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
Public image of George W. Bush. The automatic headcount gives: keep 11, delete 17, merge 8, redirect 4; total "not keep": 29. After assessing the arguments advanced in the light of policy and guidelines, I find the following: The argument for deletion, merging or redirecting is that the term has insufficient coverage of the type needed to pass
WP:GNG, that it is a
WP:NEOLOGISM, and that it is discussed (if at all) in the context of its inventor
Charles Krauthammer and/or as part of the
public image of George W. Bush. The argument for keeping is that the topic has enough coverage to meet
WP:GNG, and is too old or too widely used to be a neologism. These are all valid lines of argumentation, and which view is more persuasive is a matter of editorial judgment. I therefore can't give one position more weight than the other.
Consequently, in view of the numbers mentioned initially, I conclude that there is a (narrow) consensus that this should not be kept as a separate article, but that there is not yet a clear consensus about whether it should be deleted or merged or redirected, and, in the case of a merger or redirect, where to. Both potential target articles (linked to previously) are suggested an equal number of times by my count.
Accordingly, I close this discussion by finding a consensus not to retain this as a separate article, but that further discussion is needed to decide whether either to merge or to redirect it (and where to), or whether to delete it outright. In the interim (and subject to change as subsequent discussions may determine), I'm implementing a redirect to
Public image of George W. Bush, because that merge/redirect target has been suggested most often in the second half of this discussion. Consequently, any decision about whether the page should be deleted outright (rather than merged or redirected) would require, in my view, a
WP:RfD discussion. Sandstein 09:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep, nomination has apparently neglected to include
WP:BEFORE; "findsources" demonstrates a wealth of available sources particularly in books and scholar. It's strange to think that 5 previous deletion discussions have got it wrong, but never mind. Apart from that, one might question the premise that it is a neologism; perhaps it's a real syndrome, in which case there's no question about
WP:GNG here.
Nomoskedasticity (
talk)
15:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America by John Avlon contains an entire chapter on just a derivative of the term, "Obama Derangement Syndrome", with discussion of that term's roots in BDS.
Nomoskedasticity (
talk)
15:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, the material you restored to the article consists entirely of uses of the term, so shouldn't affect any observers deciding whether my reason is valid. —
Arthur Rubin(talk)16:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete, does not appear to meet the requirements of
WP:NEOLOGISM, relies entirely on
PRIMARY sources so does not meet
WP:GNG, which requires SECONDARY sources. Derivatives section violates
WP:BLP by repeating political name-calling using primary rather than secondary sources as required by
WP:BLPPRIMARY. I see no redeeming features to this article.
Yworo (
talk)
17:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict)You could've just posted a message there. If most people voted the same way you did over there, and they are likely to vote the same way here, it could be seen as canvassing.
DreamFocus18:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually, I'm more interested in the predominance of people who actually understandWP:NEOLOGISM. If they vote keep here, I'll be perfectly satisfied that the article meets it. I've always considered messing up an AfD with announcements of other AfDs to be bad form. Plus not all editors bother to watch an AfD after !voting in it.
Yworo (
talk)
18:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge/Redirect to
Charles Krauthammer, who invented the term. It received some use from others, but only for a brief period, and there's not really enough sources about the phrase to justify a separate article on it. This isn't a particularly notable or successful neologism. (Disclosure: I was notified of this discussion by
User:Yworo, as he mentions above.)
Robofish (
talk)
18:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep If it was coined in 2003, that makes it 10 years old now, so not really a neologism. Its been used in many different reliable sources since then.
DreamFocus18:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Whether or not is is a neologism would be shown be being included in dictionaries or specialized glossaries in political science or sociology. If these can be shown to exist, it would go a long way to justifying the main part of the article. Though in that case perhaps Wiktionary would be a better place for a properly neutral definition of it.
Yworo (
talk)
19:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep, well-sourced, been around too long to call a "neologism", and is spinning off others -- notably "Harper Derangement Syndrome", as mentioned in the article. --
SarekOfVulcan (talk)19:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
They have reliable sources covering them already. I see no BLP issue with them, nor would neologism be a concerned there either, they not even having their own articles.
