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 keep. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the children (politics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This entire article consists of original research. No references are cited that actually discuss the use of the phrase. The only sources provided are what the author(s) believe to be examples of the phrase's use. This is original research by synthesis. *** Crotalus *** 15:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; few sources, and the phrase is not commonly used or recognized. Tezkag72^{私にどなる}_{私のはかい} 22:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has some cites, mostly good. This is in fact, quite recognized, and has been used by Democrats and Republicans alike since at least 1972. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC) This is very easy to rescue. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article about the phrase and the idea and tag for expansion. Current sources would indicate that this article could benefit from WP:CLEANUP and expansion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've heard the phrase used, but I don't think it deserves an article per the reasoning of the nom and Tezkay72. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Platitude, Truism or Thought-terminating cliché since these cover the general topic of phrases of the motherhood and apple pie sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article consists of purely original research (see WP:OR), with no a single proper source (see WP:V and WP:N).--Sloane (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An important article on politics that deserves a seperate article. The sources relate to the article and are useful. They show that the article is not original research. The sources actually make sense and there are quite a few. MathCool10 ^{Sign here!} 03:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but also nuke most of the content of the old article. In fact, I saw this article a few weeks back and have been meaning to edit it. It is unquestionably true that this is a political tactic / slogan that has been used, and I dare say one that merits an article... but the current article seems to be under the strange idea that this is a logical fallacy, which it's not (well, the stupid way it's phrased in the article is perhaps a fallacy, but nobody claims ANYTHING good for children is good - the real argument is normally whether a policy actually is good "for the children."). In fact, I have been bold and removed a considerable amount of the article just now, and rephrased some of the intro. SnowFire (talk) 06:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pure synthesis of published sources. If kept, severely trim. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources exist for the (over)use of this political rhetoric: Scenes from the Political Playground: An Analysis of the Symbolic Use of Children in Presidential Campaign Advertising, The Evocative Nature of Kin Terminology in Political Rhetoric, The Politics of Family. According to this review, The Anti-Intellectual Presidency: The Decline of Presidential Rhetoric from George Washington to George W. Bush quotes “Well over half of all references to children in State of the Union addresses since 1790 were uttered by our last five presidents”. – 74  17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve per Mathcool and 74 above. MuffledThud (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As a phrase I think this is notable and widespread enough that it should merit a well-sourced and documented entry in the encyclopedia. §FreeRangeFrog 18:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A particularly prevalent form of the "thought terminating cliche", the "Won't somebody think of the children?" meme/fallacious argument/moral panic justification is an increasingly common part of our lives, and deserves a seperate article of its own. Deleting an article for WP:SYN reminds me of cutting off head to get rid of pimple on face, as WP:SYN can only occur with WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katana0182 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep after sources have been brought to light by the squiggly mark guy (sorry I'm not sure how to address you). Still needs to be cleaned up, detrivialized, and written with the new references, but notability has been shown. Themfromspace (talk) 04:23, 28 February 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.