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, single purpose accounts noted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listing this for Commodore Sloat, who will provide the first deletion reason. I'm neutral. BaseballBaby 06:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here's the first nomination, which closed as keep in December 2005: Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome. BaseballBaby 06:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This belongs in Wikijoke. It's a non-notable neologism that was used as a joke by one columnist; it is not a real "syndrome." Previous deletion vote was 10-7 in favor of delete yet the article was kept anyway.csloat 06:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, a 10-7 split is considered a lack of consensus, with keep being the usual default in that case. These are not strictly "votes" in the democratic sense. Crockspot 15:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment incorrect. The closing admin decides keep, no consensus or delete. The closing admin decided it was Keep, not No Consensus based on the discussion, the contributors and policy. This is not a vote. 10-7 is a meaningless term. The bar for delete is higher today because this article was previously Kept and should be weighed as such. --Tbeatty 05:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete neologism as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Liberal Backlash of 2003 (second nomination). Gazpacho 08:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge a paragraph or two into List_of_political_epithets, then delete.(changing my vote -see below) Phrase gets about 223,000 hits [1] in Google -notable enough to be listed there, but I doubt we need a whole article for what is essentially just an insult. Armon 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only 642 of those hits are unique. -Elmer Clark 19:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google hits are not a very accurate gauge of notability; check print sources instead. A Nexis search of all available dates for newspaper articles mentioning this phrase comes up with a grand total of 13, 4 of them letters to the editor. Of the other nine, only one is actually an article about the "syndrome," but it is actually an excerpt of Krauthammer's joke article. Two of the other 8 articles are the same article. So we're down to 8 unique articles in newspapers that even mention the term, one of them being Krauthammer's joke piece and the other 7 all seem to be using the term to poke fun. I just don't see how this joke is notable at all.--csloat 20:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How many unique newspaper articles are required to be notable? Hard to ascertain, since notability is not specifically an official policy. But eight seem like plenty. Perhaps you could edit them into the article. :) Crockspot 23:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In any case, the article states it's mostly a blogosphere/talk radio term -and the Google indeed shows a lot of hits, so what's wrong with my suggestion to merge? Armon 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging is fine with me, but there is no need for its own article. And crockspot, notability is in fact official Wikipedia policy.--csloat 04:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really? According to WP:N, "There is no official policy on notability." I guess that's what I get for believing what I read on Wikipedia. (If this were a blog, I would insert a PWN3D pic here). :O Crockspot 16:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly a fan of selective reading. This is what else is on that page: "it is generally agreed that topics in most areas must exceed a certain threshhold of notability in order to have an article in Wikipedia. Several guidelines (see table on the right) have been created, or are under discussion, to define more precisely what these thresholds should be. Articles on non-notable subjects are frequently nominated for Proposed Deletion and Articles for Deletion, and are frequently deleted via those processes, as can be seen through precedents." So, yes, there is no specific official policy, but articles considered non-notable should be deleted. And if you really think the argument here is about "grinding axes" or inserting "PWN3D" tags, I would suggest that you may be participating here for the wrong reasons.--csloat 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Strong Keep - Well sourced article, and I have heard the term used by several radio hosts, and seen it on the internet many times, so certainly not non-notable. Crockspot 12:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC) additional comment I am revising my "vote" to a strong keep. Of all the neologisms on Wikipedia, this one is one of the better sourced. I don't understand the assumption that there are only seven articles mentioning this term, when there are several more than that actually cited in the article. While I believe this was nominated in good faith, since it was nominated by a disinterested third party, the editor who asked them to nominate it may have an axe to grind. This term is indeed widely in use among certain political persuasions, and if you don't believe that the syndrome exists, take a quick spin through Democratic Underground's General Discussions forum for confirmation through observation. Crockspot 21:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional Keep Appears to be notable through sourcing. Reason given for deletion does not appear to be accurate. If it could be established that Charles Krauthammer was just making a joke instead of a psychological diagnosis then i'd change my vote to delete.Bagginator 19:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it can easily be established. Read Krauthammer's article. He may have psychiatric credentials, but this article is clearly tongue in cheek. Do you think he really believes, as he writes, that "A plague is abroad in the land"? Or read this passage - "Until now, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) had generally struck people