DreamFocus19:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep The news sources are discussing the original creation of the term and how it's applied since. That seems to be what it should be for an article on a term. Not to mention sources like
this fill it out quite a bit. It even discusses ODS. And
here's an entire chapter discussing how BDS was formed and this led to PDS.
SilverserenC20:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I checked out these books sources and the first one by John Avlon is only primary in value as it doesn't discuss the term it just uses it. The second source from Rod Parsley does summarize it and mention its origins but is not an expert in any related field that would make this reliable. He's not a journalist, a political commentator or expert and the publishing does not seem reliable for this. Seems to publish biased publications. Charisma House:"Charisma House is one of the leading Christian publishers in the world today, devoted to spreading the name and fame of Jesus Christ worldwide.".--
Amadscientist (
talk)
00:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete and salt Holy crap! Just when I think I have seen the worst this pops up on my radar! What the heck kind mess is this. The so called sources are being so missused here I can't believe this hasn't been addressed through arbitration or formal mediation. So many of our policies and guidelines are being ignored and it isn't to improve the article its to sling mud and prop up and promote political pundits. For christ's sake the very first "reference" is a primary source! You need a secondary source to make the claim. Then I see that promotional links are embedded into the body of the article. This is against policy. Simply put, the example sections are 3 to 4 times the size of the explanation and that is nothing but a self serving tribute to Charles Krauthammer. There is a Huffington post blog from a cartoonist being used as a reference, a comedy bit by Steward thrown in and has little context, but is also just a primary source. I am going through this entire article and trimming it to policy and guidelines. This needs immediate work as it is a BLP concern if these claims are not to our policies. There are too many people being mentioned in ways that are not neutral.
Keep. Unlike for VerySeriousPeople, I've actually heard of this term independently of Wikipedia, and a few simple Googles show that it's actually in common use (unlike Very Serious People, which is heavily weighted towards use by Krugman). A term in wide use is disqualified from being a neologism at all, since a
neologism "has not yet been accepted into mainstream language", so WP:NEOLOGISM is irrelevant and BDS need not be discussed as a term in order for us to have an article about it. Consider for instance
United States pro-life movement and
United States pro-choice movement; the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were made up by someone, but they are not neologisms because they are in too wide use, and the articles are mainly about the movements, not about the terms.
I did, and the first one is a primary source but might be used with attribution as an opinion...but only if the author gives an opinion somewhere in the source about the term. From what I see they only use the term, they don't comment on it. Its basicly an extension of a partisan site called the Daily Beast and is published by Beast Books. I am not clear if this effects reliablility but partisanship doesn't necessarily denote bias. The second source is not reliably published as it is a biased publisher and am not clear on editorial oversight as its self proclaimed reason to publish is to spread the fame of Jesus.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
01:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:SYNTH of material provided by primary sources, and obvious BLP coatrack. Title is a one-sided and loaded neologism, and the attempt to counterbalance with "Obama derangement syndrome" is evidence that neither belong here. Basically there's nothing to indicate that the topic merits inclusion. Redirect to Krauthammer's bio if anything, and add a single paragraph there. When we republish political epithets like these we stoop to the level of the people who create them. §
FreeRangeFrogcroak21:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - I could see keeping this as a merge and redirect to
Charles Krauthammer (as long as it stays within guidelines for sourcing and BLP), but don't see this as being strong enough for a stand alone article.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
00:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
If the point is to show that these sources prove notability it might be better to use non conservative souces. This is a conservative think tank. It is becoming clear who this subject is notable to.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Another Eugene Robinson editorial. Undue weight to claim this for notability along with the above but at least this is not a conservative. Only one of these could be used in the article for due weight and must be attributed to author and source.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Another Eugene Robinson opinion peice. Now three. Undue weight for consideration for notability this many opinion peices from the same author. This doesn't prove much.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
04:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Editorial from conservative editor of the magazine, The American Spectator. Another conservative opinion piece.
