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 keep. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain this article has information about the history of the word that isn't in the wiktionary entry. The question is, is Wikipedia a etymological dictionary? Personally, I think the answer is no, and think that the info should go to wiktionary, but I don't know much about wiktionary and what is acceptable there, so I abstain. Where(talk) 13:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can be expanded; a suggestion about how this could be done is already there. Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, dicdef. NTK 19:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to Warren G. Harding with whom the word is associated. This does seem like a dicdef with limited possibilities for expansion, though it does have some notability as a word whose coinage is commonly, though apparently mistakenly, attributed to Harding (normalcy is another). I recall first coming across it in Neal Wilgus' zine Room 101 Revisited, in which he was trying to repopularize the term[1]. In William Safire's How Not to Write: The Essential Misrules of Grammar Safire writes that it is "an Americanism combining 'blow-hard' with 'deviation'" which I had never heard before. The Word Detective by Evan Morris found an early printed source for the word. There's also a good example of Harding's bloviation in Presidential Voices: Speaking Styles from George Washington to George W. Bush by Allan Metcalf, where he's also called "The Great Bloviator." Шизомби 20:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this gets redirected I would redirect it to Bill O'Reilly Which is where I , and my good guess, most people today know it from. EnsRedShirt 07:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
stong keep The page can easily be expanded to touch upon the many richs bloviations in American politics. It can not be re-directed to Warren Harding or Bill O'Reilly, because the word has been used in many contexts. While these are relevant uses of 'bloviate,' the word stands on its own. Moreover, Bloviate does not belong in the wiktionary because it is a rich concept and not merely a word. Concepts like synergy and Republicrat have their own entries, yet can also be given dictionary style definitions. Expand the entry by fleshing out the history and use of the concept.
keep While entry should be expanded, bloviate is a word much more rich in cultural value and context than its dicdef would suggest, and so deserves to be in Wikipedia instead of (or possibly in addition to) Wiktionary. Balazs 10:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
keep "Synergy" and "Republicrat" are good comparisons. "Bloviate" deserves a Wikipedia entry in addition to one in Wiktionary as a word that originated and continues to be used in a particular political and cultural context.
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikitionary is the appropriate place for this. A word primarily used on a single TV talk show does not belong in an encyclopedia. RobLinwood 22:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But O'Reilly's use of the word taps into widely used concept. What about the wiki entry on synergy? This too is "a word" yet also stands for an idea with a rich history.
keep Agree with above, bloviate has cultural context that makes it appropriate for an encylopedia.
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.