Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush regime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete, but I have no objection to someone creating a redirect. - Philippe | Talk 05:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bush regime

Bush regime (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Been around since 2003, but it seems like cruft, and a non-notable two-word combination. Ghits mean nothing really, and are irrelevant here. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:ATTACK and WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I would not regard the wording of the article as reflective of its author's opinion on George W. Bush, there is nothing worth keeping in the article. The number of ghits on a word sequence can be relevant in AfD discussions, but if that number is by itself a subject's main claim to notability... --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete Let's see, WP:SOAP, WP:ATTACK, what else.... CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. The word "regime" is a widely-used alternative to "administration", e.g. "Roosevelt regime", "Nixon regime", It means either the term of office ("at the start of the Lincoln regime") or the coterie of people in charge of policy ("the Johnson regime was determined to pass civil rights"). It is sometimes used to give a negative connotation, but by no means universally. --Dhartung | Talk 22:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Bush administration as it's conceivable that someone would type this phrase into the search box. Not enough here for an article of its own. I suppose it could also be redirected to Criticism of George W. Bush but that might violate the principle of least surprise. *** Crotalus *** 10:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Crotalus. Linguistically the term "regime" is neutral, but in practice it has a negative flavor to it. But it is not an "attack" phrase so severe that it outdoes the usefulness of a redirect for a plausible search term. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect Personally, I believe "regime" can be used in the title of an article, but administration is the praxis regarding US governments.--Aldux (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Criticism of George W. Bush. This sounds like the best bet to keep in flow with the connotation while maintaining neutrality.Shaliya waya (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Redirect would fail WP:SOAP, WP:ATTACK, etc. Where are the primary and secondary sources? Interestingly, the only reference is WP:GOOGLEHITS. I'd expect that in the AfD, not in the article itself. MrPrada (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge This article is not an attack, but rather a description of the term. Two external links are provided, showing where the term has been used.Hellno2 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (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.