Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show (4th 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   merge to The Rush Limbaugh Show. As per the arguments, not all of the phrases included are notable, or even invented by the radio host. As also noted, it is not Wikipedia's role to provide a translation guide for pop-culture, which is the status that Limbaugh has reached. Although I will not do it, the suggestion that a handful of the actually notable phrases should be merged back into the original article, and this WP:FORK of dictionary terms deleted ASAP is the valid outcome of this discussion. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Despite prior AFDs, I believe this article violates WP:NOT by being an indiscriminate collection of terms/list of terms used on a show that on its own is not a topic that is notable for inclusion.  MBisanz  talk 20:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. It not indiscriminate but reflects the consensus of editors in that article. The Rush Limbaugh Show merits a comprehensive appearance in the Wikipedia as the most-listened to radio program in the United States since 1991.  Large articles have pragmatic spin-off related articles to keep the size of the main article manageable.  The Jargon article is such an example. patsw (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that comment correctly reflects the consensus of editors at talk:Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show.   Will Beback    talk    03:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Only a few of the terms reported here have ever been repeated in 3rd-party sources, and almost all of the definitions are original research. I've had to patrol this article continuously for unsourced additions. I believe that the most notable terms should be merged into the Limbaugh biography, and the "jargon" article should be deleted. The overall topic is not notable - there are no articles in magazines or newspapers defining the terms Limbaugh uses. This is really just fancruft.   Will Beback    talk    20:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Primarily for failing WP:NEO on a massive scale -- Limbaugh's individual insults and intentional mispronunciation of names have not been absorbed into the English language. Maybe a few of the more mischievous or malicious examples can be cited in the main article about Limbaugh, but the article can easily be cut. Warrah (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep/Improve (for the reasons from the 3rd nomination, 2007). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Will Beback makes valid points, verifiability of most of the entries is seriously restricted. On top of that, what are the chances there will ever be independent references for any of the claims? --Pgallert (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: You are right. Some comments will never be repearted by others. But they are jargon words/terms Rush invents, not claims. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So it is right to have an encyclopedia article consisting of imaginary words (including many intentionally mispronounced names) that were made up by a single person but are never used by anyone else? Warrah (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, at least some of the jargon words/terms listed were not invented by Rush. "Baba Wawa" for example was invented by Gilda Radner on Saturday Night Live, back in the late 70s. Blueboar (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is the point of having an article that cites Rush Limbaugh's borrowing of Gilda Radner's jokes? Warrah (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Verifiablity of the article Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show is conducted mainly by the Wikipedia editors and not by reliance on reliable source, a third party which is recording the jargon. It in this regard it is clearly a unique situation with 20 million listeners, a limited audio archive, and from this some listeners who are Wikipedia editors and who care enough to contribute to the article and maintain it as current and accurate.  We are dealing here with an audible radio program, 15 hours per week, heard by 20 million listeners, so the jargon appears in the article when repeated.  The jargon itself spills out of the The Rush Limbaugh Show and into the wider popular culture. patsw (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - If the show is popular, the list may be interesting to some, however Wikipedia is not the right place for it. A fan site or blog would be more appropriate. Laurent (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment In the above section (and earlier), a personal definition of indiscriminate in being used. There's a Wikipedia definition of indiscriminate and I don't see any of its six forms applicable here.  There is discrimination in the article -- the additions to the article are jargon by their repetition.  Many Wikipedia articles on popular culture, especially recorded performances, rely upon the performances themselves for verification and the consensus of editors for deciding if an aspect of it is significant to be be added to the article. patsw (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What's makes this article subject to greater scrutiny than, for example, a Howard Stern-related article like the Wack Pack, or the spin-off articles for major episodic television programs in popular culture like American Idol or 24 (television) or Lost (television) patsw (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I think the main problem with this article is that it violates WP:NOR, which says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." This article is almost entirely based on a primary source, the Limbaugh show itself. Only a few entries have any secondary source. The definitions are also mostly original research, unless Limbaugh provides the definitions himself. (If he does, then why do we need this article at all?)   