Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitzmas

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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...um...*scratches head*. Alright, discounting all IPs and really new users, I count 39 keep, 12 delete, and 19 merge and/or redirect votes. Therefore, I'm going to have to say no consensus on this one (I can't say keep outright, since 39/70 is only about 55%). Robert T | @ | C 05:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzmas

[edit]

Keep. This is classic Americana at its best--witty, tongue-in-cheek view of what may eventually become, the undoing of the current administration. Delete - but move to PLAME AFFAIR Very obscure, topic not worthy of Wikipedia Paul Dehaye 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Keep--valid political slang.

  • Keep - in common usage
  • Keep - Leave it in.
  • Merge and Redirect - The term 'Fitzmas' is, like, totally evanescent. Plus, whatever information would go into a Fitzmas article will have to be completely duplicated in 'Plame Affair' anyway. Better to keep it all in a single location. -- 67.161.46.135 01:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, per MCB. It's evanescent, but maybe someday someone will wonder what the hell it's referring to when looking at the historical record. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- "Fitzmas" has the same staying power as "Where's the beef?"
  • Keep. An ungraceful merge could ruin the target article, so in reality, keeping this separate is probably better, since it is rather peripheral to the real, serious topic of the investigation. If someone proves me wrong by doing a graceful merge, I won't complain. Unfocused 04:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!** DO NOT DELETE THIS. IT WILL BE VERY SIGNIFICANT!
  • Keep! -- It is a current term, and it could work for liberals or against them (in case fitzmas brings nothing to their tree). It is a term in a moment in time, and it should be included.
  • Keep - There's nothing wrong with it
  • Keep it. It's cute!

The point is to be an encyclopedia not to be censorists and ingore out of ignorance. KEEP.

  • Keep - Even though the word grates my nerves, it has entered the popular lexicon and is even being used by the mainstream media. It's a term that needs a definition readily available on the internet, for future students of this era.
  • Keep it please!

My 11 year old son was asking me today what's the meaning of "Fitzmas". I had to do a better job at it than his Mom did in the morning. We owe him that!!

  • Keep, please. Documentation being generated by various media outlets including the National Review have used the word without a strong definition. Future historians will need a definition and etymology. Just as "Watergate" has to be defined as more than a scandal to someone born in 1978, a future historian born five years from now will need an explanation as to what Fitzmas meant in the context of this event. ~~CSEdwards~~
  • Keep. The term has seen use in printed, broadcast, and electronic media, has a growing number of google hits, and I used the wp entry to learn what it was.
  • KEEP IT and add: the reason for the season is treason!
  • Even Fox News is using the term now. As long as the entry stays more or less politically neutral, I see no need to kill it.
  • Useful for folks who might someday in the future encounter a reference to 'Fitzmas', and need a handy definition. It's a useful citation, and anyone who believes there can be too much information is a bit out-of-place at wikipedia, no?
  • It's a term being used to describe a very real point in history, keep it! No reason not to.
  • It's in use everywhere now. Leave it in.
  • Keep it: It's politically significant.
  • Dan Froomkin wrote about it in the Washington Post. It should stay.
  • Not obscure at all...heard it on MSNBC the other day even. It's hitting the mainstream. Also, too many people are asking about it, so might as well keep it around like an answer to a FAQ.
  • Bold textKeepBold text--Tons of hits, it's a pop culture phenomenon. Besides, other things like lueshi are allowed to stay on Wikipedia, this is much more influential than lueshi.
  • Keep: the amount of argument engendered should provide ample justification on its own.



  • Merge and Redirect - this is worth perhaps a line in the entry on the Plame affair. This is a neologism, and while it's worth keeping mention of it somewhere, it's not worthy of its own entry. 192.249.47.8 14:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a neologism which will probably only have ephemeral currency, i.e. it's unlikely people will still be using it after this stage in the investigation is over. If it does attain some sort of lasting currency, like "Where's the beef"? it can be written up at that stage. --Ryano 15:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No one will use the term in three months no matter what the outcome of the investigation is.

