Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Derangement Syndrome

Bush Derangement Syndrome

This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "neologism, Urban Dictionary is not a reliable reference," but the deletion process was not completed. —Brim 06:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a few refences to this on the web [1] , but I don't think it has mainstream usage. It does register 353 google hits [2]. Movementarian 07:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It gets 78k google hits [3] when you search for "Bush Derangement Syndrome" instead of "Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)". peachlette 22:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I am tempted to vote Keep, this article is original research and I don't think that the term has quite crossed the notability bar so delete. Capitalistroadster 08:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the only external reference is UrbanDictionary then I don't believe this is notable at all. — JIP | Talk 09:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are not a mirror of Urban Dictionary. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am against judging articles by arbitrary notability standards (as is WP policy) and measuring a topic's worthiness by its number of Google hits is just plain dumb - presumably an article about the Roman Army in the 2nd Century would also get deleted since you're unlikely to get many google hits about that! Cynical 12:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not exactly original research. If kept, the article needs to be completely rewritten for clarity. It is a dictionary defintion of a term that appears to have whatever meaning anybody wants to give it, which makes it unencyclopedic in my opinion. Logophile 14:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 78000 google hits, very prominent on rightwing blogs Firebug 18:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not really in mainstream use now, likely to be forgotten when Bush is out of office.Bjones 18:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good reason to delete. Term needs explanation. -- JJay 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]