At least some of these sources seem to discuss the phrase (as opposed to simply simply using the phrase), and thus would pass
WP:NEO. I don't think this will ever be a lengthy article, but it does seem as if it might meet our inclusion standards by a small margin, in a similar vein as
Binders full of women, also the subject of multiple AfDs. -
MrX03:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
For the most part these are editorials and opinion peices and three of them are from the same author and source. The rest appear to be more conservative opion peices and for such an article I would think we would require far more balance to calim notability, expecially when the term inludes the name of a living person, and has an implication of simple name calling.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
04:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I demand that MrX be blocked indefinitely for failing to include the adjective "Ridiculous". This editor is clearly out to disrupt the Very Serious People hard at work here.
David in DC (
talk)
05:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I demand that the other demander be blocked for stealing Doc Brown's Delorean (or Mr. Peabody's Way-Back Machine,) in order to stymie my quest for a gold medal and leave me whimpering on the lower block, holding a silver medal, and listening to some crappy 3rd world country's national anthem.
David in DC (
talk)
05:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
comment Oh, I see this term has to do with George Bush. And here I though this was a fancy medical term for "bush fever", also known as "(being) bushed".
Skookum1 (
talk)
03:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep The term is not a neologism, and is sufficiently established and attested in op-eds, columns, etc to meet
WP:GNG. Please note: GNG does not require secondary sources, despite claims made above. Lots of other claims made on this page do not endure much scrutiny, notably the ones about BLP. (The only criticism of an identifiable person comes in a direct quote from Howie Kurtz, the pre-eminent meta-journalist in the US.) Comment: decent encyclopedic coverage (
like this) of this topic involves lots of stuff that has nothing to do with Dr. K, notably ODS. So merging this article into his BLP will be ... problematical. Cheers,
CWC10:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
First,
WP:NRVE states clearly (bolding for emphasis): "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." But with this topic almost everything is one sided conservative opinion or coverage (but mostly opinion).
As for the BLP concerns there were several issues and many living persons involved before trimming and whether you wish to agree on this or not, the term involves a living person not directly related to article, George W. Bush. It does not have to be negative or positive, even neutral mentions require multiple relaible sources in the article if there is any mention of a living person.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
11:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Given that it is a conservative criticism of liberals, obviously you are going to find sources among conservatives. Similarly,
Wingnut (politics) is a liberal criticism of conservatives, so sources are going to be liberals. It's in the nature of any sort of criticism--the subjects of the criticism aren't ever going to validate the criticism. That's like claiming that the sources for
Contempt of cop are unacceptable because they are biased against the police.
Ken Arromdee (
talk)
16:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
so we cannot use mainstream science sources to source intelligent design articles? thats nonsense. the required coverage must be from reliable sources, and what is considered "reliable" will depend upon the context. For a smear of conservative origin and used almost exclusively within conservative bloggospher, conservative bloggers and opinionistas are not reliable sources. and if Wingnut article is sourced entirely to liberal bloggers, then it too as more ridiculous political toilet water needs to go.--
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom17:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
You have it backwards. This *is* the equivalent of using mainstream scientists to source intelligent design articles--just like mainstream scientists oppose intelligent design but are not considered biased sources for criticism of ID, conservatives oppose liberals but are not biased sources for criticism of liberals. Likewise, people who criticize the police are not biased sources for
Contempt of cop.
38.104.2.94 (
talk)
22:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic, nor would the arbitrary addition of another round of tendentious, POV-laden material through merger be desirable. It boggles my mind that this didn't close Delete the first time around, clearly not even up to the standards we look for in neologisms in terms of general use or agreed upon definition. Both Bushes suck, by the way, this isn't a recommendation based upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT, this is based upon WP:WHATTHEFUCK.
Carrite (
talk)
15:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, Amadscientist, and Yworo. The misrepresentation in past versions of use and sources is astounding; there's little relevance to anything when the article is reduced to decent sources giving actual treatment. Do not redirect to George W Bush's biography: biographically insignificant in relation to his lifelong accomplishments (the supposed phenomenon is not even really about him, but the person undergoing the experience anyway). And personally, I don't find the topic as a neologism encyclopedic either (per Carrite), however I think sourcing alone is the best reason to !delete.
JFHJr (
㊟)
17:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep Many cites in New York Times including by Krugman and many others.