Delete- this will burn out just like DSM, Sheehan, Gannon and all the other leftist talking points. Blitzkrieg17 15:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still talking about them how can you say they've burnt out? Andyluciano 17:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All three of which have articles. Downing Street memo, Cindy Sheehan, and Jeff Gannon. All are quite detailed, too. If they're your precedent, your vote seems... off. — ceejayoz talk 17:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Quite detailed' is an understatement. The Cindy Sheehan article is longer than either of the Bill Clinton or the Ronald Reagan articles! 67.161.46.135 09:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's currently being used in many places. It'll be around a year from now.
  • Keep - It's too soon to tell whether or not it will "be around in a year". Why not wait and find out? What's the rush to delete? It has appeared in the Washington Post as well as the Huffington Post and the Al Franken show, and is very rapidly expanding in usage as shown by word searches: 13,700 at A9 for you google doubters. As has been noted elsewhere, "Yesterday's Neologisms, like yesterday's jargon, are often today's essential vocabulary." -- Jotter 20:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! - I always look to wikipedia to keep me current on topics, I am so far out of pop cultrue and don't have time to search a million websites. Is this not what wikipedia is for? If this disappears in a week, delete it then, but hang onto it until fitzmas is over.
  • Keep! - Limbaugh and Hannity are using the term now, it's offically 'crossed over' and has become more than "Very obscure topic"
  • Keep. Duh!! Not only are there now 161,000 hits in Google (for the record, that's more hits than Tallahassee, Florida has residents), but that's up from approximately zero less than three weeks ago. That's pretty amazing. Only time will tell if it remains relevant, but it's certainly relevant now. --PHenry 21:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - especially after the Economist article about it, I bet that's where the Google searches are coming from

KEEP IT -- just put it in the page with Plame Affair page

Keep it as addendum to Plame affair. It does not match importance, not will it remain as a cultural reference as "Watergate" or the "Saturday Night Massacre" have.

A great part of wikipedia's importance is that it's where people go to find out about the stuff that Brittanica, etc. do NOT cover. This counts~ it's a small cultural part of our history, and will give future readers an idea what not only what was going on, but the flavor of how people felt about it. Imagaine the poor researcher who comes across it 20 yrs from now! I'd like to think that Wikipedia will still be up and running to inform him that Fitzmas was not a typo or mispronunciation in his original source material.

