Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood libel (U.S. political term)


 * 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   Delete. Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 02:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Blood libel (U.S. political term)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is offensive, to even on wikipedia give the notion that there are somehow 2 meanings to Blood Libel. That is patently false and serves as yet another example of conservative christians attempting to steal a piece of Jewish history. Palin's disgusting and idiotic use isn't worth the videoclip she uttered it in, yet alone putting it on Wikipedia. Come on Wiki, delet this BS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.153.8 (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment actually the NYT and other RSs indicated this was a new term being invented. See if you don't believe it. I don't know what it means about Christians stealing history but truth is not a requirement for an article, just verifiable reporting in reliable sources. KeptSouth (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless articles are now going to be predicitve, it should be deleted, as it gives as its basic definition "a U.S. political term popularized by former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin". One rarely popularizes a term in a single speech, and the fact that it's being discussed by some people doesn't mean it's popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.94.105.46 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely to ever be worth an encyclopedia article. Palin used the term "blood libel" is a speech only today, sparking some minor criticism from some American Jews and some support from others. Palin didn't coin this term, and wasn't the first to use it the context of false accusations against conservatives after the 2011 Tucson shootings - that was Glenn Reynolds, and he noted others had used it before as well.

Another term which Palin coined, "refudiate", received much wider media coverage but does not have an article here. "Death panel", another term she coined, only achieved notable status after its use spread nationally amongst others, independently of her usage.

Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Kelly hi! 21:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEO. 99.142.8.205 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are we going to have a wikipedia entry for every word she creates or misuses? Delete.209.51.184.10 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the page is being used simply for propaganda purposes. Please delete.


 * Comment Rather premature to nominate for deletion as it had a under construction tag with a duration of just 1/2 hour on it. As edit conflicts are occurring and I lost material I was about to add, I will have to add time to the under construction tag, and will respond to this AfD later. KeptSouth (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a pretty blatant form of CYA propaganda and WP:NOTNEO. This is just ridiculous. User:209.51.184.10 more or less covers it.  --Bobak (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Misusing a word that has existed for centuries cannot justify the birth of an alternative definition. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.3.97.133 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Apparently a law professor and a major political figure and other conservative commentators thought this was a new use. Sarah Palin alone created the "Death panel" term, so it is likely in my view that this alternative use will be referred to by media for some time. KeptSouth (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Clearly propaganda - at the very least this should be a stub in the real article Blood libel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.110.10.170 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete not as a neologism (the term as used in this context makes no sense and therefore has no apparent meaning, the OR in the article notwithstanding), but per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:IINFO.  Sandstein   21:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. For reasons of WP:NOTNEO, among others. Moncrief (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete for above reasons. No evidence that this is going to become a "U.S. political term." Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete... propaganda....self serving CYI. another example of Palin misuse & ignorance.  12 Jan 2011


 * Delete- This could be added to the Blood Libel article that already exists. Seems counter productive to have a different article every time someone uses a word in a different context.  Palin already has a few pages, 'Mamma Grizzly" etc.  Perhaps we should put all of her nonsensical  ramblings in one place... a PalinWiki.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prey4mojo (talk • contribs) 22:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete A single gaffe does not a new phrase make. This article has been created for purely political reasons. The Supreme Court (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not even a neologism, it's an attempt to redefine an established concept, purely in reaction to and for political purposes. That's not what Wikipedia is for.--RadioFan (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:NOTNEO, propaganda violative of the basic WP:NPOV Wikipedia pillar. TJRC (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This page was created to protect Sarah Palin after she used the term apparently without knowing its true meaning.