Will Beback    talk    02:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The experience of Wikipedia editors hearing what 20 million other listeners heard is really a stretch for what is original research. patsw (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two elements of original research. One element is the creation of definitions. If the term is so obvious that anyone can guess the definition then there's no point in having the article. If they require an editor to figure it out then that's original research. The second element of original research is the choice of which terms to include. Secondary sources are filters which help us determine what to add to the project. Without that filter, we're just adding indiscriminate information.   Will Beback    talk    03:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is indiscriminate - while the use of the terms on the show is sourced, they are not sourced as being "jargon". Because of this, any time Rush uses a new phrase, all it would take for inclusion is a source to show the phrase was used and what was meant by it, technically making this list infinite. There needs to be better refinement to terms that may be specifically acknowledged as terms repeatedly used on the show that are associated to Rush, and not just the term-de-jour as this lists seems to be. --M ASEM  (t) 03:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The judgment to be applied to each candidate entry is the same sort of judgment made by editors in popular culture articles without the concurrent appearance in a third-party WP:RS. These are justified exceptions. patsw (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a good AFD argument, per WP:OSE.   Will Beback    talk    03:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, this is basically the reason we discourage trivia/pop culture sections, which can be similarly indiscriminate - they may be easily "sourced" or stated without OR, but then people start including every tiny reference. There's no disagreement that Rush has jargon, but it needs to be true "jargon" that is associated with Rush, not just any funny phrase he uses. --M ASEM  (t) 04:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"Just in case someone decides to revive this for a 4th time let me lay it out: Notability is nothing more than a term of art meaning satisfying criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Rush Limbaugh is the most significant radio personality in history. His biographical article makes that clear. What makes the jargon article necessary is the biographical article is already long and the jargon being heard by 20 million people is itself of particular significance. It is a proper division for an article into more than one part based upon its subtopic. (see Wikipedia:Article_size#Splitting_an_article) Original Research is meaningless to apply here. Has any entry in the article not be verified by many other editors who have personally heard it? We can't expect there to be a published secondary source for this other than the show's audio archives. If anyone disputes an entry, the editors who are 24x7 members have recourse to their personal copies of the show's MP3's to settle a dispute. Not a collection of words or definitions is not what this article is. It is, like many other articles, an attempt to inform the reader about an element of the popular culture based upon the wide interest among readers and editors in the subject. patsw (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into either Rush Limbaugh or The Rush Limbaugh Show. This list is appropriate within the context of discussing either Rush or his show... but not as an article on its own.  Also, keep it to jargon coined by Rush rather than jargon he simply uses. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This should be mentioned at the program's main article; it does not justify a spinout article and encourages neologistic, unsourced trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep On the current talk(discussion) page for the Article, I found this explanation most helpful:
 * Click on my name to go to my page for material I'll summarize this weekend. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Patsw is correct that notability is a term of art meaning "satisfying criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia"... however, the key criterion for inclusion that any article must satisfy is that notability must be established through "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In other words, the fact that Rush uses this jargon is not enough to establish that the jargon is notable.  To show that the jargon is notable the article needs to cite sources other than Rush.  It needs independent sources that discuss his jargon and comment upon it... something the article lacks. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * weak keep The man is, as the book says, a big fat idiot. But he and his show are so notable and a decoder ring is often needed to understand him.  WP:N this probably doesn't meet, but call it a spin-out article and a WP:IAR !vote (thus the weak part).  WP:ITSUSEFUL is sometimes a good argument... Hobit (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If we had reliable sources for decoding these terms then that position would make more sense. But the definitions are just being created by Wikipedia editors based on their own interpretations of what Limbaugh says. That's exactly what WP:NOR exists to prevent.   