Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bidenisms

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bidenisms[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating for roughly the same reason I supported deleting Trumpisms at its AfD, but even more so because there's so much less coverage of this neologism. Perhaps it could be redirected to public image of Joe Biden, but I don't think there's really anything to merge (I think this is true of the post-deletion recreation of Trumpisms, too). There are a range of policy-based reasons for deletion/redirection here: WP:NOPAGE, WP:NEO, and WP:SALAT to name a few. Per the latter, there's no way to set good inclusion criteria. The subject is really just about his speaking style, which is covered at the public image articles. Even if someone were to create an article on the speaking/rhetorical/communication style of Joe Biden, this isn't the content we'd want to start with. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trumpisms (2nd nomination). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and United States of America. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but the term is so poorly defined in secondary sources (I mean, we all know what it means, but still) it's also potentially WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 16:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a trivial media term to refer to one's behaviors, can't see anything significant that deserves its own Wikipedia article. This is just WP:ORIGINAL research. Karnataka (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. The inclusion criteria is so broad and ill-defined that it just doesn't hold any value as a stand-alone list. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, SYNTH, etc. Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 June 2023 (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.