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 merged in to Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show and deleted. (aeropagitica) 22:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This neologism doesn't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, because WP:NEO says that "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." While I can find sources (for example in Lexis-Nexis) that use the term, I can find no sources that discuss the term as WP:NEO requires. The article itself cites no sources that are about the term, except a quote from Rush himself. And when the only source that discusses a neologism is the popularizer of that neologism, as in this case, then--by analogy with our other notability guidelines such as WP:BIO which demand sources independent of the subject of the article--I think the neologism should fail WP:NEO, until sources independent of the popularizer deem the term notable enough to discuss it.

(Note: A while back I myself, as an anon using IP's beginning with 152, added my own mundane observations about this term to this article. I realize now that those contributions constitute original research, and trivial OR at that. I also added the Rush quote and edited the lead.) Pan Dan 15:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• merge into Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show after merciless trimming of original research. The phrase gotsome buzz, but the nominator is correct, the article is not valid yet. `'mikka (t) 18:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Lex 00:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete per mikka. I have heard and seen this neologism used outside of the Rush Limbaugh Show, but not to anywhere near the extent WP:NEO requires. Maybe someday, but not quite yet. --Aaron 02:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete, per Mikka. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:44, 2 October 2006 (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.