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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous last words (expression) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article has had reference and OR issues going back several months. I've tried to work on this, but there is very little that can be traced to a reputable source and isn't OR, i.e. which to include, etc. I also think this violates WP:NOT, especially Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Travellingcari (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was initially neutral, but it's a dicdef and a collection of quotations, much better in Wikiquote than in an encyclopedia, and it can be linked from the Famous Last Words disambig page.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --John (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Has huge citation issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerRichter (talk • contribs) 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are several defecation readers that contain "hilarious" quotes like the ones that were found on "Randy's home page" and recycled here; so cites could be made for this topic, but I don't think sourcing would make this encyclopedic. Surprisingly, this has been up for more than three years, from the days when Wikipedia would take almost anything. The quote from General Sedgwick in the Civil War is the only one on here that really was a person's final words. The rest of it falls under the category of short-sighted comments that proved later to be untrue. Usually, when one uses the expression "famous last words", it's an expression of doubt that someone's confident declaration will prove to be right. Anyway, a collection of debatably "funny" (some would say tired and no longer funny) stories is not the basis of an article. Mandsford (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I agree with the statements made above concerning a list of quotations, and having issues with references, I do feel this article meets Wp:Notability due to its well-established nature in literature, and history. I can do some digging for appropriate refs, but there is no deadline. Zidel333 (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a grabbag of quotes that may be better on Wikiquote. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Give it more time to be sourced, the phrase is obviously in use. --neonwhite user page talk 00:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article explains a common Americanism that is easily misunderstood by those who are not familiar with the idiom. This is clearly the case with those who are complaining that quotes cited in the article are usually not someone's dying words. Read the article before you criticize it. "Famous Last Words" means a notably wrong statement. It has nothing to do with someone's death. The article is encyclopedic and may particularly be useful to new English speakers and non-American English speakers. However, the list of quotes should be drastically shortened or removed. Rsduhamel (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't disagree that the article explains an American idiom, however if you remove the quotes, which represent the true OR issue, it's little more than a dicdef, so should it go to Wiktionary? Travellingcari (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and retitle .The actual title applies to only afew of the entries. Perhaps it might need two articles, though. DGG (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep if retitled and the sarcasm aspect toned down. Hilariously wrong predictions just doesn't sound encyclopedic, but perhaps a silk purse can be wrought here. I'll give it another chance. This is not, of course, a list of famous deathbed statements. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's questionable whether the quotations were actually made by the quotees. In at least one instance, the quote was demonstrated to be apocryphal. I don't see this article serving any real purpose without sourced information, so per WP:NOR, delete. —XSG 00:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How is “Randy” reliable? Hosting on a .edu does not a WP:RS make. The “idiom” comments are valid, but explanation of the Americanism belongs on Wiktionary; the rest of the article (quotes) violates WP:NOT. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd add that although there are books that contain "funny laws" or "worst predictions ever" or "strange but true stories", those are intended for entertainment rather than as research material, so they don't typically have footnotes or bibliography. Such books are no more reliable as sources than, say, a comic book. Case in point is John Lennon's Aunt Mimi-- if you can source her "famous last words" to a biography of John Lennon, then there's some credence to it. If your source is "1,000 Notoriously Wrong Statements", or "500 Dumbest Things Ever Written In a Book", that's another matter. "Randy's webpage" or "500 Dumbest Things" can be a perfect repository for funny stories that may or may not be true. Wikipedia, or Encylopedia Britannica, would not. Mandsford (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The expression is known but there's no point in a long list of statements made ironic by the nature of the speaker. It's a cruft magnet in which every entry but maybe two is endlessly arguable, even if cited, because it's a safe bet that nobody will come up with a citation saying that any given quote is an example of this idiom. Mangoe (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. FLW da page suffices. BusterD (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It could be expanded, focusing more on the history of the idiom and its cultural context/relevance. The number of examples should be reduced and referenced, though. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• merge useful context with Last words, then expand that to include their cultural significance; why they are considered important, etc. Tony May (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, partly common knowledge, so the main substance of the page does not need citations. Snowman (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The citations are needed to verify the truth of the statements, most of which belong at wikiquote Travellingcari (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The quotations all need citations. The contents of the citations section can all go in wikiquote, but are quotes listed there under such a definition at the present time in wikiquote. Snowman (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found something but it doesn't appear to be exactly the same. I think the dicdef goes to Wiktionary, I don't see any relevance/encyclopedic content of any of it to Wikipedia. Travellingcari (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The meaning of "Famous last words (expression)" is encyclopedic, and it has been a page on the wiki since August 2004. If "Jumping the shark" can get in, then so can this? I think wikiquote needs a new topic area with a carefully thought out heading for quotes that are covered by the expression here. Wikiquote does not seem to cover this exact topic at the present time, but when it does there should be an interwiki link from this page to that page. Snowman (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment I don't think how long it's been here is relevant, but we'll see what the outcome is. Re: jumping the shark WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid reason to keep something else. As I said on the talk page, how wikiquote handles the material is up to their guidelines. Travellingcari (talk) 19:54, 8 February 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.