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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malabushism[edit]

Malabushism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article only sites a Google search for the term to justify the existence of the term. The google search mostly yields myspace and Youtube references. I therefore submit that the term is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. --However whatever 23:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:RS, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not verified, not notable. MarkinBoston 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inventive, funny, appropriate but not suitable as a WP article. WebHamster 01:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not inventive, not funny, not appropriate and still not suitable as a WP article. Nick mallory 01:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:TenPoundHammer. --Hornet35 02:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have Bushism, we don't need another article. There's nothing in the article worth saving, since it's already in the other article. WP:MADEUP. Horologium t-c 02:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is just a neologism used to promote a Myspace video. The singular form of the word "Malabushism" generates no Google hits other than Wikipedia and its mirrors. [1] --Metropolitan90 04:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Bushism is more than enough on this topic; this term is unsourced and notability is unverifiable. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nomination. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 21:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The term "Less is More" applies to a lot of things in life, but it shouldn't apply to a site that is trying to be at the forefront of providing all human knowledge. MalaBushism know shows up on many search engines as well as other Wiki sites. It is different from a regular Bushism and it is a very specific type of malapropism. It deserves a page of its own.
  It seems odd that this listing has been up for months, with no comments or Delete suggestions and now, in one day, nine different people post messages to delete it....? How does this work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmf4001 (talk • contribs) 20:57, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not true. The article was nominated for deletion once before, but Jmf4001 removed the template to delete. Keep in mind, though, that the age of the article has no bearing on whether it should be deleted. --However whatever 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most likely most of the delete recommendations came because people saw the Articles for Deletion nomination on the daily log of AfDs. Listing the nomination on the AfD daily log is standard (in fact, mandatory) procedure for AfDs. Also, in my opinion, the Malabushism article does not make a clear distinction between "malabushisms" and ordinary Bushisms, most of which are malapropisms anyway. --Metropolitan90 04:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's not supported by reliable sources, and is in fact primarily an extended dictionary definition. -- Whpq 16:55, 29 August 2007 (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.