[5],
[6],
[7] and dozens more examples in that single reliable source. Several hundred distinmce books using the term.
[8] academic journals. Multiple regular magazine articles. HighBeam finds well over a hundred places where the term is used by many different people.
[9] shows current use indicating it is now "in the English language" here. In short: In current usage by multiple authors, including Paul Krugman, Tom Kuntz, Mike Nizza, Eric Etheridge, Kate Phillips, Rom Zeller, Sewell Chan, and the Editorial Board of the New York Times. Assertions of "not notable" and "single person" fail in spades. Usage in 2013 pretty much destronys the "recentism" argument as well.
Collect (
talk)
19:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep. This term had widespread use in the media and by well respected bloggers(Disclosure- I was a full-time blogger on Politics plus Florida and Sports from 2005 to 2009 and part-time since then. My blogging includes covering a sporting event for Newsweek. If Michelle Wie Derangement Syndrome gets to be widely used, I might be called its inventor.). Paul Krugman and the NYT made use of it, notability is established.
...William15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I have to agree with JayJasper, as a subject the subject of this AfD has not received continued
significant coverage from multiple non-primary
reliable sources, IMHO; therefore the subject fails
WP:GNG. Sure the term has been used multiple times since origination, but Wikipedia is
not a dictionary for every politically loaded term. That being said, it is directly related to the subject of the article
Public image of George W. Bush; therefore a redirect of the content to that article would preserve what can be verified to a reliable source and maintain the term as a searchable item on Wikipedia.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
18:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia should not have a article on every 'clever' little phrase that becomes popular among the chattering class.
WP:NEOLOGISM and
WP:GNG. Show me widespread and significant usage and i might change my mind.
Bonewah (
talk)
02:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge and salt The small size of the article would warrant a merger into the article about the former President. If anyone wants to save it, it needs a lot more detail from reliable sources. As it stands it can't really stay in my opinion. I'm happy to change my vote if someone will expand it appropriately.
BerleT (
talk)
03:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep -
This is what the article looked like when I came across it for this AfD and
this is what it looked like when the AfD nomination was posted. As for the delete positions, Wikipedia widely uses newspaper articles as papers to source information about topics discuss in Wikipedia articles. See
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. There are plenty of sources betwen 2003 and 2013 that are (1) independent of Charles Krauthammer (who provided a primary written source for the term) and independent of the primary source events that surround the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic and (2) provide information about the topic beyond mere use of the term, including:
A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. See
No original research. These newspaper articles have Bush Derangement Syndrome in their article title (making Bush Derangement Syndrome the main topic of the newspaper article). Primary sources for Bush Derangement Syndrome are the events (mostly political events) that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome and the above cited secondary sources are at least one step removed from those political events and they provide an author's own thinking based on the events that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome and provide independent information about the topic. The deletes appear to be requiring secondary sources that analyze Krauthammer's 2003 primary source column for the term. They are mistake in that the Wikipedia article is not about Krauthammer's 2003 primary source column. Rather, the article is about the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic. In addition to papers such as newspapers,
Google books also provides plenty of source material for the topic that are about the events surrounding the topic as does
Google scholar papers. There are more than enough reliable sources that provide information about the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic and that provide an author's own thinking based on the events that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome provide source material for the article to support this topic as its own article. --
Jreferee (
talk)
12:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I disagree that Wikipedia should have articles on modes of thought, even if someone coins a phrase to describe it. I could find you hundreds if not thousands of articles that discuss why liberals hate Christians, or why conservatives hate foreigners or why everyone hates hipsters, but that does not mean Wikipedia should have an article on them. The mere fact that this particular opinion has a popular phrase doesn't change that. To me, this is less about
WP:Neologism and more about
common sense. Wikipedia is not and should not be a cataloger of opinions, even popular ones, if for no other reason that because it creates a bias towards those who write editorials. The mere fact that someone somewhere wrote something does not make it significant by itself, even if that someone is David Brooks, or Charles Krauthammer or Paul Krugman, or whomever.
Bonewah (
talk)
17:22, 13 March 2013 (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.