with previously compromised intellectual immune systems. Hence its prevalence in Hollywood." Or this: "That's what has researchers so alarmed about Dean. He had none of the usual risk factors: Dean has never opined for a living, and has no detectable sense of humor. Even worse is the fact that he is now exhibiting symptoms of a related illness, Murdoch Derangement Syndrome (MDS), in which otherwise normal people believe that their minds are being controlled by a single, very clever Australian." Shall we start the Murdoch Derangement Syndrome article now too? Or let's use the closing lines as the clincher: "The sad news is that there is no cure. But there is hope. There are many fine researchers seeking that cure. Your donation to the BDS Foundation, no matter how small, can help. Mailing address: Republican National Committee, Washington DC, Attention: Psychiatric department. Just make sure your amount does not exceed $2,000 ($4,000 for a married couple)." Does anyone seriously believe the RNC has a "Psychiatric Department" with a "BDS Foundation"? Hope this information helps you with your vote :)--csloat 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually, the fact that a few people have actually used the phrase "Murdoch Derangement Syndrome" [2] may suggest that the original phrase is notable enough to riff on. I think csloat is right, it is tongue in cheek -still a notable epithet though. Armon 00:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete The only real "source" for this seems to be Krauthammer himself. The two "expansions" on the term are hardly what I would call expansions - they just both make aside references to the fact that the term exists; they don't really add anything to Krauthammer's definition. The same goes for the non-Krauthammer external link. 642 unique Google hits doesn't really impress me, and I think it would be a pretty significant stretch to say this term is in common use. -Elmer Clark 19:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant Raccoon's Flatulence theory. Gamaliel 21:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This phrase is used widely in conservative blogs and papers. September 6, 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.74.13.100 (talk • contribs)

Comment- blogs perhaps; papers no. At least not according to lexis/nexis, which found seven mentions in major papers, all of them poking fun.--csloat 04:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ive read through the article and seen Charles Krauthammer speak about BDS in several different forums, on Fox News and CSPAN. He appears quite serious to me. I think the part you mistake for a joke is his light hearted attempt to instruct Republicans, Independents and perhaps disaffected Democrats into "curing" BDS by donating to the GOP. That part, I would agree, was delivered in a half joking manner (Although I think he's quite serious about donating to Republicans). Bagginator 00:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half joking? So you're saying there is a GOP Psychiatric Department with a BDS Foundation? And you're saying that his other comments I quoted above are entirely serious? I'm sorry, no offense, but that seems nonsensical to me. Krauthammer may seriously believe that liberals are delusional - and some of them certainly are - but that entire article is tongue in cheek. He may seriously want people to think liberals are "crazy," and he may want people to donate to the GOP, but to suggest this is a serious medical diagnosis makes Krauthammer look far more ridiculous than he is.--csloat 04:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep It's as notable as Fitzmas is among left-wing forums and bloggers. Jinxmchue 03:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - lol; that should probably be AfD'd too, but it certainly has been mentioned in far more mainstream sources than BDS. As I said, we're talking about a grand total of 7 articles in major newspapers, all of which are using the term as a joke.--csloat 04:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to your original research, there are seven. The article actually cites ten unique newspaper articles. Please stop ignoring the facts in favor of your own OR. Crockspot 12:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, searching a database is not "original research." Why is a Nexis search more "original" than a google search? And, as for the discrepancy, my search was for "Major papers"; I don't think that local papers like the Kansas City Star were included. But I'm happy to stipulate ten articles on this in print; that doesn't change the fact that this is a joke.--csloat 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mentioned more? I seriously doubt that. Heck, a Google News[3] search of both terms just now shows BDS with more references (24) than Fitzmas (7). Besides, notability of a term isn't limited to usage in mainstream media sources. There are countless words and phrases with Wiki entries that aren't used by the mainstream media at all. Should they be deleted, too? There are several very notable, very popular websites that aren't mainstream media sources that use the term regulary. Sorry, but I find your arguments and reasoning extremely faulty and unconvincing. Jinxmchue 04:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment had you tried your search in october you would have found a different result. As for websites listed on wikipedia, if they have fewer than 10 articles in major papers mentioning them, sure, they should be deleted too. Sorry you don't find my reasoning convincing, but you certainly haven't identified any "faults" in it. In any case, I don't see the point of having a page for a snide joke made by a pundit. Shall we have a page for every joke made by Byron York or David Corn too? But what do I know; I was in favor of deleting this ridiculous page too. My problem with pages like this is it makes BDS notable rather than simply reports or explains its notability. I don't think it's wikipedia's job to make things notable or otherwise participate in that process.