434:. I rely on Knowledge (XXG) to provide up to date, relevant and sourced information about current culture. I understand that this particular topic doesn't seem NPOV to some people, but it is impossible to present many of these quotes and the person who made the statements in a neutral way because the quotes just are so stupid. Some things just are what they are. However, I hope that the Knowledge (XXG) will exist beyond this current moment and provide a sort of time capsule for the dark ages we are (hopefully passing through). Maybe this is not a proper encyclopedia justification, but I wanted to add my mustard. If my vote doesn't count, it won't be the first time.
479:. I have only just come across Knowledge (XXG) and this is my first contribution, so I speak with limited experience. I was, however, impressed by the the neutral manner in which the article approaches an inherently partisan subject. As other comments mention it is very well referenced and at the very least not overtly pushing one POV. Coverage of this subject is always going to make George Bush look stupid and as a result make some people unhappy, surely this doesn't mean that Knowledge (XXG) should pretend it doesn't exist. If the the consensus is still for a more balanced article, then edit rather than delete.
245:"Bushisms" (I've not yet heard one, mind you, but I'm sure it happens!). American Presidents get a special pass on Knowledge (XXG).org and, unlike the quotable quotes that go into Wikiquote, every word of a President is subject to be reported and analyzed. There were plenty of Clintonisms too, of the "Slick Willie" variety (he didn't inhale and didn't break the laws of "this country" when he smoked weed in England, didn't have sex with Monica in the sense of intercourse, etc.). Knock yourself out.
188:
Knowledge (XXG) article, not what is found in the references. How would you write about racism in
Knowledge (XXG) if the topic, and not the writing in the article was subject to POV complaints. The topic is certainly notable - ever watch David Letterman? He's been showing these in video clips every night for months. And the references - often multiple references for each article - speak for themselves.
459:, please feel free to clarify details. While it may contain POV, there is a limit to how neutral such an embarrassing series of events can be portrayed. Even if the article would be extremely POV, is deserves to be re-written in NPOV as much as possible, not deleted. This topic, which documents the language usage of Bush, is most certainly notable, and quite similar to
244:
For good or for bad, our
President is a source of interesting quotes, and Knowledge (XXG) is the first attempt to verify that each one actually occurred, when, where and in what context. Because it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there is the opportunity for a Bush fan to put in intelligent
187:
written on the subject. I don't know what more you want from references. There is a huge number of references - some entries have two! And there is a difference between the intention of the people mocking Bush over this and the content of the
Knowledge (XXG) article. POV referes to the writing in the
532:). I should also point out that here in Paris, France, they sell (translated) books of "Bushisms" - it is, I assume, an almost global phenomenon to find interest in the fact that the leader of the most powerful nation in the world has difficulty formulating a sentence/thought.
454:
that the article is unreferenced, much less 'speculative' in any way. I find one, if not two sources for each quote sufficient, and much more comprehensive than other articles considered properly cited. If I have misinterpreted the argument established by
141:
This article seems to mostly list different "bushisms", and really doesn't seem to be anything more then a repository of quotes, and a lot of speculation. Not much fact to back it up, mostly references transcripts and other quotes.
272:
While I'm not at all a fan of the actual list of
Bushisms which in my opinion leaves too much open to original research and attracts vandals, this term is very well defined and very well used, and as such, belongs here.
79:
74:
257:
Article is referenced, not just to the quotes themselves but to books and articles that define the term itself, so there are no verifiability or original research issues that I can see.
134:
276:
69:
281:
I suggest that dissenting editors instead spend their time trying to keep the list of
Bushisms under control, which is bound to be a full time job. -
503:. This is a bad faith nomination. The article is very well referenced, and the term itself is deeply entrenched in the American culture. --
486:
17:
200:- I'm sorry, but this is in no ways deletable. First it is referenced a bunch, everyone of the bushisms is ref, often mutiply. 48
330:
There have been books written on
Bushisms, to say nothing of the wealth of web material. Strong keep (and cleanup as needed)
226:
167:
536:
521:
507:
494:
471:
438:
426:
388:
360:
341:
322:
304:
290:
261:
249:
234:
214:
192:
175:
151:
52:
551:
36:
413:
107:
102:
111:
467:. This article deserves to exist, and possibly should have a re-write to be less centralized on a list of quotes.
550:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
451:
221:
162:
94:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
219:
Plenty of reliable sources - like links to Bush's transcripts and speeches. Those are certainly reliable, eh?
490:
517:
404:, which should satisfy (in part) the concerns of most users wanting to delete. I mean, after discussing the
300:
286:
504:
482:
368:. Is this a joke? Just last week I was at a party where a friend brought out an animatronic toy statue.
209:
512:
Thats a serious accusation. There is no indication at all that this is a bad faith nomination. -
412:? Where will it end? Other than that, I believe the subject is notable, but only as a subtopic of
513:
319:
296:
282:
468:
456:
447:
143:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
268:
354:
314:- now a widely known term and phenomenon, regardless of what party/political persuasion. --
422:
372:
417:
369:
205:
201:
295:
I'm obviously not very bright - the other AfD closed a year ago. But my keep stands. -
246:
533:
435:
315:
147:
460:
331:
189:
98:
49:
128:
350:
258:
160:- Despite some referencing, it's still POVish and contains a good deal of OR.
