Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Recession


 * 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.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bush Recession

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The term "Bush Recession" does not really exist, (could not really find any reliable source of the term been used). The article will quickly turn into a battle zone for pro-bush vs anti bush. At best it could be merged into the Global financial crisis of 2008 article. FFMG (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC) The term is somewhat vague, since all Bush presidencies have resulted in substantial economic recessions toward the end of their terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodScout (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article currently includes citations of (now) four independent sources for the term. (There are more, but four seems sufficient for the time being.)  In addition, what you believe might happen to the page in the future is not a good argument for deleting it. Meese (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this is open to debate as well, all the references are not really, (in my opinion), reliable sources, they are websites that give their own opinion on the policies rather than reporting it, at best they are blogs. I would feel a lot more comfortable with more reliable sources, like CNN, The Times and so on. FFMG (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to observe that a) since this is about a popular name, CNN is no more of a reliable source and b) I know for a fact (and could back up with citations if we really needed to go there) that two of the sites used as citations have been far more accurate in their fact-based reporting on the election than mainstream sources such as CNN and the Times. (This may be more of a philosophical point for wikipedia to reconsider - should "big" media outlets be inherently more reliable as sources even when they've demonstrated failure after failure of journalistic standards?) Meese (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Our job is not to question on merit whether the term is specific enough - that's what a disambiguation page is for, in the case that there exists a separate version of the term for the previous Bush presidency. I agree, as I write below, that we could add one sentence making the article more specific to the current Bush presidency. Meese (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete — lack of verifiability as well as notability for this neologism. MuZemike  ( talk ) 14:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment is just a pointer to the policy, not an argument for deletion. Meese (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. They are perfectly valid reasons as listed in the deletion policy. MuZemike  ( talk ) 00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Luinfana (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as MuZemike notes below, you provide no argument for deletion. Meese (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have been more clear. I contend that the article fails WP:V and WP:N; i.e. articles should be verifiable and notable. Luinfana (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep 12.4.17.73 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC) — 12.4.17.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You provide no reason for keeping. Remember that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion to establish consensus. MuZemike  ( talk ) 17:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article includes several citations (that are independent of each other) of the term's use and is consistent (as also described in the article) with similar terms that arose in the 1920s under Hoover. The primary valid complaint above is that the article does not explicitly specify which Bush presidency it refers to; that can easily be fixed.  Meese (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * can't find much on this outside various blogs, but looks like a reasonable search term. Redirect to main 2008 financial crisis article. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A redirect will unnecessarily confuse the matter, since it wouldn't allow for explanation of the term or provide opportunity for citation. Meese (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So anything called by more than one name needs a main article and n associated stubs, just to avoid redirects? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but a redirect would eliminate the opportunity for citation and explanation. Shortness of an article is not grounds for deletion.  (I planned to expand on it and provide more context and citation, for what it's worth.)  Meese (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Several articles have a section on "alternate names", which is a better place for them (all in one place for a start) than your idea of a separate article. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Although I do not like Bush's policies, a search in google on |"the bush recession" results in trivial coverage from blogs. If we accept the article's references as reliable sources, what's next... an article about the Obama Recession?, imagine that! --Jmundo (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Two of the four citations in the article are not from blogs, not that being from a blog makes a citation unworthy of inclusion. Meese (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article from Reuters doesn't use the term "Bush recession". The second article from Fortune only cites a democratic state representative using the term. The primary criterion of notability is non-trivial coverage by reliable third-party sources.--Jmundo (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Reuters piece is not intended to be a citation for the term, which is why it isn't used as one in the article. Second, the notion of reliable third-party sources in this context is different from that of, say, a scientific article.  The article is about a popular term.  For example - while, say, 4chan, would not be a reliable third-party source for a scientific article, it would be for a neologism.  Similarly, the citations in the article are reliable third-party sources of the term, and only one of the 4 citations was from a partisan source.  Meese (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From Avoid neologisms: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." --Jmundo (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply non-notable by the general notability guidelines. A few blog hits are insufficient to establish notability.  The title is also strongly biased, whether you believe the recession is Bush's fault or not, any discussion of whether he is to blame belongs in the 2008 finanical crisis article.  A redirect is in order, but there is no reason at all, other than strong POV pushing, to have this article plus an article about the 2008 financial crisis.  Just as we don't have separate articles under each name for a given war, we use redirects to the most common name, we don't need this article.  Theseeker4 (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Global financial crisis of 2008 per nominator's suggestion since that is what it is referring to. Sources for the neologism are poor (blogs etc) but they do seem to exist. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The accurate name for the economic crisis of 2008 is the economic crisis of 2008. Keeping this article is POV pushing. Yanksox (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See below (a troll keeps changing it to say "accurate name"). Meese (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as trolling: "accurate name" ... so why haven't I seen it in news reports? WillOakland (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some troll keeps changing it to say "accurate name". I have undone that person's change.  It is simply a "popular name", not an accurate one.  A troll changing that is not grounds for deletion. Meese (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, very few articles in news with the term. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not grounds for deletion, since you haven't demonstrated the absence of the use of the term - it has been used by a number of sources, including influential ones. Meese (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal (from the article's original author): I sense that the primary concerns are about whether the article is subtly pushing a partisan point of view, and whether it is notable. We may have to agree to disagree on the latter point, but I am willing to concede the former point and change the article to be more explicit about the point of view.  (For example, indicate that the term is used derisively, and by opponents of Bush, etc.) Meese (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And how exactly do we determine it's popular? I have yet to see it really pop up anywhere to be honest. I still think it's POV pushing, unless a massive wave of opinion occurs the proper name of the recession is still simply a recession. Yanksox (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with existing financial crisis articles. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Actually, there were two recessions -- the one at the start of the first Bush term and the current crisis. But even if you look beyond that, the article has not established that non-partisan economists and financial experts are using that expression. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:19, 11 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.