Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategery


 * 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, keep.  Dei zio  talk 14:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Strategery
Nonencyclopedic trivia/cruft. Wikipedia is not a collector of indescriminate information Blue Tie 00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note for consideration: Merge with Bushism would be somewhat difficult since this phrase was not used by Bush but by Saturday Night Live in a spoof.
 * Be more creative. Expand the Bushism article to include satire and comedy based on Bushisms. There are several examples of this already on the page. Carcharoth 11:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

--Blue Tie 01:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bushism. Yomangani talk 01:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * weak keep, it's pretty notable as far as bushisms go; it's received media coverage of its own. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, with comment: I think "strategery" is one of the few neologisms to actually pass WP:NEO. It's practically become a real, permanent word, albeit one with separate definitions depending on which side of the political fence you're on; I stopped trying to count the number of individual Ghits after getting to 640 completely unique references (Google usually craps out between 250-400 for most searches regarding any phrase up for AfD). I can pull up articles about the word itself if requested. That said, the Bill Sammon book of the same name easily passes WP:BK, so if this turns into a snowballing "delete" consensus, I could just blank the article and make it into a quick article about the book, and use a few sentences of the current page as a "Trivia" subhead. --Aaron 01:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Same reasons as the above, previous user, Aaron. VigilancePrime 02:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Blue Tie Green hornet 03:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Night Gyr. Olessi 04:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in its own right.  P eople Powered 05:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can be sourced, third-party verifiable, so keep. Batmanand | Talk 09:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Can be ref'd at Bushisms; beyond that it is simply a neologism. Eusebeus 09:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Can be ref'd at Bushims] as per Eusebeus. But as its own article, its just Presidentcruft. Non-notable one-time gag in its own right. I don't think this word will outlast the Bush administration either Bwithh 14:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete and discuss under Bushisms. It's going to be rather insignificant after 2008. Gazpacho 17:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * comment - Wikipedia has articles about lots of things without lasting influence; There's no policy that says things must in order to have articles written about them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. per Blue Tie. One-shot gag. Andrew Levine 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to bushisms. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't believe Wikipedia should be restricted to subjects of lasting importance.  Ephemeral notability suffices, as witness the two separate AfD proceedings that Jennifer Wilbanks has survived. JamesMLane t c 23:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, sourced, notable, what else do we want... --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - cited (could be better-cited, but it's cited) and given its expansion from SNL to popular culture and the president himself, it's definitely notable. Dylan 02:57, 13 October 2006 (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.