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--JForget 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushism[edit]

Bushism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article seems to mostly list different "bushisms", and really doesn't seem to be anything more then a repository of quotes, and a lot of speculation. Not much fact to back it up, mostly references transcripts and other quotes. --HALtalk 22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Despite some referencing, it's still POVish and contains a good deal of OR. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Some" referencing? The references include books written on the subject. I don't know what more you want from references. There is a huge number of references - some entries have two! And there is a difference between the intention of the people mocking Bush over this and the content of the Wikipedia article. POV referes to the writing in the Wikipedia article, not what is found in the references. How would you write about racism in Wikipedia if the topic, and not the writing in the article was subject to POV complaints. The topic is certainly notable - ever watch David Letterman? He's been showing these in video clips every night for months. And the references - often multiple references for each article - speak for themselves. MarkBul 22:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm sorry, but this is in no ways deletable. First it is referenced a bunch, everyone of the bushisms is ref, often mutiply. 48 reliable sources on this small article certainly makes it meet WP:RS. Also this is a very common term. I'm thinking speedy keep. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Plenty of reliable sources - like links to Bush's transcripts and speeches. Those are certainly reliable, eh? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For good or for bad, our President is a source of interesting quotes, and Wikipedia is the first attempt to verify that each one actually occurred, when, where and in what context. Because it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there is the opportunity for a Bush fan to put in intelligent "Bushisms" (I've not yet heard one, mind you, but I'm sure it happens!). American Presidents get a special pass on Wikipedia.org and, unlike the quotable quotes that go into Wikiquote, every word of a President is subject to be reported and analyzed. There were plenty of Clintonisms too, of the "Slick Willie" variety (he didn't inhale and didn't break the laws of "this country" when he smoked weed in England, didn't have sex with Monica in the sense of intercourse, etc.). Knock yourself out. Mandsford 23:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is referenced, not just to the quotes themselves but to books and articles that define the term itself, so there are no verifiability or original research issues that I can see. Confusing Manifestation 01:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and close as a frosty treat While I'm not at all a fan of the actual list of Bushisms which in my opinion leaves too much open to original research and attracts vandals, this term is very well defined and very well used, and as such, belongs here. Too little time has transpired since the last AFD for this to be anything but a speedy keep. I suggest that dissenting editors instead spend their time trying to keep the list of Bushisms under control, which is bound to be a full time job. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm obviously not very bright - the other AfD closed a year ago. But my keep stands. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - now a widely known term and phenomenon, regardless of what party/political persuasion. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep There have been books written on Bushisms, to say nothing of the wealth of web material. Strong keep (and cleanup as needed) Bfigura ^(talk) 17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. — RJH (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is this a joke? Just last week I was at a party where a friend brought out an animatronic toy statue. [1] It did nothing but spout off famous bushisms. Burntsauce 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe that the Other Bushisms section is just too much, and should be trans-wikied to Wikiquote under Bushism, which should satisfy (in part) the concerns of most users wanting to delete. I mean, after discussing the article's characteristics, one or two direct quote examples is OK, but 17? Where will it end? Other than that, I believe the subject is notable, but only as a subtopic of Criticism of George W. Bush. It has a surprisingly amount of references, which check out per WP:RS. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 19:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I rely on Wikipedia to provide up to date, relevant and sourced information about current culture. I understand that this particular topic doesn't seem NPOV to some people, but it is impossible to present many of these quotes and the person who made the statements in a neutral way because the quotes just are so stupid. Some things just are what they are. However, I hope that the Wikipedia will exist beyond this current moment and provide a sort of time capsule for the dark ages we are (hopefully passing through). Maybe this is not a proper encyclopedia justification, but I wanted to add my mustard. If my vote doesn't count, it won't be the first time. Saudade7 22:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do not understand the implications by HAL and Dihydrogen Monoxide that the article is unreferenced, much less 'speculative' in any way. I find one, if not two sources for each quote sufficient, and much more comprehensive than other articles considered properly cited. If I have misinterpreted the argument established by HAL, please feel free to clarify details. While it may contain POV, there is a limit to how neutral such an embarrassing series of events can be portrayed. Even if the article would be extremely POV, is deserves to be re-written in NPOV as much as possible, not deleted. This topic, which documents the language usage of Bush, is most certainly notable, and quite similar to Colemanballs and Yogiisms. This article deserves to exist, and possibly should have a re-write to be less centralized on a list of quotes. Freedomlinux 02:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have only just come across Wikipedia and this is my first contribution, so I speak with limited experience. I was, however, impressed by the the neutral manner in which the article approaches an inherently partisan subject. As other comments mention it is very well referenced and at the very least not overtly pushing one POV. Coverage of this subject is always going to make George Bush look stupid and as a result make some people unhappy, surely this doesn't mean that Wikipedia should pretend it doesn't exist. If the the consensus is still for a more balanced article, then edit rather than delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.57.188 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a bad faith nomination. The article is very well referenced, and the term itself is deeply entrenched in the American culture. --However whatever 19:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats a serious accusation. There is no indication at all that this is a bad faith nomination. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Update (I already voted to Keep). I should also point out that here in Paris, France, they sell (translated) books of "Bushisms" - it is, I assume, an almost global phenomenon to find interest in the fact that the leader of the most powerful nation in the world has difficulty formulating a sentence/thought. Saudade7 11:09, 21 September 2007 (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.