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. SoWhy 12:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Derangement Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Most ridiculous thing i have ever heard, no such thing exists it belongs on wikijoke. Xx1994xx (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - How many psychiatrists beside Charles Krauthammer use this term? Where is the scientific research for this term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.136.200 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliably sourced, notable. More so than it was the during the first two deletion attempts. In any event, nominator failed to list valid reasons for deletion. There are plenty of ridiculous things on wiki and ridiculousness isn't a factor in notability. Dman727 (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Mere use of a neologism does not ensure notability. The term is simply a rhetorical trope used in political discussions which are already fully covered elsewhere. I would welcome proposals for a good merge target. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Well sourced and verifiable. WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:IDONTKNOWIT just aren't very convincing reasons for deletion --Flewis^(talk) 10:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - reliable sources shine out of the back passage of this article. Flies past the usual inclusion criterion without pause. Historical noteworthy idea. Our own political allegiences are not criteria for deletion either. WilyD 14:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some reliable sources: Google News Archive : where I see many reliable sources discussing it over a span of years, besides the reliable sources cited in the article. The Right used it to discredit any criticism of the actions of Bush. The Left actually had people who developed clinical depression in the face of the man's actions. (A friend said "I prefer a bottle in front of me to a frontal lobotomy.") BDS became widespread in the U.S., with Gallup reporting that 50% "Strongly disapprove" of Bush, per the Washington Post [1]. Edison (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Given sheer volume of commentators using the term, and keeps in multiple previous nominations, the nomination borders on reckless and negligent. RayAYang (talk) 15:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This article has been kept after two previous AfD nominations. Invalid criteria for deletion used by nominator, with a heavy dose of POV. Widespread use means it is notable, whether people on one side of the political spectrum or the other approve, it needs to be kept. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Well-referenced article which makes it notable. The nom fails to provide any valid reason behind this nomination. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep — well-sourced and verifiable; easily meets the general notability guideline. The only thing keeping me from calling bad faith nomination is that at least the nom supported deletion of Obama Derangement Syndrome, so at least we have some impartiality, otherwise the nomination reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT regardless. MuZemike (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I for my part strongly feel that both articles should be deleted as lame fringe neologisms. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not for political reasons (as I know some people who might be suffering from this "syndrome") but because it follows the classic dictionary definition template: Nothing but a definition and list of sightings (trivia/example farm). Therefore, it's not encyclopedic. --Rividian (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We don't oppose all neologisms: if the phrase has been used in reliable sources, as this has, there's nothing wrong with it. After all, Where's the beef? was a neologism, and it would quickly have deserved Wikipedia coverage if there were a Wikipedia in the 1980s. Article has enough sources to stand on its own, so no real reason to delete. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - 'Where's the beef' might well have failed WP:N back when it first became current. Its notability derives in part from its longevity. This is not (yet) the case with either of these purported derangement syndromes. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- this just is not real, The Washington Post columnist used this as a sarcastic term and even if it is supposed to be taken seriously then one man(even if he does have a degree) can not make a real medical diagnoses without years of research and others. Obama and George derangement syndrome need to be deleted because both were just made for a political agenda and wikipedia is supposed to be neutral.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep- There's enough sources to demonstrate notability. Anything else, like POV, can be handled with cleanup. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I hope we aren't going to have articles on every term invented by the media. Anything relevant should be included in the parent articles. RECENTISM ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Since 2003? This one has over 90k Ghits, over 300 Gnews hits, and has been a staple of center-right bloggers in America for the last 5 years. It's gone far past the "just coined term" threshold into a term politics junkies all over the country recognize. RayAYang (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Prejudice for which this is just an notable example. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- We can't be basing notability mainly on google hits, wikipeida specifically states that google hits are a bad argument there are a lot of things that are notable but can't be on wikipedia.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment- Just go ahead and delete it and all the other conservative articles. You're going to anyway. Why bother debating? Does it ease your conscience? Capsela (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggested this article for deletion during the debate about Obama Derangement Syndrome. I firmly believe that neither topic is notable. This isn't about politics, it's about the utterly marginal character of both usages. Please remember to assume good faith, rather than throwing accusations around. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Obama Derangement Syndrome is, at this point, utterly marginal in its usage. The subject of this discussion is not. Bush Derangement Syndrome has been in prominent circulation since 2003, being the subject of multiple newspaper columns, hundreds of blog entries, etc., many of which are referenced in the article and prior deletion discussions on the page. Even today, at the close of the Bush presidency, after the close of the election cycle, and more than 5 years after its inception, searching for it finds 30 hits on Google News in the past month alone, with the references on the lead page coming from such non-entities as Scripps News, ABC, the Times of London. Any argument that the term is marginal is 5 years too late. RayAYang (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is no publication called the Times of London. But simply because The Times (or in this case The Sunday Times) makes reference to something does not make it notable, and does not make the name used the 'proper' name for the phenomenon described. Exactly two Google News searches from the past month mention 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' without also mentioning Obama - those that do mention Obama often do so in connection with the newer coinage 'Obama Derangement Syndrome'. So while this debate is not about the newer term, an awareness of the bias it introduces into your research would be healthy. Most of the 36 hits on Google News are from very small local publications - often ones whose remit is limited both by geography and by religious affiliation. The Sunday Times article only mentions the term in passing, in an opinion piece which is substantially about President-designate Obama. Incidental mentions are not a sign of notability, and opinion and editorial articles are not reliable sources. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Alex, you missed my point. My point is that 5 years after its introduction, this term is still in casual, common usage. Much as, say, "invisible hand" is still in casual common usage some 300 years after its introduction. The usage might be limited to the set of people discussing economic effects (a rather "marginal" use, to borrow your language), but the phrasing is of historical note and memory. Casual use of a term is a definite sign that it has passed into the lexicon, and not a short-term wonder to be soon forgotten. As for significant coverage, that is well addressed in the article, and the overall scope of the various hits on search engines, which number in the tens of thousands. That the phrase "invisible hand" might, in any given month, only be used by a comparatively small number of publications does not detract from its encyclopedic value, either. RayAYang (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Equally, you may have missed my point. The recent spike in usage of this term is correlated with the forthcoming change of administration; it is therefore not evidence of the persistent usage of the term in the intervening period. Secondly, usage of a term is not the same as documentation of it. The use of a term by partisan bloggers (on either/any side) does not constitute documentation in a reliable source. If multiple, reliable sources could be found commenting on this term, I would be somewhat more sympathetic. The comparison with 'invisible hand' is absurd; most economics textbooks use that expression, whereas no politics (much less psychology) textbook uses, or is going to use, these terms. They are many orders of magnitude apart. But in any case, the mere existence of a phrase, even if verifiable, is not notable. It's just a rhetorical trope; perhaps it belongs at wiktionary or urbandictionary. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• One final remark. I think that you're wrong to characterize the recent usage as a "spike" -- we can pick a random month, and check how many Google news hits there are on the term; I more-or-less randomly picked March-April of 2007, and got 25 hits then, as well. It's a well known term of our modern political lexicon. It is well used, and I think the article provides ample documentation of its history and use, more than passing the requirements of notability (which are quite lenient). RayAYang (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per being a fringe example of ad hominem that doesn't in any way require its own article. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neologism. doktorb _words^deeds 12:26, 16 November 2008 (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.