Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 redirect to Public image of George W. Bush. The automatic headcount gives: keep 11, delete 17, merge 8, redirect 4; total "not keep": 29. After assessing the arguments advanced in the light of policy and guidelines, I find the following: The argument for deletion, merging or redirecting is that the term has insufficient coverage of the type needed to pass WP:GNG, that it is a WP:NEOLOGISM, and that it is discussed (if at all) in the context of its inventor Charles Krauthammer and/or as part of the public image of George W. Bush. The argument for keeping is that the topic has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, and is too old or too widely used to be a neologism. These are all valid lines of argumentation, and which view is more persuasive is a matter of editorial judgment. I therefore can't give one position more weight than the other.

Consequently, in view of the numbers mentioned initially, I conclude that there is a (narrow) consensus that this should not be kept as a separate article, but that there is not yet a clear consensus about whether it should be deleted or merged or redirected, and, in the case of a merger or redirect, where to. Both potential target articles (linked to previously) are suggested an equal number of times by my count.

Accordingly, I close this discussion by finding a consensus not to retain this as a separate article, but that further discussion is needed to decide whether either to merge or to redirect it (and where to), or whether to delete it outright. In the interim (and subject to change as subsequent discussions may determine), I'm implementing a redirect to Public image of George W. Bush, because that merge/redirect target has been suggested most often in the second half of this discussion. Consequently, any decision about whether the page should be deleted outright (rather than merged or redirected) would require, in my view, a WP:RfD discussion.  Sandstein  09:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Derangement Syndrome