Will Beback    talk    19:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * eh, there are two issues: #1 can we find a RS for the term and #2 does Rush use the term. For #1 we can use other sources (see ) that aren't about Rush.  For #2 we generally allow primary sources to be used for things like that.  If there are terms where we can't find a RS for the definition and it's not 100% obvious from context in the primary source I'd favor removing it from the article.  But that's not a reason to delete.  That said, WP:IAR is rarely a strong reason to do anything, and that's my basis for keeping... Hobit (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the definition is "100% obvious from context" then why bother giving a definition at all? Here's one that's been added six times: ;Atlanta Urinal-Constipation: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution If we remove all of the items with no secondary sources, as I've been saying I'd do for months now, there will only be about a dozen entries, short enough to simply merge to the "Rush Limbaugh Show" article.   Will Beback    talk    20:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why a non-editor even added this (without a ref) since Rush hasn't said that for several years. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom as indiscriminate (how many times does Rush saying something become "jargon" of the show? Just once, evidently.), original research, lacking secondary or tertiary sources for most entries, lacking notability for most entries, and generally unencyclopedic.  Conservapedia might appreciate it, if it meets their (seemingly low) standards. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep How many times does this discussion have to be had before it can be left alone? Limbaugh's show is highly notable and his jargon is an important and well known part of that show. While the article may need some clean up work, there is no doubt in my mind of the appropriateness of the article overall. All of the reasons for keeping have been well documented in the first three AfD requests that have come and gone without a consensus to delete. It's time to just let this article be and move on to more constructive discussions. Ithizar (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Limbaugh's show is highly notable and his jargon is an important and well known part of that show"... exactly... the show is notable, and the jargon is part of the show. You make an excellent argument for merging.  Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * * Comment: . . .  Ithizar, you make a brilliant/inspired KEEP-comment!  The "Delete-side" has a few good points, but those that overreach (such as calling the #1 radio show host a butt-head) weaken their case. I'm preparing additional thoughts to present on my user-page: Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * CES- It's customary to leave only one bolded suggestion for the disposition of the article. This seems to be your fourth "vote". You're welcome to leave as many comments as you think necessary, but we all know you support keeping the article and simply repeating that comment won't affect the outcome.   Will Beback    talk    04:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will add COMMENTS. And I understand it is not a 'count' that determines, but a 'consensus'. Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Charles, I have taken the liberty of re-factoring your second through fourth "keep" !votes to "comments"... just to make this clear (you may wish to go back and change the first one to "strong keep") I have not changed anything you said in those comments. Revert my edit if you object. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Rush is notable, the show is notable, but the jargon is not, just as many other elements of the show or Rush's life/career are not. Notability is not inherited, etc. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see 181 references in that article, roughly half of which are not to the Rush Limbaugh show.  It is obviously not "statistics" in any sense.  If you have problems with original research you should be trimming sentences, not deleting the article.  For that matter, even if the article were to fail AfD criteria this time, why not just revert the whole article back to the version for AfD Number Three or AfD Number Two when it was not found to deserve deletion?  People shouldn't be able to keep running an article through the AfD process endlessly until they get "lucky".  And WP:CRUFT is an essay, not a policy; nor does it advise indiscriminate deletion; and if we were to start deleting such articles I'd prefer to start with all the featured articles for video games, as they are of much less historical significance than politics. Wnt (talk) 02:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: The number of ref. is now 188 since I added some secondary references (and a couple of primary references) to the top of the "Nicknames Limbaugh Uses For Himself" section. Also, I added a sentence to the lead-in sentence. It now reads as follows:
 * "Throughout the years on The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh has established several nicknames with which he describes himself on the air. Others also ascribe nicknames or titles that Limbaugh then uses for entertainment or political satire." (Followed, of course, with secondary references) where I add interviews with Rush as Secondary Sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: Secondary Sources are very important to fill out the explanation to WP readers. They can greatly amplify the value of entries. You may be interested in  "Comparison of size/balance" (copied from my user page) :
