
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.