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. MBisanz ^talk 04:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Crisis[edit]

Not notable. Google reveals that "Merry Crisis" is something that people say sometimes, but that's not enough to justify an article. Article3 (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This just might be a notable neologism after all. 185k ghits for "merry crisis", 80k for "merry crisis and a happy new fear", a dozen gnews hits for "merry crisis", and 70+ gnews hits for "merry crisis and a happy new fear", including articles in the Washington Post, New York Times, Boston Globe, Seattle Times, Toronto Sun, Guardian, etc. Another option would be to change the focus of the article to talk about the event of the spraypainting of this slogan in Greece. Perhaps also a merger with 2008 civil unrest in Greece would be in order. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 01:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the Google News hits are copies of the same AP article as far as I can tell--It contains one sentence that mentions this phrase. The number of Google hits is obviously meaningless unless some of them are reliable sources.Article3 (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the term's appearance in the 2008 civil unrest in Greece is notable in itself, the term has also appeared elsewhere. Dorcas Hardy, a former US Commissioner of Social Security distributed buttons proclaiming the term^{[New York Times]}. The term also appeared in an article from the Sunstar here. Since the term has been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources, I believe it does not fail to meet any notability inclusion criteria. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does a three-sentence article in the NYT really amount to "significant coverage"?Article3 (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this neologism has not been analysed as a neologism, and is a pun which does not need explaining in an encyclopedia. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a term, not a topic. It could appear in every piece of literature ever, but that doesn't promote it to anything more than a very notable exclamation, which is on the fringe of not even being considered a dictionary definition. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very minor meme, with minimal documentation. We do cover these slogans, but not that this trivial level. The entire actual AP story is about one slogan painted on one wall, once, during one demonstration. And the picture which is the evidence shows a different slogan entirely. The rest is dependent on a single group's self publicity. DGG (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arbitrarily0 --Qsaw ^(talk) 20:27, 12 January 2009 (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.