400:
section is just too much, and should be trans-wikied to
Wikiquote under
464:
405:
90:
58:
416:. It has a surprisingly amount of references, which check out per
544:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
208:. Also this is a very common term. I'm thinking speedy keep. --
409:
124:
120:
116:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
554:). No further edits should be made to this page.
371:It did nothing but spout off famous bushisms.
408:, one or two direct quote examples is OK, but
275:Too little time has transpired since the last
204:on this small article certainly makes it meet
80:Articles for deletion/Bushism (3rd nomination)
75:Articles for deletion/Bushism (2nd nomination)
8:
183:"Some" referencing? The references include
446:. I do not understand the implications by
279:for this to be anything but a speedy keep.
67:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
65:
24:
537:11:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
522:00:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
508:19:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
495:15:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
472:02:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
439:22:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
427:19:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
389:17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
361:20:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
342:17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
323:10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
305:00:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
291:02:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
262:01:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
250:23:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
235:23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
215:23:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
193:22:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
176:22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
152:22:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
53:00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
70:Articles for deletion/Bushism
528:Update (I already voted to
414:Criticism of George W. Bush
267:Strong Keep and close as a
571:
406:article's characteristics
547:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
259:Confusing Manifestation
64:AfDs for this article:
396:. I believe that the
452:Dihydrogen Monoxide
222:Dihydrogen Monoxide
163:Dihydrogen Monoxide
280:
497:
485:comment added by
274:
211:Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor
150:
562:
549:
505:However whatever
480:
425:
385:
382:
379:
376:
339:
336:
212:
202:reliable sources
146:
132:
114:
34:
570:
569:
565:
564:
563:
561:
560:
559:
558:
552:deletion review
545:
421:
383:
380:
377:
374:
337:
332:
230:
210:
171:
105:
89:
86:
84:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
568:
566:
557:
556:
540:
539:
526:
525:
524:
498:
474:
441:
429:
398:Other Bushisms
391:
363:
344:
325:
309:
308:
307:
264:
252:
239:
238:
237:
228:
195:
178:
169:
139:
138:
85:
83:
82:
77:
72:
66:
63:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
567:
555:
553:
548:
542:
541:
538:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:CosmicPenguin
511:
510:
509:
506:
502:
499:
496:
492:
488:
487:89.241.57.188
484:
478:
475:
473:
470:
466:
462:
458:
453:
449:
445:
442:
440:
437:
433:
430:
428:
424:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
392:
390:
387:
386:
370:
367:
364:
362:
358:
357:
352:
349:per above. —
348:
345:
343:
340:
335:
329:
326:
324:
321:
317:
313:
310:
306:
302:
298:
297:CosmicPenguin
294:
293:
292:
288:
284:
283:CosmicPenguin
278:
271:
270:
265:
263:
260:
256:
253:
251:
248:
243:
240:
236:
232:
224:
223:
218:
217:
216:
213:
207:
203:
199:
196:
194:
191:
186:
182:
179:
177:
173:
165:
164:
159:
156:
155:
154:
153:
149:
145:
136:
130:
126:
122:
118:
113:
109:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
87:
81:
78:
76:
73:
71:
68:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
546:
543:
529:
500:
476:
469:Freedomlinux
461:Colemanballs
443:
431:
401:
397:
393:
373:
365:
355:
346:
333:
327:
311:
269:frosty treat
266:
254:
241:
220:
197:
184:
180:
161:
157:
140:
45:
43:
31:
28:
481:—Preceding
328:Strong keep
423:Mtmelendez
247:Mandsford
534:Saudade7
483:unsigned
465:Yogiisms
436:Saudade7
316:Fuzheado
135:View log
402:Bushism
190:MarkBul
108:protect
103:history
91:Bushism
59:Bushism
50:JForget
338:figura
158:Delete
112:delete
418:WP:RS
206:WP:RS
185:books
129:views
121:watch
117:links
16:<
530:Keep
518:Talk
501:Keep
491:talk
477:Keep
463:and
450:and
444:Keep
432:Keep
420:. -
394:Keep
366:Keep
356:talk
347:Keep
320:Talk
312:Keep
301:Talk
287:Talk
255:Keep
242:Keep
198:Keep
181:Keep
148:talk
125:logs
99:talk
95:edit
46:Keep
457:HAL
448:HAL
381:sau
375:Bur
351:RJH
277:AFD
144:HAL
133:– (
520:)
493:)
410:17
384:ce
378:nt
359:)
318:|
303:)
289:)
233:)
174:)
142:--
127:|
123:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
48:--
516:(
489:(
353:(
334:B
299:(
285:(
231:O
229:2
227:H
225:(
172:O
170:2
168:H
166:(
137:)
131:)
93:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.