 * * Pages in Rush_Limbaugh [ 18 ] // The Show [ 11 ] // Jargon [ 20 ]
 * * Ref. . . in Rush Limbaugh [ 146 ] // The Show [ 24 ] // Jargon [ 188 ]. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Per discussions going back to at least October 2009, I've now removed all of the entires that lacked any reliable secondary sources. That leaves twenty jargon terms, plus four names Limbaugh uses for himself. Of the remaining terms, several include definitions that aren't in secondary sources, so further trimming is still needed. Some, like "Ninth Circus Court of Appeals", seem fairly self-explanatory. One, "Feminazi", is notable enough to have an article of its own.   Will Beback    talk    19:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:NNC. One term with secondary sources should be enough to save them all. Wnt (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Those entries were removed because they violated WP:NOR, a core policy which says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources...", not because they violate WP:N, a guideline.   Will Beback    talk    20:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As I read WP procedures, I thought there would be one week of discussion before radical measures were taken. Where's the consensus? Besides, I would contest that all the entries removed had no secondary sources. I'll have to go through each to make this point. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, improvements to the article can and should be made during the AFD process. The removals have been proposed at least as early as October of 2009 and should come as no surprise to you since we've been discussing them for the past three months. They were made more urgent due to arguments that the article was well-sourced; arguments that were based on the large number of primary sources. The article is now based more on secondary sources, as every article should be, so a better assessment of its value to the project can be made.   Will Beback    talk    22:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Curiously, some editors seem to think that entries in a list like this can be based entirely on primary sources. That drives a great big truck through WP:NOR and is another reason why this article should be deleted.   Will Beback    talk    00:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the list can be based entirely on primary sources, but the fact is, it's now based on primary sources without interpretations and secondary sources. From WP:PRIMARY:
 * "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources."--Drrll (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The shorter version with only entries supported by secondary sources has a total of 58 sources, of which 34 are secondary sources, so it is based mainly on secondary sources. The version Drrll reverted to has 188 sources, and almost all of the additional 130 sources are primary. That version is based mainly on primary sources. Plus it contains many unsourced entries. That's a problem with articles like this: they attract poor quality material and editors who insist on bending the policies to keep that material.   Will Beback    talk    01:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the operative word is "entirely" vs. "mainly". The policy specifically prohibits articles based "entirely on primary sources."  We agree on unsourced entries.--Drrll (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since both the topic itself and the article content are under question, let me address both. Article inclusion first.
 * 1) (Inclusion) Policy: What the Wikipedia is Not The article's topic Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show is a split from The Rush Limbaugh Show in order to keep that article of reasonable size. It not indiscriminate but reflects the consensus of editors in that article -- that is discrimination.
 * 2) (Inclusion) Guideline: Notability The Rush Limbaugh Show merits a comprehensive appearance in the Wikipedia as the most-listened to radio program in the United States since 1991. Large articles have pragmatic spin-off related articles. As popular as Rush is, he is manifestly a target of the left, q.v. Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations.  His unpopularity, generally, or among Wikipedia editors should not become a consideration for notability.  Many of the terms are used by others both on the left and the right -- because they were among the 20 million listeners over the 15 hours per week.
 * 3) (Inclusion) Guideline: Avoid neologisms doesn't apply here. The definitions are given, and the originator is identified.  The article explains the jargon, it is not a list of neologisms.
 * 4) (Content) Policy:Verifiability This article is an exception to the usual methods for establishing verifiability.  We are dealing here with an audio performance which is recorded and archived.  So if there's a question of whether an entry in the article actually was spoken, we have the ears of those 20 million listeners and presumably, tens, if not hundreds of potential editors and contributors.  If an entry is added in good faith, it can be marked as dubious and corrected in due course.
 * 5) (Content) Policy: No Original Research and Section: Primary Sources I make the case here for an exception per the above. Assume good faith among the editors and flag any entry which is dubious for clarification or deletion later.  The "second hand" source here is the hearing by the Wikipedia editor/contributor ("I heard it") and sometimes some one making a comment on Limbaugh's jargon in a pop culture or political media ("Fred Barnes repeated it").  The AGF view would be to appeal to more and better editors for the article -- not for its deletion.
