Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deather


 * 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. There was no substantial support of redirecting this anywhere, although any editor is welcome to create such a redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Deather

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

Article is very non-NPOV, appears to be a Republican attack against President Obama, shows no sources, and is highly biased. Appears to be a non-notable idiom that entered into usage by one politician less than a week ago. Frmatt (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable neologism, covered only for the sake of political polemics; the underlying real political issues (and the episode that sparked this term, if it turns out to be of more long-standing relevance) can easily be covered elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with Sarah Palin, who coined the term to promote her agenda. POV problems are not reason to delete and we've got a few sources that indicate notability, but since this is just a buzzword it might be better presented in context. -- Explodicle  (T/C) 14:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * After reading Tarc and Rankiri's comments, I agree that we can comprehensively discribe this political group without using neologisms. We should redirect to Health care reform in the United States, and if someone wants to merge and source content from this article, they can do it from the page history. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTE:I moved the above comment by Brian278 from Wikipedia Talk:Articles for Deletion/Deather to this space so it could be properly included in the discussion. Frmatt (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This entry was not made for the purpose of political polemics. The entry was made in goodfaith effort to appropriate a public definition and origin of a new word injected into the public consciousness.  The definition may be edited to sufficient conclusion by others, thereby filtering out any bias that may exist in said entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian278 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - Why wasn't this just speedied? This isn't an article on a neologism, it is just an unsourced polemical tirade on the health care proposal.  Even a basic, rewritten article probably wouldn't pass muster, as the arguably more well-known birthers and truthers are just redirects. Tarc (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which speedy delete criterion applies? -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I thought about speedy, but wasn't sure enough about it and wanted to bring it to the community for some type of discussion before it went away. Frmatt (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete:WP:NEO, WP:NOT, WP:NOTOPINION. According to and, the term was coined around Tuesday, July 28, 2009. Explodicle's references don't seem to take the term seriously and put it in quotes. The Google News results seem follow the pattern. The article is unreferenced, non-neutrally worded, and in some cases, unverifiable. In case you're wondering, Google shows no results for "Deatherology". On a less serious note, I'd also support redirecting the page to Schizophrenia: anyone who "subscribes to the idea that any Democratic healthcare reform would include government mandate to destroy terminally ill or very old persons receiving healthcare" is obviously as cuckoo as it gets. — Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you please elaborate on your WP:NEO rationale? Although the term is a neologism, it looks like the Politics Daily article is a reliable source specifically about it. -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. The term is was invented less than a month ago, and naturally not a single dictionary or serious academical publication discusses it. As I mentioned earlier, I feel like most of these news articles are written in a somewhat informal, tongue-in-cheek tone. The prevalent use of quotation marks is particularly indicative of the word's neologistic status—see Quotation mark.  — Rankiri (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've changed my !vote to "redirect to Health care reform in the United States" (in case someone decides to write about what the "Deathers" believe), but I think you're right that we shouldn't be using this term instead of "opponents of Obama's health care reform". -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect Obviously, this should be a redirect, the same as the similar terms Truther and Birther. The WP:NEO argument is not persuasive, because the meaning is obvious to anyone who looks a little. The genie is out of the bottle, so WP:N should not be in play either. The question is what to do with the original content, which is unreferenced, and presumably OR. So I'm not sure if delete and redirect is more appopriate. Dhaluza (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I admit that the above interpretation of WP:NEO is open to debate, but my main concerns are the historical notability of the new term and the WP:OR and non-NPOV parts of the article. I'm not against redirecting the page to Health care reform in the United States.— Rankiri (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The term has already been incorporated in the healthcare debate, and Sara Palin's involvement just seals the deal. My pet peeve with many of these types of AfD discussions is that they are too editor-centric. Look at it from the point of the reader, who may be wanting more info on "deather" now, or in the future. They should be redirected to the appropriate article. As I said, the real issue is what to do with the content, which is apparently OR. Dhaluza (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it has reached anywhere near the critical mass of its aforementioned sister neologisms, though. Besides, is there anything really appropriate to redirect it to?  It is a term used to describe health care opponents, so just sending searchers to the main health care article seems a bit too generic. Tarc (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tarc is right. however we can link it specifically to the section on thae main healthcare thread that talks about the health care oppositionents. User:Smith Jones 02:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that it has even approached the usage of the similar neologisms, and that should not be a test anyway. It is out there in the political debate, and it is following an established template. A "merge" may be needed prior to redirect. I put "merge" in scare quotes, because this article is apparently OR, so we actually need incorporate some new sources to point to. As has been suggested, the section dealing with health care opposition should discuss the "death panels" meme that has been developing for the past several weeks. Dhaluza (talk) 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, this is a protologism at best, and probably violates NPOV and WP:FRINGE as well. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 04:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (which is where Death panels redirects to). This is an article on a neologism, which does not yet seem sufficiently notable. A more general article on the dispute might be appropriate - Death panel controversy, or something like that - but even that would have issues with recentism and long-term notability. Robofish (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this hysteria can be linked to one particular piece of legislation. If it needs to be redirected, it better link to a general health care reform article. — Rankiri (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2009 (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.