Misplaced Pages

Talk:JobsNotMobs: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:45, 6 November 2018 editThenightaway (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users51,864 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:33, 7 November 2024 edit undoSink Cat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,755 edits Assessment (Low): banner shell, +Politics, +United States (Rater) 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low}}
}}


== Should this have a standalone article? == == Should this have a standalone article? ==


Why not throw this into ] or ] along with all the other phrases and slogans that got RS coverage but which don't really deserve standalone in-depth articles? ] (]) 22:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC) Why not throw this into ] or ] along with all the other phrases and slogans that got RS coverage but which don't really deserve standalone in-depth articles? ] (]) 22:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
:It's, like, useful to look at the page before commenting on it. If you have, you might have noticed that this was a slogan in the midterm, not in a Presidential campaign. More to the point, Politico, the New York Times and several other mainstream publications went INDEPTH on this slogan. Also, as you would have known if you had actually looked, ] is almost entirely bluelinked phrases. Next time, read before commenting.] (]) 17:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
:Seems to me yes, it should be a standalone article. The sources establish notability. This particular slogan, as a slogan, received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There's no reason ''not'' to have separate articles for notable political slogans. ] (]) 23:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:33, 7 November 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should this have a standalone article?

Why not throw this into List of United States political catchphrases or List of U.S. presidential campaign slogans along with all the other phrases and slogans that got RS coverage but which don't really deserve standalone in-depth articles? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It's, like, useful to look at the page before commenting on it. If you have, you might have noticed that this was a slogan in the midterm, not in a Presidential campaign. More to the point, Politico, the New York Times and several other mainstream publications went INDEPTH on this slogan. Also, as you would have known if you had actually looked, List of United States political catchphrases is almost entirely bluelinked phrases. Next time, read before commenting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems to me yes, it should be a standalone article. The sources establish notability. This particular slogan, as a slogan, received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There's no reason not to have separate articles for notable political slogans. Levivich (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Categories: