Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome

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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bush Derangement Syndrome

This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "neologism, Urban Dictionary is not a reliable reference," but the deletion process was not completed. —Brim 06:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I found a few refences to this on the web [1] , but I don't think it has mainstream usage. It does register 353 google hits [2]. Movementarian 07:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: It gets 78k google hits [3] when you search for "Bush Derangement Syndrome" instead of "Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)". peachlette 22:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• While I am tempted to vote Keep, this article is original research and I don't think that the term has quite crossed the notability bar so delete. Capitalistroadster 08:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the only external reference is UrbanDictionary then I don't believe this is notable at all. — JIP | Talk 09:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete we are not a mirror of Urban Dictionary. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am against judging articles by arbitrary notability standards (as is WP policy) and measuring a topic's worthiness by its number of Google hits is just plain dumb - presumably an article about the Roman Army in the 2nd Century would also get deleted since you're unlikely to get many google hits about that! Cynical 12:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The importance of an expression is measured by the number of people that use it. The importance of other things is established by other criteria. Therefore, when trying to check the notability of an expression, technical term, neologism etc, it is worthwhile to argue on its Google hits, though other criteria should be considered as well (eg. if the expression is common on TV more than on the Internet).JoaoRicardo 06:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not exactly original research. If kept, the article needs to be completely rewritten for clarity. It is a dictionary defintion of a term that appears to have whatever meaning anybody wants to give it, which makes it unencyclopedic in my opinion. Logophile 14:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 78000 google hits, very prominent on rightwing blogs Firebug 18:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not really in mainstream use now, likely to be forgotten when Bush is out of office.Bjones 18:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No good reason to delete. Term needs explanation. -- JJay 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - it is an insulting term, but it is referenced and in common use. Ah Beng was kept, hence so should this one be. It is written neutrally. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Well known expression of the moment and I'm not sure what other category where it would belong. Jtmichcock 03:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Charles Krauthammer, author of this definition. This coinage seems slightly notable enough to be mentioned somewhere, but I don't see how can this stub grow to become a full article. It's better to integrate it into Krauthammer's article, where it can be set in a context for his political thoughts. JoaoRicardo 06:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per other comments.TheRingess 06:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per Logophile. Stifle 14:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a popular and growing term created by a notable columnist. --badlydrawnjeff 14:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per other comments; not really in mainstream use. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep enough google hits Sethie 17:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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.