Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Election Selection Trauma (second nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 -- Samir धर्म 04:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post Election Selection Trauma

edit

First Deletion Reason: Non-notable neologism. Violates WP:NEO, WP:BALLS and WP:SNOWBALL. Wikipedia is not a place for things made up in school one day. Morton devonshire 01:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - If this article is to be deleted, I request that it be moved (along with edit history and talk page) into my user space. I think I can rewrite this article from a different approach for resubmittal. I just don't have the time right now to absorb all the sources, and find any potential new sources. - Crockspot 12:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - This article has undergone extremely significant changes (see diff [1]) - since discussion began. It might be best to close this AfD and start over. --Hyperbole 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, I would hope that people would give me a couple of weeks to work on it before renominating. Crockspot 18:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a contrary point of view, I would argue that the changes have only further substantiated the non-notability of the article, as can be seen from the various people who changed their vote to "delete" after new information was learned.--csloat 00:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have simply been gathering references, and have not had time to analyse them and do any rewriting. Irregardles of whether or not it is deleted, I WILL be rewriting the article, and I will make sure it is as AfD-proof as possible before it reappears in the main namespace. Crockspot 13:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a couple of more sources to the external links section, and removed the hoax tag. This is not a hoax article, and I hear this term in use alot, especially by Rush Limbaugh. I would request that all editors on this AFD posting before my timestamp reconsider and reaffirm their vote. - Crockspot 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see below. The source you point to as evidence of the claim's notability is itself a hoax. Rush may have said it, but he says a lot of stuff, most of it does not require an encyclopedia entry. Lexis nexis shows no use at all of this term since December 2004 in print newspaper sources. This is an artifact from an election which is over.--csloat 08:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a hoax. I read the CJR article about it and the writer is pretty clear that this is all the fault of a too-gullible reporter at the Boca Raton paper. He didn't check up on these articles apparently, and CJR ridicules him. I did some more research and the AHA reference is bogus; "Rob Gordon" at the "AHA" is a character from the movie High Fidelity. This blog post has some info. The Boca Raton paper refers to AHA as a Boca based organization; if it exists, it is a private organization, and not an organization endorsed by most health professionals in America, as the name would imply. I don't think this article should be kept, but if it is kept, it should be made clear that this is an example of small town journalism getting hoodwinked rather than of a recognized psychological condition.--csloat 08:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update - this AHA does exist apparently; it's "an award winning non-profit community service organization" known for donating beanie babies to orphans in Iraq, not a mental health professional organization. Here's a photo of Dr. Rob Gordon, who looks nothing like John Cusack. So at least the guy exists, but the idea that he lends legitimacy to this term as a psychological condition is laughable.--csloat 08:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Tbeatty 01:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hmmm, tough one. As I recall, the esteemed Dr. Gordon was dead serious when he made this up, but it was laughed out of the psychological community almost immediately and ended up being used almost entirely on conservative talk radio and blogs to disparage kooked-out liberals that couldn't handle the 2004 election results. This term may come back to life in November 2008, or maybe even next month depending on how things go. Cleanup in any case, as it's pretty much an essay in its current form. --Aaron 02:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Changing vote; see below.[reply]
  • Delete per nom; something Morton and I can agree on.--csloat 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Bad faith nomination. Nom put in a hoax tag, but didn't discuss it on talk, then nominates for deletion two minutes later. Nothing has changed in the article, nothing suggests that (lack of) consensus would change in a month's time (since the last AfD). Can you point to discussions you've had with editors regarding that consensus on this article might have been formed? Not that I see much worth to this particular article, but seems it could be improved and I see no evidence consensus has changed (or formed) that would validate a renom per WP:CCC. *Sparkhead 02:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Afd renoms should happen in order to enforce WP:CCC and prove or disprove the suggestion of new consensuses - WP:CCC doesn't restrict renoms. Bwithh 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure it does. It mentions "you should ask around a bit (e.g. at the Village Pump) to see if people agree with you. You cannot declare a new consensus all by yourself." There's no suggestion of the nominator "asking around" regarding a (new) consensus prior to bringing forth the AfD. Lets say this AfD goes thru as no consensus. Nominate again in a month? Repeat ad nauseum? *Sparkhead 02:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we could WP:AGF here despite the quickness of the nom. Here's what I wrote on the first Afd about this page and it is still true -- "Only 12 hits in Lexis/Nexis, all of them tongue-in-cheek laughs at the doctor who designated this, and two of them letters to the editor. Only five actually are about "PEST"; the other seven just mention it as a joke. All of the articles that mention this phrase are from November and December 2004, indicating this was a brief news item after the election and that is it." I don't think we need a wikipedia page for every joke that someone made up during the election. It's over. Bush won. Let's move on.--csloat 02:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no new arguments to be had since previous AfD. I'm not even arguing the merits of the article, I'm arguing procedure here. There's no evidence it was followed, there's no reason for a renom. Allegedly and knowingly violating the process then saying, "well, it's done, so let's let it run its course" while hoping for an outcome more to your liking could be considered bad faith.