edit
AfDs for this article:
Bush Derangement Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails criteria in WP:NEOLOGISM. No source has yet been presented about the term, as opposed to merely using the term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, nomination has apparently neglected to include WP:BEFORE; "findsources" demonstrates a wealth of available sources particularly in books and scholar. It's strange to think that 5 previous deletion discussions have got it wrong, but never mind. Apart from that, one might question the premise that it is a neologism; perhaps it's a real syndrome, in which case there's no question about WP:GNG here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources represent a number of uses of the term, but not discussion of the term. WP:NEOLOGISM was not mentioned in any of the previous 3 discussions (two were speedily closed). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient use of the term shows that it's not a neologism at all, making discussion of the term irrelevant. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 6 nominations for deletion? Seems excessive.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The news sources are discussing the original creation of the term and how it's applied since. That seems to be what it should be for an article on a term. Not to mention sources like this fill it out quite a bit. It even discusses ODS. And here's an entire chapter discussing how BDS was formed and this led to PDS. SilverserenC 20:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out these books sources and the first one by John Avlon is only primary in value as it doesn't discuss the term it just uses it. The second source from Rod Parsley does summarize it and mention its origins but is not an expert in any related field that would make this reliable. He's not a journalist, a political commentator or expert and the publishing does not seem reliable for this. Seems to publish biased publications. Charisma House:"Charisma House is one of the leading Christian publishers in the world today, devoted to spreading the name and fame of Jesus Christ worldwide.".--Amadscientist (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Holy crap! Just when I think I have seen the worst this pops up on my radar! What the heck kind mess is this. The so called sources are being so missused here I can't believe this hasn't been addressed through arbitration or formal mediation. So many of our policies and guidelines are being ignored and it isn't to improve the article its to sling mud and prop up and promote political pundits. For christ's sake the very first "reference" is a primary source! You need a secondary source to make the claim. Then I see that promotional links are embedded into the body of the article. This is against policy. Simply put, the example sections are 3 to 4 times the size of the explanation and that is nothing but a self serving tribute to Charles Krauthammer. There is a Huffington post blog from a cartoonist being used as a reference, a comedy bit by Steward thrown in and has little context, but is also just a primary source. I am going through this entire article and trimming it to policy and guidelines. This needs immediate work as it is a BLP concern if these claims are not to our policies. There are too many people being mentioned in ways that are not neutral.
Well sourced? Are you kidding me?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlike for VerySeriousPeople, I've actually heard of this term independently of Wikipedia, and a few simple Googles show that it's actually in common use (unlike Very Serious People, which is heavily weighted towards use by Krugman). A term in wide use is disqualified from being a neologism at all, since a neologism "has not yet been accepted into mainstream language", so WP:NEOLOGISM is irrelevant and BDS need not be discussed as a term in order for us to have an article about it. Consider for instance United States pro-life movement and United States pro-choice movement; the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were made up by someone, but they are not neologisms because they are in too wide use, and the articles are mainly about the movements, not about the terms.
TLDR: It's not a neologism.
That being said, someone should look at SilverSeren's sources for the term. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and the first one is a primary source but might be used with attribution as an opinion...but only if the author gives an opinion somewhere in the source about the term. From what I see they only use the term, they don't comment on it. Its basicly an extension of a partisan site called the Daily Beast and is published by Beast Books. I am not clear if this effects reliablility but partisanship doesn't necessarily denote bias. The second source is not reliably published as it is a biased publisher and am not clear on editorial oversight as its self proclaimed reason to publish is to spread the fame of Jesus.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could see keeping this as a merge and redirect toCharles Krauthammer (as long as it stays within guidelines for sourcing and BLP), but don't see this as being strong enough for a stand alone article.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an opinion peice and would require the author and source be attributed in the prose/text.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the point is to show that these sources prove notability it might be better to use non conservative souces. This is a conservative think tank. It is becoming clear who this subject is notable to.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another Eugene Robinson editorial. Undue weight to claim this for notability along with the above but at least this is not a conservative. Only one of these could be used in the article for due weight and must be attributed to author and source.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another Eugene Robinson opinion peice. Now three. Undue weight for consideration for notability this many opinion peices from the same author. This doesn't prove much.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial from conservative editor of the magazine, The American Spectator. Another conservative opinion piece.
At least some of these sources seem to discuss the phrase (as opposed to simply simply using the phrase), and thus would pass WP:NEO. I don't think this will ever be a lengthy article, but it does seem as if it might meet our inclusion standards by a small margin, in a similar vein as Binders full of women, also the subject of multiple AfDs. - MrX 03:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part these are editorials and opinion peices and three of them are from the same author and source. The rest appear to be more conservative opion peices and for such an article I would think we would require far more balance to calim notability, expecially when the term inludes the name of a living person, and has an implication of simple name calling.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that other ridiculous political toilet water has managed to !vote its way onto wikipedia is not a reason to allow more. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous Political Toilet Water is my new favoritest descriptor. David in DC (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It prefers to be called political Eau de toilette. - MrX 05:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I demand that MrX be blocked indefinitely for failing to include the adjective "Ridiculous". This editor is clearly out to disrupt the Very Serious People hard at work here. David in DC (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would make you the second person today to demand that I be blocked. - MrX 05:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I demand that the other demander be blocked for stealing Doc Brown's Delorean (or Mr. Peabody's Way-Back Machine,) in order to stymie my quest for a gold medal and leave me whimpering on the lower block, holding a silver medal, and listening to some crappy 3rd world country's national anthem. David in DC (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, WP:NRVE states clearly (bolding for emphasis): "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." But with this topic almost everything is one sided conservative opinion or coverage (but mostly opinion).
As for the BLP concerns there were several issues and many living persons involved before trimming and whether you wish to agree on this or not, the term involves a living person not directly related to article, George W. Bush. It does not have to be negative or positive, even neutral mentions require multiple relaible sources in the article if there is any mention of a living person.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it is a conservative criticism of liberals, obviously you are going to find sources among conservatives. Similarly, Wingnut (politics) is a liberal criticism of conservatives, so sources are going to be liberals. It's in the nature of any sort of criticism--the subjects of the criticism aren't ever going to validate the criticism. That's like claiming that the sources for Contempt of cop are unacceptable because they are biased against the police. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so we cannot use mainstream science sources to source intelligent design articles? thats nonsense. the required coverage must be from reliable sources, and what is considered "reliable" will depend upon the context. For a smear of conservative origin and used almost exclusively within conservative bloggospher, conservative bloggers and opinionistas are not reliable sources. and if Wingnut article is sourced entirely to liberal bloggers, then it too as more ridiculous political toilet water needs to go.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have it backwards. This *is* the equivalent of using mainstream scientists to source intelligent design articles--just like mainstream scientists oppose intelligent design but are not considered biased sources for criticism of ID, conservatives oppose liberals but are not biased sources for criticism of liberals. Likewise, people who criticize the police are not biased sources for Contempt of cop. 38.104.2.94 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with JayJasper, as a subject the subject of this AfD has not received continued significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, IMHO; therefore the subject fails WP:GNG. Sure the term has been used multiple times since origination, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary for every politically loaded term. That being said, it is directly related to the subject of the article Public image of George W. Bush; therefore a redirect of the content to that article would preserve what can be verified to a reliable source and maintain the term as a searchable item on Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Amadscientist, Ched, and just about every other delete here. I mean, seriously? Intothatdarkness 18:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should not have a article on every 'clever' little phrase that becomes popular among the chattering class. WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:GNG. Show me widespread and significant usage and i might change my mind. Bonewah (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - per Yworo and Amadscientist's rationales in particular. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • <sarcasm on>Redirect to ridiculous political toilet water.</sarcasm off> Makes more sense than some of the redirect targets proposed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and salt The small size of the article would warrant a merger into the article about the former President. If anyone wants to save it, it needs a lot more detail from reliable sources. As it stands it can't really stay in my opinion. I'm happy to change my vote if someone will expand it appropriately. BerleT (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is what the article looked like when I came across it for this AfD and this is what it looked like when the AfD nomination was posted. As for the delete positions, Wikipedia widely uses newspaper articles as papers to source information about topics discuss in Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. There are plenty of sources betwen 2003 and 2013 that are (1) independent of Charles Krauthammer (who provided a primary written source for the term) and independent of the primary source events that surround the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic and (2) provide information about the topic beyond mere use of the term, including:

