Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show

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 Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show

• Keep. I found it useful.

Delete. Neologisms (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 20:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. its a useful topic. many might not know what something on his show means and would turn here. 71.145.140.22 08:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Caesarscott
• Keep Abstain, with comments. Arundhati Bakshi's grounds for deletion are incorrect. According to Wikipedia:No original research: "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is: <snip> it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source" Here, the neologisms are being attributed to a reputable source (namely, The Rush Limbaugh Show). If somebody disputes the use of a term on the show, it can be verified by pointing to an episode of the show in which the word was used. In particular, if the disputed term was used less than 30 days in the past, it is available on the web via the Rush 24/7 service; older references would require going to an archive, of course. — DLJessup (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • After further review, I have found a possible ground for deletion under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If this article is considered a jargon guide, it should be deleted (or possibly moved to Wikibooks); on the other hand, if it is a glossary, it should be kept. — DLJessup (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 20:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a indiscriminate jargon guide of protologisms. -- Krash (Talk) 21:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; seems like a legitimate fork given that the two articles it could otherwise be merged into (Rush Limbaugh and The Rush Limbaugh Show) are both long enough as they are. A lot of these terms have gone from neologisms into common use amongst conservatives purely because Limbaugh started using them (for example, "Dingy Harry" gets 15,700 Google hits. --Aaron 22:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into The Rush Limbaugh Show. Karmafist 23:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Or they could be Transwikiied to Wiktionary. Whatever. Karmafist 23:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These terms are notable because of Limbaugh's huge influence on American political (esp. conservative) culture. As mentioned above, articles into which this could be merged are long enough already. I hope people aren't voting "delete" just because they hate Limbaugh. dbtfz^talk 01:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't hate Limbaugh (or are even very familiar with him) . . . my vote was due to the fact that the article seemed like a list of new words coined and that WP is not a dictionary or list of slang, although there are lost of entries that seem to violate that idea. If the words are notable enough and used widely, then maybe I would be Ok with merging it into a sort of "conservative American culture" article, to give it more context. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 16:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge- the article would stand alone because Rush Limbaugh's name provides enough context by itself. Perhaps the name of the article should make reference to parlance rather than jargon. This way people will not mistake Limbaugh's sarcasm and humor for neologisms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.110.205.177 (talk • contribs) .
  • Sarcasm might be a more appropriate moniker. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOT WP:WINAD WP:AFDP#words Wikipedia is not for lists of definitions or lists of quotes. Also possibly could be considered an attack page (and there's no way I can see to make the page NPOV). Possibly original research in definitions given WP:OR. Transwiki notable entries, if any, to Wiktionary or Wikiquote, or smerge to Rush Limbaugh if necessary. Would happily nom any list of anti-conservative puerile puns by notable leftists for AfD if there were any such lists. Schizombie 03:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete from Wikipedia. However, it might be appropriate as the first draft of a Concordance at Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Since it appears that this page will be deleted, I have copied the contents of this page to User:DLJessup/Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show. DO NOT EDIT THAT PAGE. I am merely trying to keep a copy of the page available for people who wish to transfer it to Wiktionary (if appropriate) or transfer it out of WikiMedia altogether. — DLJessup (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, if this action is inappropriate, please let me know. I will seek a speedy deletion of the subpage one week after a successful vote for deletion. — DLJessup (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No, as long as its in your user space and not in Main it should be fine I am sure. Some of the entries may have a place in Wiktionary. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 16:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, here's why:

It's about Limbaugh not about the words.

The article is not a dictionary, for that would be the standard definitions of these words. Some of the jargon is not neologism but puns, slang, cultural references. In its own context, it is very useful. It's all cited and both suporters and critics of Limbaugh are contributing, and it is above all, useful to the fans or those simply curious about the show. In terms of the structure of the Wikipedia, it has a natural origin since his jargon began to get entered into both the bio article and into the the show article, making a third article as a spin off necessary. If keep loses, the editors of that page will in all likelyhood, recreate the article again if the pattern we saw in 2005 repeats in 2006. The simple analog would be the episode guide and character guide articles of other creative material. And what's motivating this AfD, anyway? Is this a Wikivote on who likes Limbaugh? patsw 03:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Way to assume good faith.... No, it shouldn't be a wikivote on who likes Limbaugh. It should be on whether it satisfies WP policies. It's one of a great many lists of slang and jargon that were put on AfD in mid to late Feb, including List of Internet slang, and List of US railfan jargon, all of which should have been deleted if policy were what truly mattered. So no, particularly considering the context of all those other noms, I think the nom is pretty clearly not a case of anti-Limbaugh bias. There is no doubt a place for all of the lists (internet, railfan, Limbaugh jargon, etc.) somewhere on the web, just not here. I don't know where you get the idea the Limbaugh list is all cited; aren't there just seven cites on the page?

It needs a lot more context. When Limbaugh uses these nicknames, how does he use them? Does he say something like "So and so, or as I like to call him, (insert puerile pun here)" or does he say the nickname without ever using the person's real name at all? If the former, or in the cases where the real name is obvious, or context makes the real name obvious, there's really no reason for the list. Also, some of the names seem to indicate faults he finds in the person, but others don't convey any obvious meaning at all. If his fans want to get really encyclopedic, rather than engaging in fanlistcruft, they'd try to: (1) establish when the name was first used by him (2) if he invented it, or if it was in prior use by others (3) what the name means (if not original research), (4) document whether the name was used more than once, and if so how often (otherwise definitely not notable), (5) whether the use of the name has spread beyond his fans (otherwise hardly notable). If all those conditions could be satisfied, possibly the reasons I cited above for why the page should be deleted would not apply. Schizombie 04:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As others said, if it merged with another article it would be to one that is already long enough. Given the importance of the show, and the need for someone to already know what he means, this list is necessary.--Bedford 03:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article is misnamed. It may contain references from the show, but it's not jargon so much as schtick. Some of it is manufactured terms, some are portmanteaus and some are just puns, but it's almost all part of Limbaugh's satire and sense of humor/comedy routine, none of it is about creating new definitions or establishing new jargon. It's about commentary, satire, editorializing, etc. In many ways, Limbaugh's manufactured terminology is a defining characteristic of his show, just as such terminology often is with any show. At most, I'd merge it back into the Show article (e.g., South Park's "jargon" schtick is all contained within the show's main article). We have an entire article dedicated to what various abbreviations in World of Warcraft mean. That's far closer to documenting definitions than this article is, and I think neither needs to be removed per policy. Bjsiders 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is very helpful and should be kept. It seems much too long to merge into Limbaugh's show article, so I believe it's fine the way it is. NuncAutNunquam 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I used this article to find look up a term I heard on the radio program and did not understand. It served a useful purpose for me.05:07, 3 March 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honoyaya (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment Everyone who wants the page to stay essentially says the same thing; for those want to retain the page, I wish the WP policies on why pages like this aren't appropriate for WP that had been raised below[above] would be addressed.... Schizombie 22:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Word changed due to posts' positions being changed. Schizombie 04:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per patsw. Clearly notable and the article is really about the radio personality, not the words. NoSeptember ^talk 15:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.253.190.152 (talk • contribs) .

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.