    If I were to argue merits of the nom, I'd note that WP:BALLS and WP:SNOWBALL are not policies or guidelines, there's nothing to violate, hence irrelevant. While WP:NEO is relevant, nothing regarding it has changed since last AfD. *Sparkhead 03:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lots of things can be "considered" bad faith. That's why Wikipedia reminds us to assume good faith, even when we could make a case for bad faith. By the way, there are new arguments here since the previous AfD; we now know this is basically a hoax.--csloat 00:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, only in Florida. :) Clearly as an academic term it isn't worthy of an article since nobody in the academic community seems to take it seriously. Google scholar shows no relevant hits for the term.[2] Could it survive as a neologism? WP:NEO is one of the strictist notability guidelines I've read, in fact it doesn't really describe any circumstances when an article on a neologism is appropriate. I'll admit that some neologisms may be worthy of articles, but with only 9000 google hits [3] I'd say its pretty clear this one doesn't GabrielF 02:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Survived this once. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good reason to vote keep. see WP:CCC Bwithh 02:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • additional comment - I upgraded my vote to strong keep. I added more sources to the EL section (will turn them into proper cites if this article survives) and removed the hoax tag. - Crockspot 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article now links to multiple reliable sources beyond the Boca Raton News, including the Columbia Journalism Review and WorldNetDaily. There are more sources, and the article can be rewritten some for much improvement and NPOV, but I really don't want to waste my time if the article is going to be deleted. I now have it on my watchlist, and if it survives, I will take it under my wing and improve. Also removing "single source" tag. Crockspot 17:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems like it found legs more as a catchphrase for pundits than as a verifiable medical phenomenon. If the article is to be shown to be a notable neologism, it should probably reflect that shift in usage.--Rosicrucian 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read more carefully. Those are all blogs, and the "anti-PEST" article is tongue in cheek. Ted Kennedy never said that; Crockspot, are you joking or did you just not read it closely? All we have is Crockspot's assertion that a notorious drug addict may have once recently used the term on the radio. Not enough notability to keep; perhaps those who cite crockspot as their reason for believing this term is notable might reconsider.--csloat 08:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I didn't even finish the first paragraph. Funny article though. I still think this is a notable term, aside from the syndrome aspect, that is obviously still in use. I would like to do some rewriting of the article to reflect the punditry/mocking use of this notable term, but as I indicated previously, if this article is going to get deleted, I've already put in too much time on it. Crockspot 12:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added three books that reference PEST, and two more recent articles. I have also put a longer list of sources on the talk page (including bumper stickers, mugs, and keychains that reference PEST), which I intend to research for a rewrite of the article. Crockspot 14:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a longer explanation for my vote. As someone who reads some conservative blogs, I remember the coverage of this from November 2004 and I've noticed continuing references to it in those blogs. The "syndrome", the psychologist who coined it and the 2 or 3 newspaper stories about it are, IMO, way below Wikipedia's standards for notability. Getting mentioned by the Columbia Journalism Review is more significant, but still not enough for WP:Notability. IMO, the only way in which it is notable is as an Internet meme used by conservative bloggers and columnists. I'd say it is just scrapes in as notable enough for a wikipedia article. CWC(talk) 12:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this doesn't come out too snooty, but isn't that the roll over and die argument. While it is very persuasive, I don't think is a legitimate reason for deletion.Ratherhaveaheart 04:01, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Post_Election_Selection_Trauma_(second_nomination)&oldid=1138247837"