Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 (non-admin closure). Debate closed by Oo7565 at 22:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is
- )
The article is about a tongue twister with no notability beyond a brief mention in a short story. It never entered the Anglophonic lexicon; unless you are a die-hard fan of "Flowers for Algernon," you never heard it.
talk) 14:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
- Merge into Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. --FlagFreak TALK 14:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mixed feelings on this one. It is a well-known exercise in parsing or punctuation, and I'd heard of it before reading Flowers for Algernon (later in the Cliff Robertson film Charley). But like "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers", I can't see this as a search term on Wikipedia; I'd prefer that this and 8Buffalo would be in an article about such editorial exercises, and that this be a redirect to that. Mandsford (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Flowers for Algernon. That's where it originated, and by itself it has no notability. Leonard(Bloom) 16:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears in sources which predate that story. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As Colonel Warden said, evidently news, books and scholar. Also an entry in Brewers predates the Flowers for Algernon use by at least six years but probably more as I am referring to the 1953 edition, could have been there from the start (1870). Have updated the article accordingly. If the outcome of this debate is merge then I would suggest James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher as a better destination - buffalo x8 does not require punctuation & illustrates an entirely different point. Finally whilst the nominator is correct that it is a tongue twister, this fact is incidental to its notability & is not mentioned in the article. nancy (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's in Brewer and it's in Flowers for Algernon (or at least the film adaptation, Charly). Brewer would have been enough. I wanted to be the first to say "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo", but FlagFreak beat me to it. --Jenny 09:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because that that is is that that is not is not is that it it is that that is is that that is not is not is that it it is that that is is that that is not is not is that it it is. --Candy-Panda (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there's enough there to make it a decent entry. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 13:06, 6 July 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.