Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushism (3rd nomination)

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.

Bushism[edit]

The result was WP:SNOW keep Pcap ping 21:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama, POV fork, unencyclopedic topic, BLP issue, as well as poor sourcing and OR. William S. Saturn (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is relatively neutral, so it isn't a POV fork. Also, the topic is encyclopedic, considering the existence of relevant hits on Google Scholar, and the publication of several books on the topic. Additionally, not much has changed since the previous nomination. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:POV fork can be written in a neutral manner, it is still a POV fork. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also please address the BLP issue and the precedent set by the Obama article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no privacy concern here, Bush is a well known figure, and the material is thoroughly sourced, even if it is not favorable to the subject, so there's no BLP issue. The precedent argument is a classical example of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that? Wikipedia should be consistent when dealing with U.S. presidents. Also, regardless of whether it is a well-known figure, the information is used simply to defame the subject, thus a BLP violation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation involves false information; Bushisms have been thoroughly reported by reliable sources, and as the BLP policy I linked above indicates, negative information that is reliably sourced belongs in an article, even for incidents the subject would prefer be buried—otherwise you'd break the neutrality policy by whitewashing. Besides, even Bush himself laughed about it.... and no, we don't have to be consistent if situations are dissimilar. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that it is reliably sourced. Other than this very poor article, opinion pieces and unreliable websites are used. The statements themselves are attributed to transcripts, which means it is being synthesized from primary sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really can't understand why this article has been nominated for deletion- its well written + sourced, maintains NPOV, and it is in relation to a very notable issue- i live in australia, and "bushism" is a very well known and used term. All i can think of, is maybe the person nominating this article has an ideological axe to grind? Brunk500 (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written? It's simply a list of comments made by the US president as an ad hominem attack. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theres the axe-grinding i mentioned. But i will clarify- by 'well-written' i dont mean its perfect or at feature article status- but its good enough for the writing not to be an issue at all.Brunk500 (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but transwiki the quotes to WikiQuote. This could easily be categorized as a coatrack in current form. Equazcion ^(talk) 06:29, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)
- This is wikipedia's "coatrack" definition "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats"."
- So while i guess a case could be made for having less quotes, i don't believe its reasonable to say that these quotes are only 'tangentially related' to the articles subject- the subject is bushism's, and these are examples of bushism's. Brunk500 (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could be right. This article is more blatant about its bias, so coatrack might not technically apply. The same concerns that apply to a coatrack article are there though -- the article promotes the bias that Bush is a moron and invites a collection of examples to show that. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:26, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)
Keep in some form or another. There have been calendars produced that are filled with Bushisms. Publishing a President's own words hardly constitutes a BLP violation, nor is it anything new. Back in the 60s, there was a parody of the Mao Zedong book, filled with quotes from Lyndon Johnson, in a red cover, and titled, Quotes from Chairman LBJ. What this has to do with teleprompters (which have been used by Presidents for decades) is anybody's guess. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rubbish article (barely more than a collection of quotes), but clearly notable topic. Bush's problematic relationship with the English language was a key feature of pop culture's view of one of the world's best-known people. Incidentally, given the nominator's involvement in this ANI thread, the prominence and political significance of Bush, and the fact that little has changed since the second AFD nom strongly decided to Keep, I suspect a WP:POINT violation. Rd232 ^talk 09:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting AfD, I agree with most of the above. Very well-written article with lots of good sources. Not sure why it is in the AfD DRosin (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is here because the nomihnator is making a point in this AN/I discussion. Not sure about !voting at the moment myself, will have to take a look at the article in a bit and see. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject of more than one published book, notable enough. Oh, and I know consensus can change and all that, but the last AFD was 15-to-1 to keep, so it's pretty clear the community has made their decision on this already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant form of U.S. political malapropisms for most of this decade. Warrah (talk) 18:41, 15 December 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.