Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fitzmas

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 of the debate was...um...*scratches head*. Alright, discounting all IPs and really new users, I count 39 keep, 12 delete, and 19 merge and/or redirect votes. Therefore, I'm going to have to say no consensus on this one (I can't say keep outright, since 39/70 is only about 55%). Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 05:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzmas[edit]

Keep. This is classic Americana at its best--witty, tongue-in-cheek view of what may eventually become, the undoing of the current administration. Delete - but move to PLAME AFFAIR Very obscure, topic not worthy of Wikipedia Paul Dehaye 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone told you to vote for or against it, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

Please indicate which of the deletion criteria you are using. Guettarda 23:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. - Paul Dehaye 23:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I concure, delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.120.97 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 October 2005
Keep - 75,000ish Google hits. — ceejayoz ^talk 23:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, DailyKoscruft. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- With 74,500 google hits it has gone well beyond dKoscruft Guettarda 23:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Over 100,000 Google hits now. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Over 150,000 Google hits now, and will probably keep growing. Fitzmas has legs and should be kept. 09:05:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
      - Google hits mean exactly jack squat. I honestly don't know why people are using it as a reason to keep this entry. Jinxmchue 14:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Google hits have always been used as a mark of notability; it's up to 163,000 now - that rate of increase if amazong for something that is "very obscure". Guettarda 17:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Please back up your assertion about Google hits being "a mark of notability" with facts and examples, please. At most, a search for the term should redirect to the page for the Plame scandal just as a search for "Gannongate" redirects to the page for Jeff Gannon. Jinxmchue 21:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but move to Plame Affair - Very obscure with no legs over time, but perhaps culturally relevant enough to incorporate into the Plame affair article. - Condorman 23:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- This would violate the GFDL which requires that we keep all contributions. Guettarda 23:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to Guettarda for feedback on viability of merging. Therefore, change vote to Delete. It's not viable as a standalone article. - Condorman 00:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Plame affair and redirect, as proposed on Talk:Fitzmas. --MarkSweep✍ 23:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - real, verifiable, over 74,500 google hits. Guettarda 23:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Plame Affair after drastically paring down the text. Thesquire 23:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At most, it is worthy of a mention in the Plame Affair one of the lamest scandals in political history. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even worthy of an entry into Plame Affair. WCC2005 00:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes the Google test, relates to a prominent news story, and is more relevant than many number other internet memes with self-contained articles on Wikipedia. Fumoses
M>e<r>g<e into Plame Affair, per MarkSweep and Thesquire. Information is happiest when it is most completely in context, and this term has ballooned in use among liberals gleefully anticipating turmoil. BD2412 ^talk 01:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Vote changed to keep, as the article has grown substantial, folks are selling t-shirts, and I keep running into this term in unexpected places, leading me to think it has legs. Can always be folded back into Plame affair in a few months, if the term recedes. BD2412 ^talk 13:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
merge or keep Kappa 01:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In a year's time, this cute little term will be forgotten by even the people who love it. This entry is nothing more than a vanity piece for Democrat Underground (and the one member in particular). Jinxmchue 02:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Plame Affair. If it still has legs in six months, break it out as its own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.59.134 (talk • contribs) October 24, 2005
Delete. Neologism. The word will have its 15 minutes of fame and by this time next year no one will remember it. ♠DanMS 04:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge Viajero | Talk 04:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect; this is worth maybe one sentence in the Plame Affair article. MCB 04:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per MCB. Meelar (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect sounds good to me. TheMadBaron 07:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's claimed that 'Fitzmas' will be forgotten in a year, but this may not be the case. If people in the future refer back to the "Fitzmas indictments" to differentiate them from indictments handed down later in the investigation, the term may live on. Also, right-wing bloggers (NRO's Corner, for instance) have used the term several times themselves. So the meme appears to be a strong one. Neiladri 09:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage Merge into Plame affair and redirect, per Talk:Fitzmas. --Raines 14:46 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep- It's a great term that needs its place. Everybody's using it.... get on board! --Jryanlaw 15:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect It seems minor enough to not warrant its own article (yet) but used often enough that it's worthy of note in the main Plame affair article. --Yekrats 15:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - where is your Fitzmas spirit? Andyluciano 17:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been all over the U.S. liberal blogosphere for some time now. More notable than the average pokémon. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the term is utterly forgotten next year, delete it then. Wachholder0 21:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It could be the day our country is saved from fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.81.116 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 24 October 2005
Merge into Plame Affair, name is otherwise a non-notable neoligism.--Sean Black ^Talk 22:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we have articles for things like dog actors, we can certainly have articles for this. -- Dante 00:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I say Keep as it is spreading and may stay connected for a long time. Look at google and watch as the hits grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.93.46 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 October 2005
keep - it obviously has some relevance to contemporary context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.25.176 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 24 October 2005
Keep. What's wrong with keeping a historical record of something after it's no longer current (e.g., Windows 2.0)? We voted to keep an article about a similar ephemeral right-wing neologism: Lost Liberty Hotel. It survived Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lost Liberty Hotel on the stated basis that it had 50,000 Google hits. Fitzmas now has twice as many. As for merger, this much detail about "Fitzmas" would be clutter in the main Plame affair article, which is currently 106 kb long. The way to preserve this information is to keep it in its own article, with "See also" links on Plame affair and Patrick Fitzgerald. JamesMLane 02:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Guettarda. Eclipsed 02:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete - too cryptic - no such thing except in the narrowist of of cliquey slang users Rex071404 ^{216.153.214.94} 03:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but what bit of it is too cryptic to be understood? It seems quite straightforward to me. There are far narrower, cliqueier subjects on Wikipedia than one that fetches 103,000 hits on Google. — ceejayoz ^talk 04:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lost Liberty Hotel and because of the coverage in a major mainstream publication like National Review. Gamaliel 04:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.59.66 (talk • contribs) October 25, 2005
Keep; now common in the blogosphere mefi. — goethean ॐ 14:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems most opposition is probably based on neo-con political philosophy of voters, not on the merit of the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.57.68.20 (talk • contribs) October 25, 2005
Keep - has contemporary significance - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.67.169 (talk • contribs) October 25, 2005
Weak Keep, this neologism seems to have legs w/ over 100K google matches. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a genuine concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.67.169 (talk • contribs) October 25, 2005 (second vote from that IP)Guettarda 18:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep....It's in very wide use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.87.93 (talk • contribs) October 25, 2005

