Talk:Whoo hoo!

Notability

You still haven't done a lot to establish notability. Three brief articles are thin evidence. I suspect this one would still end up deleted. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fox does not own the rights to the phrase

The third source referenced is inaccurate. In the article posted on cnbc.com, Jane Wells claims that Homer Simpson owns the Woo Hoo expression. Woo hoo does not belong to Homer Simpson or the Fox Network. The term was part of the American lexicon prior to the Simpsons character Homer Simpson expressing it. Woo hoo was the title of a song dating back to 1959.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosangela1985 (talk • contribs)

But the issue is not whether a trademark issue actually exists, but whether Washington Mutual changed the spelling based on the possibility of trademark issues. My concern is that Jane Well's blog is not a reliable source for this info, and I have not been able to find one. — Satori Son 14:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Dunno why she shouldn't be considered a RS. It looks like she is a journalist with CNBC. Moreover, in the blog she quotes a statement made by WAMU to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (which is something that can be verified) "We didn't want something that somebody else is using". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Ms. Wells is just quoting someone else, but I already looked at that SPI source, and it's clearly just a blog post, too (The Big Blog). I performed a few different Google News searches and came up with nothing. So far, it looks as though no mainstream news article has covered the "Homer Simpson" angle. — Satori Son 14:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The blog linked in the article and the blog that you linked are both posted by journalists that work for RS (CNBC and the SPI). Although the responses to the post are worthless, what the original poster states is as "mainstream" and reliable as any newspaper article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree, but I will respect your opinion and leave it in. Maybe at some point it this info will get picked up by a news story that is "more mainstream"(?). Have a good one. — Satori Son 15:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Should this in fact be a redirect to Washington Mutual? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. Although the advertising campaign was initiated by the bank, they really are two separate issues. One is a bank and one is an advertising campaign. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem more notable or more encyclopedic than i'm lovin' it or Just do it, which is just a redirect and a hatnote link. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-22t19:13z

I'm loving it is a redirect to a general McDonald's advertising page. There is no such page for WaMu. Superm401 - Talk 07:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, i'm lovin' it was merged by one editor without any sort of consensus. See Talk:McDonald's advertising#Proposed merge. When I get a chance I will look into reverting the merge. The article was a great stand-alone article before it was arbitrarily merged. This was the final pre-merge version. As for Just do it, there never was a discussion that there should not be an article about the Nike advertising slogan. As a matter of fact, there should be one. It is one of the most famous advertising slogans of all time. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Agree, with redirect, of course. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)