 * Keep The main article on blood libel does not cover this use, it is a new use, and it is being very widely reported and discussed in major media such as the Washington Post and New York Times. Palin and the other bloggers and commentators were not saying the democrats or liberals, etc. were planning on killing Jews so this distinction should be in a separate article. The article is needed in my view to distinguish the two very very different uses and so as not to impugn Sarah Palin's reputation as she is a LP. KeptSouth (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment it's not a new use, it's a misuse and it's recentism. This will be forgotten in days if not hours.--RadioFan (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply, none of that makes it a generic political term as asserted by this article. What those news articles are describing is her odd usage. Concievably you could move it to Sarah Palin's Blood Libel Comment, but that would make it a news article. Depending on how notable this incident becomes, it's far more appropriate to mention it on her page, as the notable thing here is her use of the phrase, not the words themselves.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment KeptSouth initiated this article, something that should be revealed in the interest of full disclosure. Moncrief (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, I should have said I created the article, but I was too busy trying to add to the article and respond in various places to all the objections to think of everything. I will keep this in mind, though, should I ever encounter the same situation as an article creator or main contributor, I will think to mention it straight out. Regardless, my omission doesn't make any difference in weight b/c my !vote is the only keep so far. KeptSouth (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete, ideally speedy. Whether or not the other article covers this use or not is irrelevent. One politician saying the phrase out of context once does not immediately make it a notable political term, so the entire premise of the article fails WP:OR. Ideally this should be speedy deleted to prevent this page giving traction to the idea this is a commonly used phrase, which it patently isn't.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Barely notable. Political motive. Also as per above. Re-create the article if the term gains notoriety in the long run, not because it's caused a minor, and possibly short-term, controversy over its incorrect use. ArdClose (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete I agree with ThePaintedOne. This article seems like an effort to blur Palin's faux pas. Taking it at face value as a neologism distinct from the historical term? Not notable. Where is the article for refudiate? 66.147.172.7 (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Refudiate redirects to Conversion (linguistics). TJRC (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment' Refudiate was not really notable apparently - but "Death panel" apparently is, even though there is no such thing as a death panel, according the vast majority view. KeptSouth (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete The creation and content of this article are a pretty blatant and crude manipulation. Mezigue (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Manipulation of what? It is all per Reliable sources. If you think there is lack of balance, you can add a balance tag. KeptSouth (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Manipulation of Wikipedia of course, by pretending that this is a separate expression with its own separate use. Mezigue (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are coming close to a personal attack. I suggest you read WP:AGF again. Your comment is also counterfactual. There is no pretending, there are numerous sources on the new usage.KeptSouth (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Just because one politician used it in the past 72 hours does not make this already exiting defined historical phrase a political term, I think this is an attempt to create misdirection and misinformation. Add a section possibly in the future to the existing page, BLOOD LIBEL is not a US Political term, it already existed and was used in the existing context. D E L E T E0pen$0urce (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not worthy of an article - just a comment. If it's still being used commonly in a year then we might have need for such an article.   Will Beback    talk    23:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. so yeah, this is kind of a snow delete. Now would be a great time for any keep votes besides the creator to crawl out of the woodwork, though I doubt it'll save the article. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - "crawl out of the woodwork"? that is an insult, and completely unnecessary. KeptSouth (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Blah. Delete. DS (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It is not a term used in American politics. TFD (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The reference should be added to the main blood libel article, but it is not likely to last. K8 fan (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This belongs in a graph or section of the main article, not as its own article. Does anyone else see it snowing in here? Blueboy96 23:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Sarah Palin says a lot of stupid shit. Create an article "Stupid shit Sarah Palin said" if need be, or merge it into the Sarah Palin article, but as bad as American politics are, blood libel certainly isn't a "US political term" by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly does not warrant its own article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Seems like someone's got down to the crux of the matter. I also agree with Blueboy96 that this process is taking too long when it's obvious this article won't be saved. The only opposition we've had so far (out of over 20 votes) is from the creator of the article, who has received several reply comments which haven't been addressed. I doubt there will be further opposition. ArdClose (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - This. A thousand times this. Honestly, I'm not sure why anyone thought this met Wiki standards at all. Also, can we please actually create the "Stupid shit Sarah Palin said" article? Please? --71.245.115.139 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not worthy of an article in its own right, merge what is salvageable into Palin's own article. NOT into the blood libel article. StuartH (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete--This is not deserving of its own article as Sarah Palin has put her foot in her mouth way too many times. This is more appropriate as a section in her article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Its an attempt to separate Palin's use of an anti-semitic term from Sarah Palin. It isn't a US political term, its a bad choice of words. Put the fact she decided to go on the defensive with anti-semitic words on a day of mourning on her article, not a new one. WP:NOTNEO. 94.9.9.162 (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It was clearly intended to be a political term or slogan, but due to the unanticipated exceedingly poor reaction, the handlers and probably Sarah herself have changed their minds and are walking it back. what I am saying is, the situation has changed. I agree now it was premature b/c it won't be used, contrary to earlier plans.KeptSouth (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Yet you still think it deserves its own article? Moncrief (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Current events recentism disguised as an encyclopedia article. WP:NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't even think this warrants mention in the article about Sarah Palin (though obviously that's a debate for a different corner of the project). Recentism gives this the false aura of relevance, but it's really not even footnote-worthy information. Wikipedia is not Twitter Trends. JDoorjam    JDiscourse 00:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that Sarah Palin has generated so much attention that for better or worse she has influence and her comments show how she intends to use it. This was a prepared remark, not an off the cuff comment. I think this will Wiki could be part of the Blood libel Wiki or part of a broader file about political discourse, and prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.100.103 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Pile on delete. If Palin's use becomes relevant, the first place for it is the already existing Blood libel and/or one of the many pages on Palin herself. Even if the term continues to be used, it's unlikely that it will need a separate article, although that bridge can be crossed once there is evidence of widespread use. For now, WP:NOTNEWS suffices if she chose her words badly, and WP:NEOLOGISM suffices if she was trying to coin a new phrase. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This fails notability and it looks like from the edit log that there were some attempts to edit this in before Palin came out with her video. That strongly implies that this was political propaganda as well as a misuse of language. 75.86.196.109 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment that is absolutely false - the article was begun several hours after Palin's speech. KeptSouth (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTNEO An encyclopedia is not meant to be a collection of all phrases ever uttered by politicians who suffer from foot-in-mouth disease. vttoth (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete I can't believe we're even having this discussion. Just because Palin misuses a historical term does not mean a separate Wikipedia page devoted to that usage needs to be created. M772100 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This is a ridiculous discussion. I don't know what else to say; the point is very simple and has been made repeatedly above. Delete. Languagehat (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This is less than 48 hours old, this is ridiculous, I took a glance at wikipedia because I was uncomfortable with the usage in the press and there is already a redirect to a new article? Come on!!!Jmackaerospace (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Okay, guys, time to delete this. ArdClose (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Anyone know a non-involved admin they can alert to this page? Time to give this puppy its well-deserved coup de grâce. Moncrief (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Headbomb. Why is this still here? Michael Kinyon (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Snow Delete: DELETE DELETE DELETE.--Milowent • talkblp-r 01:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.