Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schmidthead


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. I have not given new users or IPs nearly as much weight as the longer-term contributors. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Schmidthead
New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes ( ~ ) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

Stupid prank entry by DU. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5411505

Dr Debug 18:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * While I am in sympathy with the content expressed in the article, I vote to Delete. It is not a commonly used term at this time, although if Schmidt keeps opening that nasty unAmerican pie hole of hers, she'll make that term stick. &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 19:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

WCC2005
 * Delete A prank from an extremely partisan website and unlike the sexual term "Santorum", Schmidthead has not been used by anyone other than one single poster at DU.


 * If the sexual use of the term "Santorum" can be on Wikipedia, so can this term. I say it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.150.34 (talk • contribs)


 * Leave it alone. It's the most sensible addition of a word to the English language I've heard in years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.7.94 (talk • contribs)


 * Leave it! It is going to stick around as a euphemism for decades. It's a word to express one's opinion of another person without the vulgarity and reference to poop.


 * Delete neologism. KillerChihuahua 23:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP It's just as valid term as 'ChickenHawk', and contrary to the above comment, I heard it being used on Air America the past coupla of days, as well as on Bernie Ward. Used several times this morning on The Stephanie Miller show in the 'generic' term and not a direct releation to the person in question. It's becoming just a valid term as "Swiftboating" or "Chicken Hawk". Note: Sorry for the double entry, I meant to just add to my previous comment and added a second on by mistake, apologies... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.227.153 (talk • contribs)

KEEP

I say it works! Most reasonable people who watched Schmitt spew her venom would agree.


 * Delete neologism, and I agree with other delete votes above. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 08:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism. Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia of Words You Just Made Up. --Metropolitan90 08:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Highly POV, neologism, not encyclopedic. Ronabop 09:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV use of word one DU poster: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5411505 made up, before he and others went on tirades about how "Wikipedia deserves to be defaced."128.135.199.173 16:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep neologism. I've heard it on AirAmerica too and I fully intend to start using it myself.  It is a legitimate and worthy addition to the English language and will stand along side other politically driven neologisms like "Gerrymander," "Boycott" or "Bowdlerize".  That the word bears a strong resemblance to "you-know-whathead" makes it uniquely efficacious for denoting the especially execrable brand of reckless, ignorant, and nasty character assassination of honorable people for which her recent speech stands as the species type exhibit.

MaskedMarauder 18:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete unless we can also add LibTARD, this is a political Hack term used in conjunction with the DU website 199.211.198.39 20:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ridiculous. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 04:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. If we can have Slick Willie, we can have Schmidthead. -- Atlant 13:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. 148,000 googles for "slick willie", 369 for "schmidthead".  It's not a term in widespread usage, and as such, doesn't belong here.  If things change, we can always add it back in the future.  -Colin Kimbrell 19:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete First of all, it's rather early to claim "it will stand along side other politically-driven" neologisms: Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Secondly, it's a personal attack on a single freshman representative--in fact, the most junior member of congress, for a gaffe that will likely be soon forgotten.  Next, it's ridiculously POV.  Calling a member of congress "shithead" by implication and claiming she " lacks any sense of decency, perspective or irony." in a main article is entirely POV--all opinion, no fact.  Next, it is hardly in common use.  "schmidthead" as a google search receives 387 results--and on the first page, only one result is political.  Searching 'schmidthead jean' without the quotes (so as to get articles with both) gives only 22 results.  22 results in the entire Internet is not a common term.  For comparison to other political hackjob neologisms, "klintoon" recieves 13000 and "bushitler" recieves 69000--both obviously not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, and yet both in much wider use.  I doubt this even belongs in the List of pejorative political puns, though that would be a much better choice.  Finally, from the "Wikipedia:Deletion policy page, under Problems that may require deletion: "Original research (including the coining of neologisms)"128.135.199.165 19:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above post. 24.163.172.102 08:14, 26 November 2005 (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.