 * 6) (Question) I don't know of an article where almost exactly the same nominations were used for an AFD. Is this a case of keep nominating until you get the votes for delete?  What's really new about this nomination -- except presenting another bite at the apple?
 * 7) (Question) Why pick the week of Passover/Easter to start the AFD for a 4th time?
 * 8) (Summary) I may have repeated above most of the Keep arguments in the three prior AFD's. Why?  Because as they were true in the first, second, and third AFD, they remain true in the fourth.  Rush keeps using jargon (though less about Tom Foley and more about Harry Reid now). The Wikipedia's policies are basically the same, and Wikipedia-editor "I heard it/I saw it"-sourced articles and lists are still all over the Wikipedia.  The difference is that the genre (i.e. Simpsons, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.) is not the politically controversial Rush Limbaugh. patsw (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice you have made two bold !votes for keep, you do understand that AFD is not a vote and that multiple bold opinions are not given greater weight over reasoned policy-based comments?  MBisanz  talk 13:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning Point#4, we now also have HD video of each and every show available for two weeks. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC) You can watch any selected hour of the 15 hours of broadcast each week, if you have the time/interest.
 * Concerning Point#4, You also can search RushLimbaugh.com for his selected transcript-sections for the last five years. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Morenooso (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

BEYOND SECOND-SOURCING, THERE ARE ASPECTS OF THIS JARGON ARTICLE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MENTIONED. I mention a dozen of them on my talk page and will add just a few next. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC) I think it interesting that in four RfD discussions these important aspects have not come up.

COMMENT: This is the only article providing an example of 'Jargon'.
 * A good WP article exists on 'Jargon' to do with language. Enter 'Jargon' in the WP search line and there are some WP leads that appear. The article on jargon in language is excellent and has but one professional example: Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show.  Remove this article and that is lost from Wikipedia. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that this indicates what is needed is an improvement to the aritcle on Jargon, and has no baring on whether the Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show article should be kept or not. ()

COMMENT: Our Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show is used as a reference by many.
 * If the article is deleted a draw to Wikipedia is lost.

Look at how people use our Jargon Article to find what they want via WP: Results from a few examples of {exact-jargon-wording} in Google search: The purpose in showing these example google-searches is to show how the terms have spread to other sources, originating from the jargon of the show. Most terms are coined by Rush Limbaugh, but some originate from callers or other broadcast media. It also shows the importance of these terms in understanding current politics and how Wikipedia can be used.
 * Limbaugh Doctrine:  (In 2,110 hits, Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show is #1.)
 * 35 Undeniable Truths of Life:  (#14 in 1,750 google-hits.)
 * Queen Bee Nancy:  (#7 in 9,700 google-hits.)
 * Operation Chaos:  (#1 in 45,100 google-hits.)
 * Ninth Circus Court of Appeals:  (#32 in 1,500 google-hits.)
 * Lindsey Grahamnesty:  (#100+ in 16,300 google-hits.)
 * Environmentalist wacko:  (#16 in 24,000 google-hits.)
 * EIB Southern Command:  (#1 in 18,400 google-hits.)
 * EIB Climatologist:  (#4 in 550 google-hits.)
 * Drive-by media:  (#13 in 872,000 google-hits.)
 * Dittoheads:  (#1 in 67,700 google-hits.)
 * Algore:  (#100+ in 241,000 google-hits.)  (( Rush started the term 'ALgore'; others copied; not giving him credit!))
 * Sheets Byrd:  (#100+ in 16,800 google-hits.)

And here is one of my all-time favorite entries I've made (finding a great, great secondary source) :: "Four corners of deceit" (In 240,000 hits, Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show is #18.)
 * http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=117323
 * Ellis Washington in WorldNetDaily confirms and uses the Rush Limbaugh term for his article.