    "Bush Derangement Syndrome isn't new", Lexington Herald-Leader, p. A12, September 14, 2006, * "FISA and Bush Derangement Syndrome", Washington Times, p. A18, August 6, 2007, * Tony Blankley (September 26, 2007), "Swooning over Ahmadinejad \. A bad case of Bush derangement syndrome", Washington Times, p. A21, * Leonard Pitts Jr. (December 9, 2010), "From Bush Derangement Syndrome then to Obama Dementia now", St. Paul Pioneer Press, p. B9, * "Obama Dementia supplants Bush Derangement Syndrome", Charlotte Observer, December 9, 2010, * Barbara Kay (February 9, 2011), "Is George W. Bush a war criminal?; Another symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome", National Post, p. A15.

    A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. See No original research. These newspaper articles have Bush Derangement Syndrome in their article title (making Bush Derangement Syndrome the main topic of the newspaper article). Primary sources for Bush Derangement Syndrome are the events (mostly political events) that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome and the above cited secondary sources are at least one step removed from those political events and they provide an author's own thinking based on the events that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome and provide independent information about the topic. The deletes appear to be requiring secondary sources that analyze Krauthammer's 2003 primary source column for the term. They are mistake in that the Wikipedia article is not about Krauthammer's 2003 primary source column. Rather, the article is about the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic. In addition to papers such as newspapers, Google books also provides plenty of source material for the topic that are about the events surrounding the topic as does Google scholar papers. There are more than enough reliable sources that provide information about the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic and that provide an author's own thinking based on the events that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome provide source material for the article to support this topic as its own article. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's long, but I think it's worth reading. This article isn't about a phrase; it's about a topic. If the phrase qualified as a neologism, and we had to take it out, the article would then have to have an awkward title like Right-wing theory about left-wing attacks on George Bush, but that wouldn't itself be reason to not have the article. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that Wikipedia should have articles on modes of thought, even if someone coins a phrase to describe it. I could find you hundreds if not thousands of articles that discuss why liberals hate Christians, or why conservatives hate foreigners or why everyone hates hipsters, but that does not mean Wikipedia should have an article on them. The mere fact that this particular opinion has a popular phrase doesn't change that. To me, this is less about WP:Neologism and more about common sense. Wikipedia is not and should not be a cataloger of opinions, even popular ones, if for no other reason that because it creates a bias towards those who write editorials. The mere fact that someone somewhere wrote something does not make it significant by itself, even if that someone is David Brooks, or Charles Krauthammer or Paul Krugman, or whomever. Bonewah (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome_(6th_nomination)&oldid=1137661759"