It's difficult to find a WP article more trivial than this one.

(Only mentioned because Michael Foot, the person most responsible for the "suicide note",
died today.)

Is every pronouncement or catchphrase ever uttered or scribbled by any public figure,
author or journalist eligible for a Wikipedia article? No matter how trivial or obscure?
Where's the "official policy" to cover this??

That's a shocker, I agree.

I think the official policy is that there's no official policy.

Wikipedia:Obscure public information?

Ignorant deletionsists.

That's an incredibly notable phrase in British politics and certainly worthy of 1 article in 3 million.


Go away and pick on a Pokemon or an obscure and unwelcome biography.

I'd say merge it with Gerald Kaufman's article.

A notable quotation, but surely not worthy of an article in its own right? I'd also suggest that it is not current, and represents something that was important in its era, but is now merely a footnote in an article about the wider issues.

It is actually a fine example of the dysfunctional nature of Wikipedia - it has an editorial incontinence where it cannot bear the thought that something, once highlighted might be consigned to a dusty corner.

Wikipedia has never resolved the indexing issue it has, it is too boring and tedious. In a real reference work, such a phrase would not gain its own article, but might gain a reference in an index - or in the modern world, simply be a searchable term.

As Wikipedia is googlable, there is no functional reason to separate out what by itself is the trivia of history, a sound bite.

Without editorial restraint you just have a heap of articles where it is impossible to leaf through them to gain a sense of what the contents are.

Think of it like a normal encyclopedia where at times you leaf through, perhaps following a cross reference on a whim. There is too much dross in Wikipedia for Random Article, for example, to be a satisfying experience. I'd argue that open any page on a decent encyclopedia and there would be something for an interested reader. How many clicks of random article before you'd say the same? (I've just done 20 to be faced with TV episodes, obscure foreign towns and a significant number of American non-notables).

It isn't notable as a Kaufman quote. Most people can't remember who said it.

It is notable as a commentary on the 1980's Labour party and it will doubtless be mentioned in many other articles. If the reader of them wants to know about the quote, its context, and its afterlife, it is best if that information is on one page and clickable to.

The article here makes perfect sense.

Surely this should redirect to the Lisbon Pact.

Agree with Doc G here. Every Foot obituary I've seen has mentioned the phrase, and as you say most people aren't aware of who actually said it so merging it to Kaufmann is inappropriate. This was a turning point in modern history - by splitting the Labour Party, Foot allowed the (then very unpopular) Margaret Thatcher to be re-elected by default on a minority 42% vote, and to introduce the radical agenda towards privatization, free trade and foreign policy which completely reshaped the politics of the US and Western Europe. If it were to be merged to anything, it should be United Kingdom general election, 1983, but that article's in such a poor state that merging it there would put undue weight on Foot.

That might apply to articles about recent web memes, but this was something that happened in 1983, long before Wikipedia existed. It sums up the 1983 general election, where the Labour party finished on a pitiful 27%, only 2% ahead of the Liberal-SDP Alliance, in one phrase, and provides the context for subsequent reforms by the likes of Tony Blair.