Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama 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 was delete. PanFx, Wikipedia is not fair; it is neutral. Sandstein 17:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Derangement Syndrome

Non-notable extremely recent neologism. No evidence of usage outside of a select view right wing blogs. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete politically biased protologism. JuJube (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fringe neologism. Should the original of this snowclone, Bush Derangement Syndrome, be deleted too? AlexTiefling (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional delete as dicdef of a neologism. Will revise my position if significant coverage in reliable sources is found. Google News results included these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], but I'm not sure there's a reliably sourced article to be written from them. the skomorokh 18:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion-stupid topic and same with the bush derangement syndrome article, no such thing exists in real medical term.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Appearance in a medical dictionary is not a requirement for inclusion in wikipedia. See Tennis Elbow for a example. Dman727 (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The obvious comparision is to the article Bush_Derangement_Syndrome. The Bush article has survived two deletion attempts based on notability and sourcing. (not suprisingly a 3rd one has now been proposed) This article, however does not seem to have the same benefit of being well sourced and notable. Certainly if "OBS" gains significant coverage then an article should be created and maintained. That's not the case now and keeping this article simply because a similar article exist is good example WP:OSE Dman727 (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am willing to acquiesce to the deletion of this entry if the Bush_Derangement_Syndrome is also deleted. Neither are medical terms, yet both have plenty of search engine entries. I have seen it used more and more in political discussions, especially as the new President-Elect Barack Obama is about to take office. So in the interest of fairness, if Obama_Derangement_Syndrome is going to be removed, so should Bush_Derangement_Syndrome. PanFx (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)— PanFx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2008 (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.