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
Public image of George W. Bush. The automatic headcount gives: keep 11, delete 17, merge 8, redirect 4; total "not keep": 29. After assessing the arguments advanced in the light of policy and guidelines, I find the following: The argument for deletion, merging or redirecting is that the term has insufficient coverage of the type needed to pass
WP:GNG, that it is a
WP:NEOLOGISM, and that it is discussed (if at all) in the context of its inventor
Charles Krauthammer and/or as part of the
public image of George W. Bush. The argument for keeping is that the topic has enough coverage to meet
WP:GNG, and is too old or too widely used to be a neologism. These are all valid lines of argumentation, and which view is more persuasive is a matter of editorial judgment. I therefore can't give one position more weight than the other.
Consequently, in view of the numbers mentioned initially, I conclude that there is a (narrow) consensus that this should not be kept as a separate article, but that there is not yet a clear consensus about whether it should be deleted or merged or redirected, and, in the case of a merger or redirect, where to. Both potential target articles (linked to previously) are suggested an equal number of times by my count.
Accordingly, I close this discussion by finding a consensus not to retain this as a separate article, but that further discussion is needed to decide whether either to merge or to redirect it (and where to), or whether to delete it outright. In the interim (and subject to change as subsequent discussions may determine), I'm implementing a redirect to
Public image of George W. Bush, because that merge/redirect target has been suggested most often in the second half of this discussion. Consequently, any decision about whether the page should be deleted outright (rather than merged or redirected) would require, in my view, a
WP:RfD discussion. Sandstein 09:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep, nomination has apparently neglected to include
WP:BEFORE; "findsources" demonstrates a wealth of available sources particularly in books and scholar. It's strange to think that 5 previous deletion discussions have got it wrong, but never mind. Apart from that, one might question the premise that it is a neologism; perhaps it's a real syndrome, in which case there's no question about
WP:GNG here.
Nomoskedasticity (
talk)
15:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America by John Avlon contains an entire chapter on just a derivative of the term, "Obama Derangement Syndrome", with discussion of that term's roots in BDS.
Nomoskedasticity (
talk)
15:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, the material you restored to the article consists entirely of uses of the term, so shouldn't affect any observers deciding whether my reason is valid. —
Arthur Rubin(talk)16:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete, does not appear to meet the requirements of
WP:NEOLOGISM, relies entirely on
PRIMARY sources so does not meet
WP:GNG, which requires SECONDARY sources. Derivatives section violates
WP:BLP by repeating political name-calling using primary rather than secondary sources as required by
WP:BLPPRIMARY. I see no redeeming features to this article.
Yworo (
talk)
17:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict)You could've just posted a message there. If most people voted the same way you did over there, and they are likely to vote the same way here, it could be seen as canvassing.
DreamFocus18:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually, I'm more interested in the predominance of people who actually understandWP:NEOLOGISM. If they vote keep here, I'll be perfectly satisfied that the article meets it. I've always considered messing up an AfD with announcements of other AfDs to be bad form. Plus not all editors bother to watch an AfD after !voting in it.
Yworo (
talk)
18:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge/Redirect to
Charles Krauthammer, who invented the term. It received some use from others, but only for a brief period, and there's not really enough sources about the phrase to justify a separate article on it. This isn't a particularly notable or successful neologism. (Disclosure: I was notified of this discussion by
User:Yworo, as he mentions above.)
Robofish (
talk)
18:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep If it was coined in 2003, that makes it 10 years old now, so not really a neologism. Its been used in many different reliable sources since then.
DreamFocus18:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Whether or not is is a neologism would be shown be being included in dictionaries or specialized glossaries in political science or sociology. If these can be shown to exist, it would go a long way to justifying the main part of the article. Though in that case perhaps Wiktionary would be a better place for a properly neutral definition of it.
Yworo (
talk)
19:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep, well-sourced, been around too long to call a "neologism", and is spinning off others -- notably "Harper Derangement Syndrome", as mentioned in the article. --
SarekOfVulcan (talk)19:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
They have reliable sources covering them already. I see no BLP issue with them, nor would neologism be a concerned there either, they not even having their own articles.