 * Keep in mind that Rush Limbaugh started this term and now a quarter of a million sources refer to those exact words. Further, realize that most of them are not worthy to be an acceptable secondary WP source. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT: Let's talk about the "elephant in the room", and it is not the GOP .!.
 * Rush Limbaugh is a leading Conservative in America. He is so popular because he is the voice of a "silent majority" (both parties and 'independents') who hold to traditional founding conservative principles. This view resonated when he started in 1988 and is the reason he has the #1 talk show in America today.  Others have joined the Conservative chorus, but who does the Whitehouse attack when they want to demonize the other side? Rush Limbaugh.  Who is mentioned on the floor of Congress? Rush Limbaugh.  Who did the Republicans honor as an 'honorary Republican Freshman' when they won the House in 1994?  Rush Limbaugh. The New York Times wrote about that.
 * Here's the point: to attract more to Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia, expand the coverage of this popular Conservative voice. Do not diminish it.
 * The majority of Americans think they have traditional American conservative values. Let's attract them. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT: Which article is more important? Rush Limbaugh or Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show ??
 * The 'Message' is more important than the 'messenger'. 'Jargon' is the more important article. And it attracts many.
 * Rush uses political satire. We should include the top 10% (esp. w/2nd sources) and not every new coined word/phrase.
 * Yes, readers may want to read about Rush Limbaugh, but his witty words are more interesting to most.
 * Rush says that 'Liberals' don't see humor and take it the wrong way. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT: We can thank critics of this Article for making it better—THANKS, senior editors on both sides .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: little of which has anything to do with the issue at hand... whether the topic of Rush's jargon is notable. Forgive me if I am misrepresenting your views here... but these last comments seem to indicate that you want to keep this article in order to push an agenda.  This isn't the place to do that. Blueboar (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed, CES' comments suggest WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:GOOGLEHITS need to be mentioned here. Also, to paraphrase Thomas Pynchon, vis a vis "Algore" and many other entries, "If Mr. Limbaugh really believes himself to be the only writer at present able to arrive at a play on words this trivial, that is another problem entirely, perhaps more psychiatric than literary, and I certainly hope he works it out." Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense intended—none taken.   :-)   :-) My concepts are heavy-contenders for best-winning-arguments, IMO-imho .!. My only ‘Agenda’ is Wikipedia Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC) nothing more .!. .!. .!.
 * Comment. I thought we should assume good faith here. This is a long-standing article of the Wikipedia, it has survived earlier AFD's and has a number of active editors -- this fourth AFD adds nothing new to the three prior AFD's.  If there's an agenda being pushed here it is to give Rush-haters a fourth bite at the "delete-a-Rush-article" apple.  Let this AFD die, and we can take up issues of "published reliable sources third party sources" versus "I heard it/I saw it"-sourcing by Wikipedia editors on the talk page.  Deletion as a remedy for the sourcing issues is overkill. patsw (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. As mentioned several times already, WP:NOTABILITY is easily reached by Rush Limbaugh by the size of his audience, the number of stations he is broadcast on, the number of awards he has won, etc. What needs to be determined is how content on Rush Limbaugh is organized.  This is a problem not unique to Rush, there are many elements of the popular culture that have multiple linked articles in the Wikipedia -- each of which do not "stand-alone" individually in terms of their own significance but to provide enough depth and coverage as the editing process of the Wikipedia yields.  The avoids making The Simpsons a multi-megabyte article for example. patsw (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is radio. It does not have the same army of critics that books, movies, plays, television, music, etc. have.  The third-party sources, in essence, are the same as many articles covering popular television programming where the amount of information collected by Wikipedia editors exceeds what other sources collect.  The editors police themselves and verify dubious points by examining the source material. patsw (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT-question: This discussion is so good I would like another week! Who decides when we are "having fun" and "have reached 'consensus' " .?. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An administrator will close the debate in a while, but it is very unlikely to be extended for another week. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is neither a list of indiscriminate information, nor a dictionary, nor a list of quotes. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2010 (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.