Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushism

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bushism[edit]

"Bushism" is indeed exactly a neologism. Where did it come from? Who uses this term? Anyone notable? This article does not specify. The article indeed makes no claims to the notability of this term, whatsoever. It cites no credible references. It is speculative. It does contain a ton of quotes. And a poem. Thus, it's totally unencyclopedic. I suggest we move the quotes not already in Wikiquote to Wikiquote and bag the rest of it. Dwiki 05:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the term Bushism is well know in the United States, regardless of how one feels about it, these things did happen and are a part of U.S. history (such as it is). 64North 07:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well-known term. The word was used as the title of at least five books (More George W. Bushisms, Still More George W. Bushisms, George W. Bushisms V, etc). Over 800,000 google hits, and numerous google news hits. The good folks at the Language Log have referred to the word 37 times. It has entered the lexicon. That said, the quotes in this article could be pared down a lot. bikeable (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bikeable (the books have even spawned desktop calendars). The term is well-defined and commonly used. I'd be behind a move to transfer all the "example" quotes after the first section to Wikiquote, leaving the ones in the "background" section there. Not totally sure about the poem. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 06:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a perfect example of a notable neologism. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am sure there's enough bush haters to keep this article alive. But honestly, Dwiki is totally correct. --MarsRover 07:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's not essential to know where it comes from (probably a NYT columnist) and "who uses" is something Dwiki should have done due diligence on before nominating. Gazpacho 07:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, it's a neologism, and it has very much entered vernacular - but it has gone beyond the state where it's merely a definition. --Dennis The TIger 08:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's passed the point where it has notablity that it's not just another neoligism. It's been used in the Associated Press[1] along with being used on television. It's not just a small group of people who have adopted the word. - The Bethling(Talk) 09:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable neologism. VegaDark 09:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think 6 years of very active use in a variety of mediums (the books, the calendars, there is even a couple audio CDs) as well as the press mentions has moved "Bushisms" beyond the realm of being a neologism. And as someone who has voted for him, I don't think this is a matter of Bush-hating. It a matter of a very notable phrase.205.157.110.11 10:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Bethling. Used by Associated Press and on television is enough indication for me. - Mgm|(talk) 10:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as having pretty wide currency, and also as a placeholder for one or two memorable foot-in-mouth moments which would otherwise bulk up Shrub's article. Guy 12:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per bikeable.--Isotope23 14:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for sure. Plenty of reliable sources are available to verify the phrase's use. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV, unless there's an article on political gaffes or something like that this can be merged into. Something touching on this topic has a place in an encyclopedia, certainly one that's not paper, but this particular article, by its very nature, is all "look how stupid George W. Bush is."–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree the article needs to be expanded to better answer Dwiki's questions, but the topic is extremely notable and has appeared on TV, in books, and many articles. nadav 18:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Filled with POV, WP:OR, poorly sourced, unencyclopedic, and probably violates WP:BLP. I'm not opposed to the topic, per se. But this execution is wrong in so many ways. Crockspot 19:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Five book titles is sufficient for inclusion. Gamaliel 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A neoligism readily recognized inside and outside the United States. Victoriagirl 20:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Very important (and interesting) topic. The POV and OR issues should not be grounds for deletion, as these can be resolved. Zagalejo 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may be a neoligism, but is an extremely widespread and notable neologism. RFerreira 20:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's part of American (and European) pop culture. Many of the above objections ("poorly sourced", "POV", etc) can be fixed. I'm off to do some fixing up right now. Srose (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RFerreira and others. HGB 22:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable, sourceable neologism, but also keep the OR/V tag that is already there. Some of the article is OR and POV but that can be fixed. Pan Dan 02:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can an article detailing what an idiot a public figure is be made NPOV? "However, Bush has been knbown to say quite clever things as well"? And Crockspot points out that it's a biographical article about a living person, too.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's unwarranted to infer from Bush's misspeakings that he's an idiot. Clumsy speakers aren't necessarily dumb. Personally, I think it's just the folksy way he talks. (But maybe I think that because I'm not a Bush detractor.) Or, maybe because it's actually kind of endearing, he does it on purpose (part of his political strategery). The point is that Bushisms are notable because they have engendered chatter from humorists and speculation from analysts. A balanced article should include comments both from Bush's detractors (like Molly Ivins who is already cited) and his defenders. And of course you're right that sentences like what you quoted are not appropriate. Pan Dan 18:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and interesting. Kellen T 12:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep savidan(talk) (e@) 14:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Bikable. MikeWazowski 17:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bikable and Bethling Silver95280 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just as RFerrira wrote, this is a notable neologism. Lazybum 04:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. This time "NN" means "notable neologism". --Richard 07:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep widely usedinternationally used neologism. When even the leader of a foreign country makes a wisecrack about bush's use of the english language...  ALKIVAR™ 19:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. I've seen several books on it in London's main branch of Waterstones and generally Bush is very famous for his political gaffes in terms of grammar. It has been parodied in several TV shows (Dead Ringers, 2DTV and I think there are a couple more). Also, as Srose said it's part of american and European culture. Andrius 19:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:V. There are many verifiable sources for this term, both in the article and above. --Satori Son 13:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-known term that people will look for on Wikipedia. bbx 18:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Take a look at all the pages that link to "Bushism." Clearly a notable word/phenomenon.
  • Keep. A common term with a very specific meaning. Amazon has a large number of books which use this term as it's title. The use of the word in those books is parallel to the way it is described in this article.--Roland Deschain 00:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Violation of the policy on libel against living people. Article very poor, inherently biased, and if kept will probably not be improved. Uncited poems? DELETE. Judgesurreal777 02:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - libel certainly does not figure in here. It's very very difficult to commit defamation against a public figure in the United States. Nothing in the article crosses the line. So let's just take the legal question out of consideration. Second, the article is, for the most part, sourced. Thus these portions of it, including the poem (which is sourced in the reference right above the poem's title), pass muster with WP:BLP. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I suspect a political motivation in this weird attempt to delete a very informative (although probably ephemeral) article. And by the way (see above) ... " [M]aybe because it's actually kind of endearing, he does it on purpose (part of his political strategery)." ... well, er, yes, of course, maybe, eh? Garrick92 14:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge As mentioned above, if there's a larger article for gaffes of politicians, maybe this could be moved there. It's certainly not a stand-alone article, though, no matter how funny or politically advantageous it may be for those who created the article in the first place. Dubc0724 17:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Whether or not politics played a role in the creation of this term or article is simply not relevant. Shall we now debate whether War on Terror or Axis of Evil should have an entries? The political origins and motivations behind the creation of those two terms is much more clear cut. Again, the fact is that Bushism is a notable neologism used throughout the English-speaking world. In at least one Canadian school Bushisms are used as a tool in teaching English to foreign language students. [2]. Victoriagirl 19:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An important, notable and interesting article.AbsenceWiki 21:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a well known term and often quoted in the media --Barrytalk 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Strategery should be merged in and the Decider should get some mention.Rokor 03:10, 13 September 2006 (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/Bushism&oldid=1137661890"