Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter of the United States

Add links
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 redirect to Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama. this has already been done, in my opinion very appropriately, by Grundle2600, so I'm closing it as a redirect. If anyone wants to, they can re-nominate it. DGG (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teleprompter of the United States[edit]

Teleprompter of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is just Rush Limbaugh's latest joke, and the article doesn't cite use of this term by anyone other than Limbaugh and some blogs. Add this to the Limbaugh article if you want, but it doesn't merit its own article. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Rush Limbaugh may be at the spearhead of the criticism, the article explores actual media debate about the President's reliance on teleprompters. Neutral language is used throughout, and even criticism (linking to supporters of Obama in the media) of the concept is provided to give a balanced point of view. The print and news media have visited this topic and the two accidents involving teleprompters (see the malfunction section) make this relevant and real. A google search for "TOTUS Obama" yields 17,900 results. This is not a small topic, but a rather developed concept deserving it's own page. Dermus (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:NOT a dictionary, a glossary of right-wing blogspeak, or a soapbox. The article's use of language is not altogether neutral - it's effectively a POV fork of material about Obama's rhetoricla style, focussing on one aspect whose importance is itself questionable and the subject of political bias. But in any case, this 'topic' is just a description of the use of language by an opinionated minority - a highly political dicdef. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge Since an article on Limbaugh jargon already exists, this is a solid proposal. 74.69.39.11 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- No indication that has any notability seperate from Limbaugh. I'm even wondering if this would be speediable under G10, as it has the feel of a page created only to disparage a person. Any other thoughts on that? Umbralcorax (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I've stricken my comment about G10) I gotta be honest too, I'm not too enthused about the sourcing for the article. Three of the references go to Limbaugh's site (one is used twice), one is a youtube link, and one goes to hotair. I think, in addition to the previously stated deletion reasons, I think there might be a whole bunch ofsynthesis and original research going on here as well. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.146.9 (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Sky News article does not refer to the 'Teleprompter of the United States' at all; it simply reports that the President made a mistake with a teleprompter. Citing that as evidence for the currency of Rush Limbaugh's political jargon doesn't work. And it's certainly not a popular phrase 'all over'; people here haven't heard of it at all, and don't care. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gotta be honest with you. I live here in the states, and this is, quite frankly, the first I've heard of the term. I'm not the most politically aware person in the country, but I consider myself resonably informed. The fact that I've not heard of it until now doesn't bode well for the notability of the phrase. Thats not, and I'm not intending it to be, an argument for deletion, however. Just meant as an observation. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah it says in there "Mr Obama is an accomplished orator but is becoming known in America as the "teleprompt president" over his reliance on the machine when he gives a speech" and many other article say the same thing, do a news articles search you will find this true.
  • Delete as a neologism and joke. WillOakland (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Wikipedia is not a mirror of everything Limbaugh says. Edison (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' it is not just a rush limbaugh thing just search google and you will see that. You are giving Mr. Limbaugh too much credit for originality if you think he came up with it, he get everything he says from Drudge report anyway. So terribly sorry for not knowing all your fancy bureaucratic WP whatever wiki rules of arguing but this is relevant article to a grass roots phenomenon.
  • Merge to Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show -Drdisque (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a silly neologism. Eusebeus (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - dittohead-only neologism; all the silly Limbaughisms are in Rush's article(s). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jargon. – PranksterTurtle (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge the neologism on its own is not notable, but a list entry may be suitable. Failing that, delete Sceptre (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show -- I actually just looked up TOTUS after I saw the term used, and I was glad that Wikipedia had something helpful. But I agree that it doesn't merit a page of its own--I would have been just as informed if TOTUS had redirected me to the jargon page. -- Narsil (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep made notable by multiple media sources now and although TOTUS is a little bit of a buzzword, this article should be kept to document the President's over-relience on the telepromter and the mistakes made due to this (Irish speech where he thanked himself was well covered in the media) Perry mason (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved article to Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama[edit]

I did this to save the article from deletion. The main reason that editors are giving for wanting to delete the article is that it's just about what Rush Limbaugh said. That's not true. Many mainstream news sources discussed this topic before Limbaugh started using that phrase. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is there anyone here who thinks that other politicians simply recite their speeches from memory? Even as revised, this is simply a variation of the criticism that a public figure (in this case, Barack Obama, but it can apply to anyone you don't like) is "insincere" or "phony". Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about speeches. It's about his use of the device for routine things that other politicians don't use it for, and about how the media, live audiences, photoraphers, and historians have responded to him doing this. Perhaps you only read an early version of the article. But if you read it now, you will see what the article is really about. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources now cited in the article
  • The New York Times
  • U.S. News & World Report
  • Times Online
  • The Daily Mail
  • The Politico

This subject is notable.

Grundle2600 (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Teleprompter_of_the_United_States&oldid=1088288295"