Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nicknames used by George W. Bush

List of nicknames used by George W. Bush

List of nicknames used by George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How does this not violate

Unenclyopedic trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This proposal fails to provide a substantial reason to delete the article. "Unencyclopedic trivia"
  is not a good reason to delete, and the list cites sources that indicate the notability of the list as a whole.^[1][2] If you're so certain this violates NOTEVERYTHING, a massive catch-all section with lots of things covered in it, what exactly is it violating? Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• STRONG Delete For the same reasons I listed in the other 2 lists of nicknames up for deletion. 2 kewl fer skool (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless trivia. Athel cb (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; concur with Snowmanonahoe.
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete a list. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep a venerable, noteable and encyplopaedic article that is almost 20 years old. WP:NOTEVERYTHING sates Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang ... are desirable . This is clearly a descriptive article, not prescriptive, so there's no violation of WP:NOT. I see even Dream, one of the most sensible and perceptive AfD regulars, has voted Delete on the nominator's similar AfD for the Donald. That makes sense as many of the nicknames over there are perjorative, so that article arguably has attack page qualities. But there's no question of that here -the Bush nicknames are mostly affectionate &/or cool sounding. Also, per Snowmanonahoe & Elli. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it descriptive, it has one line a text, followed by a list that gives no real information. Some of which may not be nicknames, but mispronunciations. Others appear to be about different people. The one thing we do not have is a descriptive article, about his use of nicknames. No analysis, or explanations, just a list. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It describes the different nicknames for Presidnet Bush Jr. by means of a list. It doesnt need extensive analyses to be descriptive. WP:NOTEVERYTHING says descriptive articles are welcome but Prescriptive ones are not. If you were to point out something I've missed that makes this article prescriptive, I'd be happy to ammend my vote. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  WP:ATD - no other place to put this list. Notable based on the RS available. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There is no reason for a separate article for every person who has nicknames they give to people. If it was notable then mention it in their main article. Dream Focus 06:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources, the coverage of the topic in those sources, and the article itself militate toward it meeting our standards. I'm not sure what militates against it, other than it being really goofy: but then reality is goofy, and Wikipedia is about reality. It would be trivial to expand this article based on the content in it (although I am not conviced that tables are the devil in the first place). jp×g 09:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep. Bush's penchant for nicknames has been noted by reliable sources, including Business Insider, the BBC and CNN. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think his habit of nicknaming people combined with the relative notability of those nicknamed and the coverage of the nicknaming warrant a keep. I get why people want to delete it, but I believe this meets the threshold to keep.--Mpen320 (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Complete trivia, and not encyclopedic. — Maile (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2023 (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.