Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/And that's a good thing
I am still fairly new to understanding all of Wikipedia's guidelines, and I apologize for arriving a bit late, I had to read quite a bit of material to confidently voice my opinion. I do not feel that the stated reasoning for deletion is valid this early in the article's publication. To refer to : I would argue these complaints are in the clean-up level. If this article is already so irreconcilable that it must be deleted, I would like to see the necessary evaluations of the four criteria of , showing a lack of sources that would cover  (assuming those are the appropriate notability guideline for this phrase) and that the improvement of this article's sourcing is not possible as per section C of  as well as . In relation to the article's subject, there would have to be a clear case for the strict application of the notability guidelines here. On Wikipedia, this sort of article, discussing cliches, their origins and usage, writing and sourcing can be complex. But this fact alone doesn't merit immediate deletion, and while it could at most be pushed back to draft space, the relevancy of this topic merits being available for public editing. "And that's a good thing" is a strong contemporary example of template-style article headlines, which supplements the growing study of clickbait journalism. Thus, I would argue that this article does merit being kept for improvement, and I am looking for additional sources now to help improve this article
— User:The, 02:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP||WP:BEFORE||WP:GNG||WP:BEFORE||WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)