Deletion of Bush Derangement Syndrome (6th nomination)

Comment: Public image of George W. Bush. And round up a whole school of |trout. There appears to be an inordinant amount of personality conflict and chain-yanking going on here
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT)

Comment: to Public image of George W. Bush. Per nom. & , subject does not warrant standalone article. Per RightCowLeftCoast & MrX, relevant enough for inclusion in Bush public image article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and Amadscientist
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: subject has to do with a certain segment of the populations perception of George W. Bush. This clearly falls under the scope of the article Public image of George W. Bush, the stub which is the subject of this AfD can easily be redirected to Public image of George W. Bush and the article is still well under  and the content and the search title is preserved. I think this is a compromise that may be acceptable to most of the involved editors
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:LIMIT)

Comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bush_Derangement_Syndrome&oldid=543545866 This is what the article looked like when I came across it for this AfD and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bush_Derangement_Syndrome&diff=543035114&oldid=542829605 this is what it looked like when the AfD nomination was posted. As for the delete positions, Wikipedia widely uses newspaper articles as papers to source information about topics discuss in Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. There are plenty of sources betwen 2003 and 2013 that are (1) independent of Charles Krauthammer (who provided a primary written source for the term) and independent of the primary source events that surround the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic and (2) provide information about the topic beyond mere use of the term, including:{{Citation |page= A12 |publication-date= September 14, 2006|title=Bush Derangement Syndrome isn't new |work= Lexington Herald-Leader }}, * {{Citation |page= A18 |publication-date= August 6, 2007 |title= FISA and Bush Derangement Syndrome |url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/6/fisa-and-bush-derangement-syndrome/ |work= Washington Times }}, * {{Citation |page= A21 |author=Tony Blankley |publication-date=September 26, 2007 |title=Swooning over Ahmadinejad \. A bad case of Bush derangement syndrome |url=http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-169138057/swooning-over-ahmadinejad-a-bad-case-of-bush-derangement|work= Washington Times }}, * {{Citation |page=B9 |author= Leonard Pitts Jr.|publication-date= December 9, 2010|title=From Bush Derangement Syndrome then to Obama Dementia now |work= St. Paul Pioneer Press }}, * {{Citation |publication-date=December 9, 2010 |title=Obama Dementia supplants Bush Derangement Syndrome |work= Charlotte Observer }}, * {{Citation |page=A15 |author=Barbara Kay |publication-date=February 9, 2011 |title=Is George W. Bush a war criminal?; Another symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome  |url= |work= National Post }}. A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. See |No original research. These newspaper articles have Bush Derangement Syndrome in their article title (making Bush Derangement Syndrome the main topic of the newspaper article). Primary sources for Bush Derangement Syndrome are the events (mostly political events) that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome and the above cited secondary sources are at least one step removed from those political events and they provide an author's own thinking based on the events that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome and provide independent information about the topic. The deletes appear to be requiring secondary sources that analyze Krauthammer's 2003 primary source column for the term. They are mistake in that the Wikipedia article is not about Krauthammer's 2003 primary source column. Rather, the article is about the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic. In addition to papers such as newspapers, http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Bush+Derangement+Syndrome%22 Google books also provides plenty of source material for the topic that are about the events surrounding the topic as does http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Bush+Derangement+Syndrome%22 Google scholar papers. There are more than enough reliable sources that provide information about the Bush Derangement Syndrome topic and that provide an author's own thinking based on the events that surround Bush Derangement Syndrome provide source material for the article to support this topic as its own article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PSTS)

Comment: Much too narrow to begin with and already |getting smaller in the rearview mirror. The best redirect choice would be No wonder people don't take Wikipedia seriously
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: Wikipedia should not have a article on every 'clever' little phrase that becomes popular among the chattering class.   and .  Show me widespread and significant usage and i might change my mind
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM||WP:GNG)

Comment: but I don't object to merging into Public image of George W. Bush.  The topic has been around long enough and survived enough AFDs that concerns about notability and  doesn't really apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM)

Comment: per , no re-direct
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: nomination has apparently neglected to include ; "findsources" demonstrates a wealth of available sources particularly in books and scholar.  It's strange to think that 5 previous deletion discussions have got it wrong, but never mind.  Apart from that, one might question the premise that it is a neologism; perhaps it's a real syndrome, in which case there's no question about  here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:GNG)