DreamFocus19:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep The news sources are discussing the original creation of the term and how it's applied since. That seems to be what it should be for an article on a term. Not to mention sources like
this fill it out quite a bit. It even discusses ODS. And
here's an entire chapter discussing how BDS was formed and this led to PDS.
SilverserenC20:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I checked out these books sources and the first one by John Avlon is only primary in value as it doesn't discuss the term it just uses it. The second source from Rod Parsley does summarize it and mention its origins but is not an expert in any related field that would make this reliable. He's not a journalist, a political commentator or expert and the publishing does not seem reliable for this. Seems to publish biased publications. Charisma House:"Charisma House is one of the leading Christian publishers in the world today, devoted to spreading the name and fame of Jesus Christ worldwide.".--
Amadscientist (
talk)
00:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete and salt Holy crap! Just when I think I have seen the worst this pops up on my radar! What the heck kind mess is this. The so called sources are being so missused here I can't believe this hasn't been addressed through arbitration or formal mediation. So many of our policies and guidelines are being ignored and it isn't to improve the article its to sling mud and prop up and promote political pundits. For christ's sake the very first "reference" is a primary source! You need a secondary source to make the claim. Then I see that promotional links are embedded into the body of the article. This is against policy. Simply put, the example sections are 3 to 4 times the size of the explanation and that is nothing but a self serving tribute to Charles Krauthammer. There is a Huffington post blog from a cartoonist being used as a reference, a comedy bit by Steward thrown in and has little context, but is also just a primary source. I am going through this entire article and trimming it to policy and guidelines. This needs immediate work as it is a BLP concern if these claims are not to our policies. There are too many people being mentioned in ways that are not neutral.
Keep. Unlike for VerySeriousPeople, I've actually heard of this term independently of Wikipedia, and a few simple Googles show that it's actually in common use (unlike Very Serious People, which is heavily weighted towards use by Krugman). A term in wide use is disqualified from being a neologism at all, since a
neologism "has not yet been accepted into mainstream language", so WP:NEOLOGISM is irrelevant and BDS need not be discussed as a term in order for us to have an article about it. Consider for instance
United States pro-life movement and
United States pro-choice movement; the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were made up by someone, but they are not neologisms because they are in too wide use, and the articles are mainly about the movements, not about the terms.
I did, and the first one is a primary source but might be used with attribution as an opinion...but only if the author gives an opinion somewhere in the source about the term. From what I see they only use the term, they don't comment on it. Its basicly an extension of a partisan site called the Daily Beast and is published by Beast Books. I am not clear if this effects reliablility but partisanship doesn't necessarily denote bias. The second source is not reliably published as it is a biased publisher and am not clear on editorial oversight as its self proclaimed reason to publish is to spread the fame of Jesus.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
01:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:SYNTH of material provided by primary sources, and obvious BLP coatrack. Title is a one-sided and loaded neologism, and the attempt to counterbalance with "Obama derangement syndrome" is evidence that neither belong here. Basically there's nothing to indicate that the topic merits inclusion. Redirect to Krauthammer's bio if anything, and add a single paragraph there. When we republish political epithets like these we stoop to the level of the people who create them. §
FreeRangeFrogcroak21:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - I could see keeping this as a merge and redirect to
Charles Krauthammer (as long as it stays within guidelines for sourcing and BLP), but don't see this as being strong enough for a stand alone article.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
00:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
If the point is to show that these sources prove notability it might be better to use non conservative souces. This is a conservative think tank. It is becoming clear who this subject is notable to.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Another Eugene Robinson editorial. Undue weight to claim this for notability along with the above but at least this is not a conservative. Only one of these could be used in the article for due weight and must be attributed to author and source.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Another Eugene Robinson opinion peice. Now three. Undue weight for consideration for notability this many opinion peices from the same author. This doesn't prove much.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
04:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Editorial from conservative editor of the magazine, The American Spectator. Another conservative opinion piece.
