Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushy


 * 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The result was Keep and move to Bushie, nomination withdrawn, good work Dhartung! NawlinWiki 13:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bushy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced neologism. The only use of this I've actually heard of is Kyle Sampson's notorious "loyal Bushies" memo, see 2006_Dismissal_of_U.S._Attorneys_controversy. That doesn't seem enough for a separate article. NawlinWiki 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but source. A term with 2800 Google News Archive results that are free is obviously notable. The term actually dates back to his dad's term and was in a 1992 Safire column (behind paywall, sorry). Personally, I would rename the article to Bushies as you really practically never see it in the singular form. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not written neutrally, and the epithet is not significant anyway IMO. Placeholder account 23:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Changed to keep; thanks to Dhartung for sending me a note to check on this article. It's everything you could ask for in an article - perhaps even DYK quality. Placeholder account 23:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, it's definitely in widespread use well before and outside the context of that one memo. Whether or not it should have an article, I'm not sure.  I couldn't find any articles that actually talk about what definies a "Bushy," and I'm afraid that without that, all we have left is point of view and original research.  I think that's a far bigger problem than notability.Chunky Rice 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm politiclly active and i've only seen it used once. It's definitely not notable enough to warrant an article.--Tdl1060 17:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Keep. Article has greatly improved and has backed up claim to notability, but I would suggest moving the page to a title along the line of Bushie (political term) as the current title is too generic.--Tdl1060 14:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If by any chance it could be referenced and npov-ed, then it could be remade. Right now the article is virtually informationless. → Ed Gl  22:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Happily changing to keep due to tremendous article improvement. → Ed  Gl  20:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have thoroughly rewritten the article, demonstrating the term's uses, history, and prominence, and providing definitions given by important conservative writers (neither especially complimentary). The old article's polemics were completely jettisoned. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Per rewrite and move to Bushie. Still needs some work, but a world of improvement over the original version.Chunky Rice 16:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete While there may be references that one might google, these are accidental, and not suggestive of a notable trend. The article is little more than a prestige piece for those who snigger at such politics. Further, in Australian terms, the expression would be generic, so that this application would lead to similar articles for many things, equally undeserving. DDB 07:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The entry is now referenced and looks solid. That's good, because the term is used in my locality and has been for several years now. Krakatoa  Katie  13:41, 16 May 2007 (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.