Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushists

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 4 clear "delete" votes, 5 clear "keep" votes (but 2 are either anons or very new users) and 4 "keep as redirect" votes. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep.

Personally, I am inclined to agree with the "keep as redirect" group. Noting that a redirect does not require the same degree of overwhelming concensus as deletion, I am going to be bold. Rossami (talk) 00:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bushists

Speculative opinion piece. Rhobite 21:15, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The term has entered into usage by the mass media. It represents a legitimate political faction. History21

  Sorry, I meant to say Keep I just learned how to do that History21

  You need to log in and sign your vote with ~~~~ to be counted. Gazpacho

• Delete unless someone adds more who/what/when details. As far as I know Zell Miller didn't endorse "Bushists," he endorsed George W. Bush. Gazpacho 00:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bushism. Precedent set by Stalinist redirecting to Stalinism and Marxist redirecting to Marxism. Also the title of the article should not be plural. DaveTheRed 00:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The difference is that "Stalinisms" are not words or phrases unique to the style of General Secretary Joseph Stalin. Maybe the polictical section of Bushism needs to be split out. Kappa 01:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It says explicitly in the article that this is separate from Bushisms. CPS 05:24, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • When I said redirect to bushism, I didn't mean the verbal gaffes. I meant the philosphy and doctrine of Bush. This is as per the second definition in the Bushism article. If someone wants to seperate that part out of the article as Kappa suggested, then bushist should redirect to that new article. DaveTheRed 07:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless some sort of proof of general usage is provided. I've heard "Bushisms" used quite frequently, but never heard this term. Gamaliel 05:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Bushist gets over 10,000 google hits, and they seem relevant. DaveTheRed 06:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, google hits don't do much to sway me as bloggers make up lots of terms and then try to write articles about them here claiming they are in wide usage. "Bushisms" has appeared frequently in major media and there's even a book by that title. Is the use of "bushist" this widespread? Gamaliel 21:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Stalinist and Marxist have distinct meetings in political science/history. Bushist has neither - plus this is a load of POV nonsense. Capitalistroadster 10:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Don't know really. May I just remind you that I put the page on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Political science before deletion was proposed, so maybe someone can come up with an NPOV definition saying it is a POV term or something like that? <KF> 11:12, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bushist does appear to be on its way to being the word of choice to describe those who adhere to the policy of the current administration. Though precedent would seem to indicate the -ism suffix, in this case Bushism has already been widely adopted as a reference to his distinctive speaking characteristics (like Spoonerism). HyperZonk^talk 17:12, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep despite my misgivings about the article's author. The term gets hits on Google News, and i have faith that it will be NPOVed. Foobaz·✐ 00:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but should be called BushBots not Bushists (vote by User:4.65.88.1)
• Comment: The article says Bushists are also known as Neocons. Well, we already have an article on Neoconservatism (United States), itself a widely abused term, that has more verifiable details. Gazpacho
• Redirect to Neoconservatism (United States), possibly with a very minimal merge. —Korath (Talk) 07:56, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
• See, this is why a politician named Rimsky-Korsakov would never get enough votes :) Anyway, merge & redirect. Radiant! 08:40, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Frankly, the merger of this with our neoconservatism article would achieve nothing but ruining that article. The claim that Bushists supposedly encourage Christianisation of America (whatever that means) would be nonsense in an article about neoconservatism which predates President George W. Bush's presidency by at least 30 years. Very few if any of the President's supporters identify themselves as Bushists unlike Reaganites which was a common term. Frankly, I can think of few Republicans or conservatives whose opinions do not waver in any way from President Bush's although most generally support the administration. No change of vote. Capitalistroadster 17:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. The "Bushists" article does not describe the reality of Bush's supporters. Rhobite 18:33, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • The term as I've heard it is used chiefly by opponents of the Administration, rarely by actual Bush followers. I think that the terms "bushist" and "neocon" are not necessarily synonymous, but if we do redirect to Neoconservatism (United States), then we should definitely not merge, because what's written here is POV and IMO unusable. DaveTheRed 20:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://ensign.ftlcomm.com/desantisArticles/2002_600/desantis606/bushistrightism.html The truth hurts

• Redirect, no merge. -Sean Curtin 03:23, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.