At least some of these sources seem to discuss the phrase (as opposed to simply simply using the phrase), and thus would pass
WP:NEO. I don't think this will ever be a lengthy article, but it does seem as if it might meet our inclusion standards by a small margin, in a similar vein as
Binders full of women, also the subject of multiple AfDs. -
MrX03:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
For the most part these are editorials and opinion peices and three of them are from the same author and source. The rest appear to be more conservative opion peices and for such an article I would think we would require far more balance to calim notability, expecially when the term inludes the name of a living person, and has an implication of simple name calling.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
04:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I demand that MrX be blocked indefinitely for failing to include the adjective "Ridiculous". This editor is clearly out to disrupt the Very Serious People hard at work here.
David in DC (
talk)
05:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I demand that the other demander be blocked for stealing Doc Brown's Delorean (or Mr. Peabody's Way-Back Machine,) in order to stymie my quest for a gold medal and leave me whimpering on the lower block, holding a silver medal, and listening to some crappy 3rd world country's national anthem.
David in DC (
talk)
05:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
comment Oh, I see this term has to do with George Bush. And here I though this was a fancy medical term for "bush fever", also known as "(being) bushed".
Skookum1 (
talk)
03:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep The term is not a neologism, and is sufficiently established and attested in op-eds, columns, etc to meet
WP:GNG. Please note: GNG does not require secondary sources, despite claims made above. Lots of other claims made on this page do not endure much scrutiny, notably the ones about BLP. (The only criticism of an identifiable person comes in a direct quote from Howie Kurtz, the pre-eminent meta-journalist in the US.) Comment: decent encyclopedic coverage (
like this) of this topic involves lots of stuff that has nothing to do with Dr. K, notably ODS. So merging this article into his BLP will be ... problematical. Cheers,
CWC10:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
First,
WP:NRVE states clearly (bolding for emphasis): "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." But with this topic almost everything is one sided conservative opinion or coverage (but mostly opinion).
As for the BLP concerns there were several issues and many living persons involved before trimming and whether you wish to agree on this or not, the term involves a living person not directly related to article, George W. Bush. It does not have to be negative or positive, even neutral mentions require multiple relaible sources in the article if there is any mention of a living person.--
Amadscientist (
talk)
11:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Given that it is a conservative criticism of liberals, obviously you are going to find sources among conservatives. Similarly,
Wingnut (politics) is a liberal criticism of conservatives, so sources are going to be liberals. It's in the nature of any sort of criticism--the subjects of the criticism aren't ever going to validate the criticism. That's like claiming that the sources for
Contempt of cop are unacceptable because they are biased against the police.
Ken Arromdee (
talk)
16:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
so we cannot use mainstream science sources to source intelligent design articles? thats nonsense. the required coverage must be from reliable sources, and what is considered "reliable" will depend upon the context. For a smear of conservative origin and used almost exclusively within conservative bloggospher, conservative bloggers and opinionistas are not reliable sources. and if Wingnut article is sourced entirely to liberal bloggers, then it too as more ridiculous political toilet water needs to go.--
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom17:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
You have it backwards. This *is* the equivalent of using mainstream scientists to source intelligent design articles--just like mainstream scientists oppose intelligent design but are not considered biased sources for criticism of ID, conservatives oppose liberals but are not biased sources for criticism of liberals. Likewise, people who criticize the police are not biased sources for
Contempt of cop.
38.104.2.94 (
talk)
22:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic, nor would the arbitrary addition of another round of tendentious, POV-laden material through merger be desirable. It boggles my mind that this didn't close Delete the first time around, clearly not even up to the standards we look for in neologisms in terms of general use or agreed upon definition. Both Bushes suck, by the way, this isn't a recommendation based upon WP:IDONTLIKEIT, this is based upon WP:WHATTHEFUCK.
Carrite (
talk)
15:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, Amadscientist, and Yworo. The misrepresentation in past versions of use and sources is astounding; there's little relevance to anything when the article is reduced to decent sources giving actual treatment. Do not redirect to George W Bush's biography: biographically insignificant in relation to his lifelong accomplishments (the supposed phenomenon is not even really about him, but the person undergoing the experience anyway). And personally, I don't find the topic as a neologism encyclopedic either (per Carrite), however I think sourcing alone is the best reason to !delete.
JFHJr (
㊟)
17:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep Many cites in New York Times including by Krugman and many others.
