This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. —Xezbeth 12:14, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a list of neologisms. Also, according to The Rush Limbaugh Show - On May 3, 2005, Rush says, he will enter the words afristocracy and ghettocracy into Wikipedia so they will spread. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda. →Raul654 05:29, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

People seem to be overlooking that Limbaugh didn't coin the terms. Gazpacho 02:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And? They are still neologisms. And even if they aren't Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as neologisms (and useless ones at that). --Angr/_comhrá 06:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - how notable is the prof who coined the terms? That might make all the difference (even if it was listed on Wikipedia with improper motives, that by itself does not render a notable term not so). -- BDAbramson ^thimk 06:44, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
• Delete both, neologisms. Megan1967 07:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Each of these gets well under a hundred hits via Google. Both are neologisms, regardless of the prof who's said to have coined them, or of Limbaughdom. There's no need for either at Wiktionary, let alone here. Delete. -- Hoary 07:45, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
• Delete Afristocracy and delete Ghettocracy. Wikipedia is not the medium to introduce new words. Sjakkalle 08:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with The Rush Limbaugh Show or somewhere. Kappa 08:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete a mention on The Rush Limbaugh Show might be appropriate though. cohesion 08:57, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--no evidence of widespread or significant use, lots of evidence for bad faith. Meelar (talk) 09:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Publicity stunt. Doesn't even deserve a mention at The Rush Limbaugh Show--Unfocused 14:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It made me laugh, though. I mean, it's no sillier than 1997's ebonics fiasco. And someone else besides Rush coined the term (cf. "feminazi"), so it's worthy of a footnote, at least. It just illustrates once again that the "black leadership" of America hasn't been politically viable since Good Times went off the air. The_Iconoclast 14:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't the place to coin new words period. Mgm|^(talk) 15:27, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Possibly merge to the Rush article in a section about his use of language to push POV, along with examples such as "feminazi". But delete these separate articles, reason = neologisms, until such time as the mainstream press carries enough use of the words to make them mainstream. Wikipedia is not a forum for institutionalizing propagandistic neologisms, regardless of whether it's done by a compulsive drug addict whose hearing loss doesn't matter because he's never listened anyway. Barno 15:37, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with The Rush Limbaugh Show or Rush Limbaugh. Neologisms by individuals should be included with that individual's article. --G3pro 17:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nowhere near enough references to be notable. Don't merge to Limbaugh, it will only encourage him. DJ Clayworth 19:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any supporting evidence that Limbaugh said he would do this? It seems a little petty for a national talk show host. DJ Clayworth 19:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think it is a little petty for a national talk show host to do a publicity stunt, which I assume this really is? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • From google news: The Left's Race Playbook Never Changes - RushLimbaugh.com (subscription), CA - May 3, 2005 -- RUSH: Now, we got two more sound bites here from this Michael Dyson guy, who's out there ... I'm going to put that word in Wikipedia, so it'll spread around: the ...
• Merge with The Rush Limbaugh Show. They're as major as "Jean Francois Kerry" and all the other words there. On another note, it's great that such a major (albeit wrong) show has mentioned Wikipedia on the air.-LtNOWIS 19:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't merge. Not the place for neologisms. Bratsche^{talk random} 20:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Eh? We have rectum-loads of neologisms from The Simpsons aqui, though I have yet to hear "cromulent" tossed around in the mainstream...while I'm at it, should I include Mike Savage's "red-diaper doper babies" and Glenn Beck's "prosti-tots" in a special show lexicon section under each neologism's respective host? The_Iconoclast 16:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a soapbox, the other for being a neologism. Just in the interest of fairness. Demi ^T/_C 20:48, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
• Delete. They are currently neologisms. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologisms, results of a one-off stunt on his show. CDC (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism, merge with The Rush Limbaugh Show is not appropriate. Gazpacho 05:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologisms. If there is any evidence that Rush Limbaugh actually was responsible for this, then a mention on The Rush Limbaugh Show might be appropriate. Firebug 10:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologisms and soapboxing. Limbaugh didn't even have the decency to spell it "afrostocracy". Peter Isotalo 22:08, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Decumanus 06:18, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
• Retain Afristocracy is a term which well describes a growing topic of discourse in American society, namely, are affluent African Americans working for or against the interests of African Americans of less prosperous backgrounds? Its an appropriate entry for the wikipedia. The greatest advantage of our wiki is the ability to record history as it occurs. It appears that many of the objections to the entry are based on a distaste for the articles' presumed author rather than a legitimate objection to its presence in the wiki. That strikes me as censorship. I vote for retention in the wiki. ...posted anonymously at 06:43, 2005 May 9 by 65.122.142.13
  • Comment: little if anything is said here about person who's said to have originated the terms. And such talk would be beside the main point made above, which is that these are mere neologisms. -- Hoary 07:23, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
• Delete, neologisms. --W(t) 06:44, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Kaldari 18:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, could go into (needed? article about Micheal Dyson, Lou I 11:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm starting to wonder if the votes for deletion are spurred by political motivations. --G3pro 12:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. — mark ✎ 14:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with either The Rush Limbaugh Show or an article on Rush's use of neologisms. This follows common Wikipedia precedent; for example, cromulent redirects to Made-up words in The Simpsons. --Delirium 15:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect with Rush Limbaugh -- 84.176.214.28 17:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, with extreme prejudice. Nice try Rush. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with The Rush Limbaugh Show, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Dyson and redirect, explain in the target of the redirect what's going on, then keep close tabs on both redirects. --MarkSweep 04:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologisms. -R. S. Shaw 05:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.