Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Michael Savage neologisms

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 of the debate was no consensus leaning towards delete. With the sockpuppetry involved, perhaps a relisting would be useful later on. - ulayiti (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michael Savage neologisms[edit]

  • A list of offensive slurs. Intrinsically not encyclopedic. Delete.-Mr Adequate 07:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slurs? No way . . . Keep Equinox137 09:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is encyclopedic because it's very relevant as part of his radio show. Savage references them all the time. In fact, he's even in the process of releasing a new book which labels each personality with a disparaging (most anyway) name. Another thing...saying that they're "offensive slurs" is YOUR POV. Most of the people who listen to Savage dont think they're offensive even when he's putting down someone they like.Keep—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.35.15.107 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 19 February 2006.
  • Keep—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.226.239.213 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 February 2006.
  • Smerge to Michael Savage (commentator) WP:WINAD Schizombie 09:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC) I'll add that the title of the page doesn't seem accurate - is "neologism" usually applied to nicknames? Most of the stuff on the page is punning nicknames, not new words. If the page survives on its own, and I really don't think it should, it needs a lot more context. When Savage uses these nicknames, how does he use them? Does he say something like "Rush Limbaugh, or as I like to call him, Hush Bimbo" or does he say the nickname without ever using the person's real name at all? Also, some of the names seem to indicate faults he finds in the person, but others don't convey any obvious meaning at all. What does calling Sean Hannity "Harvey Wallbanger" mean? That Hannity uses his fists a lot? That he drinks a lot? If his fans want to get really encyclopedic, they'd try to: (1) establish when the name was first used (2) what the name means (if not original research), (3) document whether the name was used more than once, and if so how often (otherwise definitely not notable), (4) whether the use of the name has spread beyond his fans (otherwise hardly notable), and so on. Schizombie 05:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Keep or WikiQuote. Arbustoo 09:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote just like the sayings of that guy on Sealab 2021 --Ruby 14:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete Just because some guy makes a fool of himself on the radio doesn't mean we need a list of his collected nonsensical utterings. TVXPert 15:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Who is this dumbass and why would anyone want to listen to him? Non-notable, not excyclopedic, indiscriminate, blah, blah, blah. BrianGCrawfordMA 15:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a list of neologisms falls under deletion policy. Is this advertising for is upcoming book? —ERcheck @ 16:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (with redirect for GFDL compliance) to Michael Savage (commentator) any for which a reliable outside source that indicates that they've been adopted by others, received a substantial reaction, or the like. Most Nearly all of what's there probably shouldn't survive the merge Savage says lots of stuff, most of which is not itself encyclopedic. CDC (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (modified; it's nearly all unsourced crap and should go. A delete wouldn't lose much. CDC (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete a list of personal attacks used by an (unfortunately) notable radio personality. Not encyclopedic. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that all but 2 people who said "Delete" have a personal, stated bias against Savage to begin with. One wonders if they'd protest it so much if it was someone who they like or agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.15.107 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 19 February 2006
  • Delete. I hadn't heard of Savage until I read the article, so you can't include me in that list. But Wikipedia is not the place to have long lists of neologisms created by individuals, radio-show host or no. Especially since several of these "neologisms" have actually been in use for far longer (I cite [1] as one example). Grutness...wha? 01:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per Ruby, and put a link in the main article on Savage. Batshit crazy does not equal not notable, but there's other places for lists of quotes and neologisms. Haikupoet 03:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of Wikipedia's entries are non-encyclopedic. This entry is funny - isn't that enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.227.8 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 21 February 2006
    • users only 10 previous edits include 9 to the nominated article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BL Lacertae (talk • contribs) 00:29, 22 February 2006.
      • And this is relevant... how? Check out the entry for ad hominem argument, you idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.227.8 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 February 2006.
        • its relevant because it means you have an undeclared vested interest in the article. and you should check out WP:CIV. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Undeclared vested interest"? Oh, yeah, I'm getting rich and famous off of this article. In fact, my only interest is in the entries I did NOT add. Those I added I know about. Those I didn't make me laugh. Once again, your argumant is ad hominem and illegitimate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.227.8 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 23 February 2006.
            • "Undeclared vested interest" is a reference to the WP policy on AfD Etiquette "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy." Since WP is free for users, the vested interest clearly does not refer to monetary interest. I guess if people don't understand what it means it needs to be improved. Schizombie 05:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's relevant to the article, and is Wikipedia not a depositry of information? Some of us would like very much to know what Michael Savage means when he uses those neologisms, and they're funny as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.219.144.50 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 21 February 2006.
  • Not sure where to put this, but it's definitely not encyclopaedic. Slight merge to Michael Savage, transwiki any quotes to Wikiquote, and delete the rest. Wikipedia is a repository of information, but not an indiscriminate one. Verifiablity is questionable at best. Stifle 19:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but transwiki to wikiquote and merge with Michael Savage would be OK too. —Kenyon (t·c) 21:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikiquote would depend on finding quotes in which he used the names, wouldn't it? Schizombie 02:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, that could be done. I'd rather just keep the current article though. —Kenyon (t·c) 04:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Merge the list is a critical part of his radio show like characters in a book. Plus no more offensive than Rush limbaugh is a big fat idiot, shrub, etc..--Mrdthree 12:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep (or Slight merge but it will end up getting split out of a large article anyway): it is encyclopedic and part of the Michael Savage persona. Carlossuarez46 19:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record this WAS a split out of the main article. I'm the one who split it.  ALKIVAR™ 01:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Vote as the creator of this spin off article I refuse to vote either way, but I wanted to make my position known.  ALKIVAR™ 01:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's like a list of jokes that have appeared on The Simpsons--fans will no doubt be amused, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. (A few no doubt belong in the main Savage article.) Nareek 04:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You guys are ridiculous, it's obvious that most members who are for deletion are simply rabid anti-Savage partisans. Because you disagree with Michael Savage you feel a collection of his famous phrases should be censored and removed from Wikipedia. I agree with the comment that his names are similiar to characters in a book. 1:46 PM, 26 February 2006 (PST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.65.212.214 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 26 February 2006.
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/List_of_Michael_Savage_neologisms&oldid=1079951095"