  • Keep - it's obviously now clearly got a life of it's own and, if it occurs, will have ramifications beyond the outing of valerie plame. sure, it will be obscure one day, but is eventual obscurity reason to delete knowledge? 68.161.7.86 14:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redirect to plame investigation or somewhere relevant. With only 1 indictment handed out and not even for leaking a CIA agent's identity, it seems fitzmas was a bit of a let down. I've only heard the term on lefty blogs talking about the indictments with eager glee, and a few righty blogs mocking the left ones. Another week or so and no one will remember 'fitzmas'. -Viper Daimao 18:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - Wikipedia has many articles of less import. This article might help people understand a current meme. --User:Chad okere Oct 28
  • Keep and please note that I'm a regular Wikipedia contributor and no one "told me to come here" (I followed a link from the article on Fitzgerald). This should absolutely be kept. If Wikipedia is to remain relevant and up-to-the-minute, it needs to be on top of evolving phrases and Internet memes. I've seen this term in several places on the Web in the past few days, and it's entirely possible that people might come to Wikipedia for a definition. No more deletionist nonsense! How many times do we have to reiterate that Wikipedia is not paper? Moncrief 05:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a great example of how Wikipedia is special and what it's good at. There is no other place that could do this, document an unbiased explanation of a word or concept as it emerges in real time. I think that's unique and it shows what a wiki can do. I'm not a contributor so my comments might not matter. But I'm actually excited about what Wikipedia is turning into. There are more and more examples where Wikipedia is THE source of reference and the only one. [Comment added by User:67.94.56.66]
    • Actually there shouldn't be any examples where wikipedia is the only reference, it is supposed to be a secondary source. If there are no other sources, how can we check that what it says is true (WP:V) ?. Kappa 06:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable: Over 300,000 Google hits. No need to merge either as it has enough content to stand as its own article. - Mr. Tibbs 06:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - I agree that it will be all but forgotten in six months. Eideteker 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable for 403,000 Google hits. Agree with Mr. Tibbs. Frankchn 16:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with "Plamegate" Affair - Useful in context, not much on its own AbrahamFowler 18:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge+Redirect to Plamegate or Move to Wiktionary - As the term is used elsewhere and can be cited (and is according to some here used extensively) it's worth keeping in some form. It will be clear later whether this is worthy of its own entry or not, but certainly the existance and popularity of the term now mean we should keep this information. --Zippy 19:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for now. Possibly merge and redirect in the future if the term loses steam. Though I have edited an article or two for Wikipedia, I came to the Fitzmas article and this delete discussion from a link in a CNet news story [2]. For better or worse, Wikipedia is now a major source of information on current popular culture. To this end it offers near instant coverage of new phenomena and generally balanced coverage hammered out by passionate people on both sides of the issue. This is no small thing, even if the articles are less than seamless as a result. --agr 22:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely used. --194.94.44.4 14:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This term could and has already become a substitute for "CIA Leak Case." If Wikipedia can hold articles on obscure Kansas City Pitchers like "Chris George" (Search for it if you don't believe me) then Wikipedia can and should hold "Fitzmas"
  • Keep - Now over 717,000 Google hits, numerous mentions in mainstream news, and some fairly extensive merchandizing items... people are talking about putting up their Fitzmas decorations. The term is now considerably more relevant than dozens of others which have been active on Wikipedia for long periods of time... indeed, it seems implausible that this call for deletion would even exist if not for the political nature of the subject. --CBDunkerson 23:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make that 929,000 Google hits now... that's growth of 212,000, in less than twelve hours. Meanwhile, "Lost Liberty Hotel" at 37,600 hits, "Troopergate" at 15,200, "Filegate" at 115,000 (referring to at least three different things), "Pardongate" at 13,900, et cetera all remain pages in Wikipedia. --CBDunkerson 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Plamegate Affair as previously proposed. David | Talk 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Plame Affair as a slimmed down mention. It's notable enough for that, but not for its own article. Impi 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Easily notable enough now. Not a dicdef. — brighterorange (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I like what Fitzgerald is doing, but the fact is this joke will be old by ... Thanksgiving. Daniel Case 03:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - I don't really know how to parse the information, but someone should look at Language Log's analysis of the development of the neologism in a historical context [3]. It even links to WP! Smmurphy 05:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Language Log's analysis has taken the discussion of this term a bit more academic and insightful --nertzy 06:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now referenced in the Guardian, which brought me here. – Kaihsu 14:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect or Keep; The information should be available somewhere. At the moment, we can't see what sort of long-term implications the situation holds, or what weight the term will carry. Regardless of the number of Google hits, the term is, at the moment, neologistic. The current situation could be flash-in-the-pan, or it could end up being another Watergate. The long-term status of the term and article information are, therefore, very up in the air. However, it seems to me that the term has become ubiquitous enough to warrant the information being available, at least for the present, regardless of political feelings. It wasn't coined here, and it's become culturally notable. Now, while I can well imagine that the specificity of the term may well prevent it from becoming common jargon, it could also grow to encompass other similar phenomena. Part of the beauty of WP is the dynamic ability to incorporate concepts, terms, and events that may have significant historical impact, rather than having to wait for years while the ramifications of an event are weighed, costs are analyzed, articles are written, and the editions published. I would also comment that if there are those who think this should be deleted or not simply out of political spite, they should reexamine their reasoning. SchrodingersRoot 15:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - So long as the investigation is ongoing, people will refer to Fitzmas. If more indictments come down, it may well be used to differentiate (as noted somewhere in the morass above). I was happy to be able to quickly find out what Fitzmas was all about by just querying wikipedia. Andrew 21:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per nom. -Andrew 03:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fitzmas&oldid=1221568671"