Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (2nd 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 no consensus to delete at this time. The comments from anons/new users shouldn't be ignored because they actually make meaningful arguments. And several established contributers also want to keep... so there's clearly no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (2nd nom)
Delete textbook cruft. Unverified through anything other than listening to the show, of limited interest to a circumscribed minority. At the first AfD they glossed over this point. This could be s merged back in to the article on El Rushbo - a half dozen terms at most. But this article as currently constituted is ridiculous. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. fancruft and Wikipedia is not a collection of FAQs. Gazpacho 04:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete list page and merge only those instances into Rush Limbaugh that can be strongly verified using reliable secondary sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an illegal vote. GFDL requires that history be preserved. If we're merging, we must redirect. If we're deleting we cannot merge. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh? Fine, read it as reduce, merge, and redirect. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, to be really precise GFDL doesn't protect facts or sources. So if someone took the time to re-investigate and type into the article themselves very simple information (as opposed to copy/pasting) then it would be GFDL compliant. -  brenneman  {L} 05:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Qualifies for inclusion as a glossary of terms used by Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh's use of lanuage and rhetoric is widely discussed and analyzed - books and articles are written on the topic . By citing an essay and personal opinion on the interest of the material, the nom has not made much of a case for deletion. However, looks to me that the subject would have very broad interest among those researching American culture, political history and etymologies. A number of the terms do seem to be referenced, but better referencing would be welcome. --JJay 12:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Provides a useful space to merge Limbaugh's new epithets as they are invented, and having them here is preferable to having articles on each.  - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page was interesting. If anything it should be moved to the "Rush Limbaugh" page, but it's definately relevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.230.228.233 (talk • contribs).
 * Delete, I'm sure one of the editors has a Rush Limbaugh fan website where this would be much more at home. Recury 18:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely Keep, Limbaugh jargon is used to parody and satirize the object of the jargon. It is a distinguishing feature of his program and therefore required for a encyclopedic entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.90.97.254 (talk • contribs).
 * Delete-complete fancruft and at best it's a list of neologism which have no place here anyway. Now if there was a reliable source somewhere that had an article explicitedly about rush Limbaugh's jargon then you would have grounds to keep it. As it stands, it's WP:or cruft. 205.157.110.11 23:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the Crazy Russian. This is clearly cruft, although I agree with User:Ihcoyc that this is better than independent articles on each neologism.  Is that really the alternative?   Eusebeus 09:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above unless fixed up to reference the sources which JJay refers to for each and every item; Wikipedia is not a dictionary of quotations and neologisms, verifiability is not optional and there are no eventualists round here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Following your logic, articles like List of High Kings of Ireland might have to be immediately deleted since there are not references for "each and every item". There are plenty of eventualists here. It's a very valid approach. --JJay 12:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You nominate it and I'll give you my opinion at the AFD. There's at least a degree of difference between "I picked up a book and copied out what it says" lists, which are verifiable and sourceable by adding the book(s) the material was extracted from as reference(s) (i.e. there are two lists of High Kings of Ireland in Frank Byrne's Irish Kings and High Kings, albeit neither matches the main list in the article in question), and "who knows where this stuff came from ?" ones like this. The fate of both articles should be to be reduced to verifiable, and thus shorter, lists. However, we're now at AFD for the Limbaugh list, so the time for eventualism is past. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.180.23 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep for the following reasons.
 * I am new to wikipedia, but if what I hear is really true--that, for example, lists and descriptions of each and every Simpsons episode reside here--then I don't see how Limbaugh jargon qualifies for deletion. "Unverified through anything other than listening to [or watching] the show" (quoting CrazyRussian above)  ?  Check.  "of limited interest to a circumscribed minority"?  Check.  Simpsons episodes and Limbaugh jargon must plead guilty to both charges.
 * As for a positive argument for "keep," I endorse what the "absolutely keep" entry said above: "Limbaugh jargon is used to parody and satirize the object of the jargon. It is a distinguishing feature of his program and therefore required for a encyclopedic entry."
 * As for the verifiability problem:
 * This can be fixed for most entries in this article. For example, a lexis-nexis search on " 'feminazi' AND 'limbaugh' " yielded 120 results in "major papers" and five in "magazines and journals."  I am sure that among those is an article that could be cited where relevant information about "feminazi" could be mined.
 * For any entry that cannot be found in published articles, it would suffice to reference a date when the term was heard on Limbaugh's show, since audio archives of the show are available.
 * Delete on Wikipedia/Add to Wikiquote A solution that editors on the Mark Levin page came up with, for dealing with a similar list of Levin jargon that was overwhelming the article, was to move the full list to Wikiquote and keep a representative sample of 5 items behnd on the master Levin page. Would that not work here as well?NYCTommy 03:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is precisely what I suggest in my nomination. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. Also wanted to chime in and mention the Wikiquote option that we used on Levin, which helped win over those opposed to outright deletion of the list.  If implemented on Limbaugh's page, the Rush jargon would survive intact at Wikiquote and you culd easily provide a link to it in the jargon section of the 'pedia article.  I suggest voters here check out Mark Levin for an example of how this worked in practice.NYCTommy 13:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. OK guys, I did a little research and I see that there is an article on wikipedia titled "List of neologisms on The Simpsons." It is 78 kilobytes. I just don't see how the list of Limbaugh jargon is any worse.  Maybe the title of the Limbaugh article should be changed to "List of neologisms used on The Rush Limbaugh Show"? 152.3.246.168 05:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many items in that list that should be pared. However, the list itself should stay. There are several notable entries with their own articles on it, such as D'oh! and Cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Some entries are sourced. The ones that are not sourced and do not assert significance should be removed. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fancruft. CaliEd 01:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a history of phrases coined by Limbaugh that enter common use, such as feminazi and drive-by media.--Bedford 18:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Limbaugh Show in itself is notable enough for a glossary of terms used on the program. -- Crevaner 01:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like Limbaugh or not, the terminology used in his show has permiated society. Even if you don't agree with him, knowing what in fact is being inferred is a worthwhile excercise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.190.180.203 (talk • contribs)


 * 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.