[5],
[6],
[7] and dozens more examples in that single reliable source. Several hundred distinmce books using the term.
[8] academic journals. Multiple regular magazine articles. HighBeam finds well over a hundred places where the term is used by many different people.
[9] shows current use indicating it is now "in the English language" here. In short: In current usage by multiple authors, including Paul Krugman, Tom Kuntz, Mike Nizza, Eric Etheridge, Kate Phillips, Rom Zeller, Sewell Chan, and the Editorial Board of the New York Times. Assertions of "not notable" and "single person" fail in spades. Usage in 2013 pretty much destronys the "recentism" argument as well.
Collect (
talk)
19:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep. This term had widespread use in the media and by well respected bloggers(Disclosure- I was a full-time blogger on Politics plus Florida and Sports from 2005 to 2009 and part-time since then. My blogging includes covering a sporting event for Newsweek. If Michelle Wie Derangement Syndrome gets to be widely used, I might be called its inventor.). Paul Krugman and the NYT made use of it, notability is established.
...William15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I have to agree with JayJasper, as a subject the subject of this AfD has not received continued
significant coverage from multiple non-primary
reliable sources, IMHO; therefore the subject fails
WP:GNG. Sure the term has been used multiple times since origination, but Wikipedia is
not a dictionary for every politically loaded term. That being said, it is directly related to the subject of the article
Public image of George W. Bush; therefore a redirect of the content to that article would preserve what can be verified to a reliable source and maintain the term as a searchable item on Wikipedia.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
18:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Wikipedia should not have a article on every 'clever' little phrase that becomes popular among the chattering class.
WP:NEOLOGISM and
WP:GNG. Show me widespread and significant usage and i might change my mind.
Bonewah (
talk)
02:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge and salt The small size of the article would warrant a merger into the article about the former President. If anyone wants to save it, it needs a lot more detail from reliable sources. As it stands it can't really stay in my opinion. I'm happy to change my vote if someone will expand it appropriately.
BerleT (
talk)
03:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep -
This is what the article looked like when I came across it for this AfD and
this is what it looked like when the AfD nomination was posted. As for the delete positions, Wikipedia widely uses newspaper articles as papers to source information about topics discuss in Wikipedia articles. See
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. There are plenty of sources betwen 2003 and 2013 that are (1) independent of Charles Krauthammer (who provided a primary written source for the term) and independent of the primary source events that surround the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic and (2) provide information about the topic beyond mere use of the term, including:
A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. See
No original research. These newspaper articles have Bush Derangement Syndrome in their article title (making Bush Derangement Syndrome the main topic of the newspaper article). Primary sources for Bush Derangement Syndrome are the events (mostly political events) that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome and the above cited secondary sources are at least one step removed from those political events and they provide an author's own thinking based on the events that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome and provide independent information about the topic. The deletes appear to be requiring secondary sources that analyze Krauthammer's 2003 primary source column for the term. They are mistake in that the Wikipedia article is not about Krauthammer's 2003 primary source column. Rather, the article is about the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic. In addition to papers such as newspapers,
Google books also provides plenty of source material for the topic that are about the events surrounding the topic as does
Google scholar papers. There are more than enough reliable sources that provide information about the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic and that provide an author's own thinking based on the events that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome provide source material for the article to support this topic as its own article. --
Jreferee (
talk)
12:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)reply
I disagree that Wikipedia should have articles on modes of thought, even if someone coins a phrase to describe it. I could find you hundreds if not thousands of articles that discuss why liberals hate Christians, or why conservatives hate foreigners or why everyone hates hipsters, but that does not mean Wikipedia should have an article on them. The mere fact that this particular opinion has a popular phrase doesn't change that. To me, this is less about
WP:Neologism and more about
common sense. Wikipedia is not and should not be a cataloger of opinions, even popular ones, if for no other reason that because it creates a bias towards those who write editorials. The mere fact that someone somewhere wrote something does not make it significant by itself, even if that someone is David Brooks, or Charles Krauthammer or Paul Krugman, or whomever.
Bonewah (
talk)
17:22, 13 March 2013 (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.