Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome (5th nomination)


 * 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   speedy keep. Renomination should only be considered when sufficient time has passed since the previous discussion. Since the nominator is also a single purpose account, I'm closing this speedily. If an established editor wishes to renominate, I'd recommend waiting until end of February/begin March. Mgm|(talk) 14:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bush Derangement Syndrome
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This term has no had enough longevity and it having a wikipedia article can be politically bias and offensive maybe in the next 20 years this could be notable but now it just sounds ridiculous making the whole wikipedia organization look like it allows ridiculous terms to be used as valid articles. Articles like these are the reasons why schools encourage students when doing research to not use wikipedia. Dboy94 (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - The 3rd AND 4th nomination were closed just last month. Also note that nominator is a spa and that 4th nominiation was opened by SAME spa and speedily closed. Dman727 (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment' - Fair enough.Dboy94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC).


 * Delete - Even though you bring up a good point I still support deletion for this article even if he did nominate this thing right after when I nominated and was kept and then nominated it again but also it is true when dboy says that these kind of articles make wikipedia look bad and that it has not been long enough since the end of bush's term for the article to not sound politically bias.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC).


 * Delete The expression is a joke. Wikipedia is not a collection of jokes. The fact that some people dislike Bush for various logical and non-logical reasons might be a legitimate topic for an article however. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced and notable, and that is all that matters. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per previous AFDs: meets Wikipedia's standards. Term has been in widespread use for many years, and is currently growing in relevance. Explaining it to people who encounter it for the first time is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia should do. That the term is deliberately overstated (reflecting how difficult it is to explain why otherwise-sensible people say crazy things about GWB) does not make it "a joke". CWC 12:08, 29 December 2008 (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.