--csloat 07:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I just checked and Fitzmas has 18 hits in major papers, more than twice as many as BDS. For what it's worth.--csloat 07:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Csloat, I take exception to your continuous effort to understate the number of sources cited in the article. There are not fewer than ten, there are exactly ten, a fact that you choose to ignore in favor of your own count obtained through original research. Let's base our discussion on what is actually in the article, not on OR external to the article. Crockspot 12:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read above comment. There is nothing more "original" about my research than there is in a google search. And I'm happy to stipulate ten articles; my search was through "Major papers," so some of the sources are not included as they are not "major."--csloat 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what search engine you're using, but Google News search still shows far more hits for "Bush Derangement Syndrome" than for "Fitzmas." Jinxmchue 15:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using lexis/nexis. Google News includes blogs and other non-notable sources. It also lists the same article several times if it is posted on different web pages. In cases like this, I feel a database of actual published sources is a far better gauge of notability than google. Happy to accept results from another database like infotrac if you like.--csloat 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Now in wide use on conservative talk radio and blogs. As such, it has entered the culture. Dcf 11:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Widely used, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be here. I just looked up the Fitzmax article, now that is one strange page. 131.107.0.75 12:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Original research WP:OR; unless it is history, backed by publications, well-established into culture for years. 18 hits, 7 articles not noteable enough. See Cocacolonization, Ghey (ghey used over years, but not seriously established). User:Yy-bo

Comment I don't think a WP:OR arguement holds any water. There is no OR in the wiki article. It comes from a published source, and is referred to by other published sources, all reliable. And as I pointed out above, while notability is not an official policy of Wikipedia, there are plenty of sources (actually ten newspaper articles) cited in the article to prove notability. Crockspot 20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well it is not a scientificially proven syndrome. Reason for nomination (delete): It is not much more than simple word usage. Don't know if i understnad everything. User:Yy-bo 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fairly obvious keep. Widely used term. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm changing my vote from merge due to the discussion here. Claims that is non notable (or even OR) just don't cut it in light of the evidence. Also, thinking about it further, I think things which get traction in the political blogosphere probably are worth including in WP. In many ways it is becoming a sort of fifth estate (i.e. rathergate or netroots against Lieberman) and because WP is online, it means we are in a unique position to cover it. In my mind, this is a more important thing to do than creating yet another article on minutia concerning the LOTR. Armon 14:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are now eleven (11) unique newspaper references cited in the article. I just added a recent editorial from the AZ Daily Star. Crockspot 18:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 210,000 hits on google and 26 currently on Google News and someone seriously wants to delete this? This afd looks like one of the classic outward manifestations of BDS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: only about 600 of those hits are unique; many are to copies of this wikipedia page and most are blogs. When a search is run through a database of real articles like Nexis, we come up with only 7 mentioning the term, and all are poking fun. Your claim about the afd makes it sound like you think this is a real syndrome. Do you not see that this is a joke?--csloat 19:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again with the understated numbers based on your original research? There are now ELEVEN UNIQUE NEWSPAPER REFERENCES CITED IN THE ARTICLE. I think I'm picking up a touch of CDS. (csloat derangement syndrome). Crockspot 20:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ MY RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THAT AND STOP YELLING AT ME. Thanks.--csloat 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, for a joke, it certainly seems to describe a very real phenomenon, and secondly, I don’t recall asking for your opinion my little stalker friend. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of striking out your unfair, uncalled for, and completely false personal attack. I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your nonsense. If you can't tell this is a joke, I suggest you take an English course at a local university where you might learn about such things as "satire" and "figures of speech."--csloat 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was quite a liberty you took. It is not up to you to strike another editor's signed comments. You can certainly express your opinion about them, but they are his comments to strike, not yours. Crockspot 20:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a personal attack without foundation. Please take a look at WP:NPA.--csloat 20:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an insult if it's true Sloat, you follow me around from article to article like a lost puppy dog. Please stop. And considering that I am better educated (and probably more widely published) that you are, I don’t think that I need advice on how to recognize satire from you. