Talk:Citizen Kane

RFD discussion: November 2022–December 2023
I don't really think this makes it a...term. The cites appear to use italics to refer to the movie, and this usage of movies/games/whatever in these kinds of contexts is pretty common, for example, "Well the movie was pretty bad, but it was surely no ". PseudoSkull (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The "Citizen Kanes" cite looks promising, but phrases like "the Citizen Kane of horror movies" really shouldn't count. Binarystep (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So if I see "The movie was no Citizen Kane" somewhere I can't come here to find out what it means? Drapetomanic (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You would be better off going to Wikipedia and learning more about the movie than a single-sentence definition can tell you. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Same for Einstein then? Drapetomanic (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Einstein is much more generally applied and understood independently of context, I'm not sure Citizen Kane is. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then we should look for some kind of test. Drapetomanic (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per proponent. PUC – 13:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, not different from Joan of Arc Drapetomanic (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: the non-proper-name uses (the X of, Xes) need to be covered in some way, whether via the current common noun sense or as part of proper name sense indicating what the entity is noted for. (The proper name sense in Joan of Arc ought to be restored: it was deleted using low-quality rationale.) --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, merely being used as an object of comparison is not sufficient to be included, even if well known enough that the comparison can be made without further context. The sentiment above about a test being created is well taken, though I don't have a good suggestion for such a test. - TheDaveRoss  12:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think taking a cite like "X is the Citizen Kane of horror movies" and using it to define "Citizen Kane" as "an exceptionally good movie" is questionable, anyway. Sometimes, a comparison-item can gain a new meaning, like at least some dictionaries have a sense for the use of the n-word in the famous line "woman is the [n-word] of the world", but anything can be compared: compare (...hah) . (Other examples from Google Books: "women are the Jews of the world, or Blacks are the Jews of America, or vice versa all around", "Jews are the women of the world".) If someone says "that's the Boris Johnson of arguments" is Boris Johnson now a noun meaning (take your pick!) something particularly bad or something particularly compelling? Mehhh. Einstein feels different because it's not restricted to comparisons (not restricted to just "X is the Einstein of biology", you can also just say "alright, Einstein"). If we can formulate a test, that'd be great. - -sche (discuss) 21:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per -sche. MedK1 (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is silly and a Pandora's box if allowed. Fay Freak (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Deleted. PUC – 14:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)