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TDC, you are full of shit. I am getting sick of responding to this charge from you on every page I edit. As I have said over and over again, it is false. I have NEVER stalked you, and your crap about puppy dogs is ludicrous. If anything, you have stalked me; you frequently edited pages that you clearly know nothing about just to revert edits I have made to those pages. But I'm not the one who keeps bringing up the phony stalking charge. Wikipedia policy on stalking specifically backs me up here. You may be better educated than me, but you skipped basic reading comprehension in your studies if you think I am "stalking" you or if you think "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is an actual psychological condition. I'm not sure I would consider Wikipedia edits to be refereed publications, but I'm not sure why it would be relevant at all to this discussion how widely published you are, unless perhaps you have been publishing about Bush Derangement Syndrome.--csloat 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is devolving rapidly, and now you are the one who is attacking. To lighten the mood a little, I thought we might all have a laugh over this prime example of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Enjoy. Crockspot 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are the posts [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1698028/posts here] evidence of Clinton Derangement Syndrome? Just curious. You're right, we could stand to lighten the mood, but when I am attacked (as I always am whenever TDC enters the picture), I will defend myself. And I have not made any personal attacks here. I suppose you could say calling him "full of shit" is a personal attack, but it is based on clear and observable evidence. I apologize to everyone else who has to read this, though - TDCs constant personal attacks against me are nothing new and have nothing to do with this page.--csloat 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I am attacked (as I always am whenever csloat enters the picture), I will defend myself. And I have not made any personal attacks here. I suppose you could say calling him "a stalker" is a personal attack, but it is based on clear and observable evidence. I apologize to everyone else who has to read this, though – csloat’s constant personal attacks against me are nothing new and have nothing to do with this page Funny how it works both ways. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very funny, except for two things: (1) I did not start with the personal attacks, you did, and (2) I never stalked you. Other than that, kudos for being amusing.--csloat 21:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, can you take this elsewhere, please? Jinxmchue 22:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At first glance I was going to vote the other way, but newspapers[4] haved used the term. It is not isolated to only a few blogs. Arbusto 05:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- because I can, and it POs the "Commander". Morton devonshire 06:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Arbusto. Neologism, but it does seem to be reliably sourced and taking root in conservative discourse. Choess 07:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Arbusto. The use by signifigant news sources helps pushes it out the neologism. I don't know how well I could formulate a sourced reference by yesterday on CNN's Kyra Philip's show, she had two Southern Women who were talking about their disatification with Bush and an outside expert mentioned this as part of a "syndrome". If I feel ambitious and it looks like it's needed, I may see if I hunt down a transcript.Agne 15:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep accurate notable neologism - real syndrome cybersexually transmitted through the Democratic Underground circle jerk :) --Tbeatty 04:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this political neologism, article is well sourced.--RWR8189 23:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I do not normally like neologisms for an encyclopedia and this is one. Don't such things really have a better place in wikidictionaries? I did not do any outside research so I could be convinced to change my view, but based upon the article it is the unique expression used by one person and referred to by one other person. Plus it is sort of an insulting joke thing. Is that really encyclopedic? I also do not think faddish blogosphere stuff is good for an encyclopedia. I know that I am out of step, but I do not think fads like fo' shizzle my nizzle are encyclopedic. But as I said, my sense of delete is weak. I could be swayed. --Blue Tie 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep BDS sufferers are using the psychological defense mechanism of "displacement". Sufferers of BDS sincerely believe that OBL is a reasonable person and seek dialog with him; but that G.W. Bush is not. Metalman780 02:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)— Metalman780 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please observe WP:NPA ---Mmx1 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who's being attacked?? Simple example of BDS psychological displacement Metalman780 06:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Good article.--Pussy Galore 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have used this article for reference more than 5 times since I discovered it. The value to the readers is what merits keeping it. The accusation that this is a 'neologism' is weak in that new words always need to be created when a new concept needs discussion. This is a very viable concept. Deleting the words used to name it from an encyclopedia will not make the concept go away, it will just remove a name for it. KeyStroke 15:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as jocke --Mmx1 01:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looks well sourced and well written. I got here via [5] and have heard the term in passing elsewhere. Mike Linksvayer 03:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above comments. Well sourced and well written article about a notable term. RFerreira 05:33, 12 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.