Keep--valid political slang.

Delete or merge to flame affair.--Dakota 21:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - receiving press, it got me here! User:robzr
Keep - It's used by many people and it is a concept that has struck a cord with the public. ck4829.

Keep - in common usage

Keep - Leave it in.

Merge and Redirect - The term 'Fitzmas' is, like, totally evanescent. Plus, whatever information would go into a Fitzmas article will have to be completely duplicated in 'Plame Affair' anyway. Better to keep it all in a single location. -- 67.161.46.135 01:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, per MCB. It's evanescent, but maybe someday someone will wonder what the hell it's referring to when looking at the historical record. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- "Fitzmas" has the same staying power as "Where's the beef?"
Keep. An ungraceful merge could ruin the target article, so in reality, keeping this separate is probably better, since it is rather peripheral to the real, serious topic of the investigation. If someone proves me wrong by doing a graceful merge, I won't complain. Un focused 04:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!** DO NOT DELETE THIS. IT WILL BE VERY SIGNIFICANT!

Keep! -- It is a current term, and it could work for liberals or against them (in case fitzmas brings nothing to their tree). It is a term in a moment in time, and it should be included.
Keep - There's nothing wrong with it

Keep - Neologism now used in mainstream media.[1] -One Salient Oversight 07:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It's cute!

The point is to be an encyclopedia not to be censorists and ingore out of ignorance. KEEP.

Keep - Even though the word grates my nerves, it has entered the popular lexicon and is even being used by the mainstream media. It's a term that needs a definition readily available on the internet, for future students of this era.

Keep it please!

My 11 year old son was asking me today what's the meaning of "Fitzmas". I had to do a better job at it than his Mom did in the morning. We owe him that!!

Keep, please. Documentation being generated by various media outlets including the National Review have used the word without a strong definition. Future historians will need a definition and etymology. Just as "Watergate" has to be defined as more than a scandal to someone born in 1978, a future historian born five years from now will need an explanation as to what Fitzmas meant in the context of this event. ~~CSEdwards~~

Keep. The term has seen use in printed, broadcast, and electronic media, has a growing number of google hits, and I used the wp entry to learn what it was.

KEEP IT and add: the reason for the season is treason!

Even Fox News is using the term now. As long as the entry stays more or less politically neutral, I see no need to kill it.

Useful for folks who might someday in the future encounter a reference to 'Fitzmas', and need a handy definition. It's a useful citation, and anyone who believes there can be too much information is a bit out-of-place at wikipedia, no?

It's a term being used to describe a very real point in history, keep it! No reason not to.

It's in use everywhere now. Leave it in.

Keep it: It's politically significant.

Dan Froomkin wrote about it in the Washington Post. It should stay.

Not obscure at all...heard it on MSNBC the other day even. It's hitting the mainstream. Also, too many people are asking about it, so might as well keep it around like an answer to a FAQ.

Bold textKeepBold text--Tons of hits, it's a pop culture phenomenon. Besides, other things like lueshi are allowed to stay on Wikipedia, this is much more influential than lueshi.

Keep: It now has over 156,000 Google hits, and has been included in stories on MSNBC, Fox News and The Hill. There is no valid reason to delete this entry. 66.63.83.6 07:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)JSF[reply]

Keep: Otherwise where will it be accurately defined? I would recommend different POVs be further defined as part of the definition. Ejl 09:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a legit phenomenon, and will almost certainly stick around the way political terms tend to, e.g. Teapot Dome, Watergate 66.122.240.37 10:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the amount of argument engendered should provide ample justification on its own.

Keep -- This is in the same class as "Saturday Night Massacre" and deserves retaining.
Keep! -- It's being used all over the place. I checked here for it the first time I heard it. Traviswastaken 14:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - this is worth perhaps a line in the entry on the Plame affair. This is a neologism, and while it's worth keeping mention of it somewhere, it's not worthy of its own entry. 192.249.47.8 14:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a neologism which will probably only have ephemeral currency, i.e. it's unlikely people will still be using it after this stage in the investigation is over. If it does attain some sort of lasting currency, like "Where's the beef"? it can be written up at that stage. --Ryano 15:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No one will use the term in three months no matter what the outcome of the investigation is.

Delete- this will burn out just like DSM, Sheehan, Gannon and all the other leftist talking points. Blitzkrieg17 15:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are still talking about them how can you say they've burnt out? Andyluciano 17:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All three of which have articles. Downing Street memo, Cindy Sheehan, and Jeff Gannon. All are quite detailed, too. If they're your precedent, your vote seems... off. — ceejayoz ^talk

17:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Quite detailed' is an understatement. The Cindy Sheehan article is longer than either of the Bill Clinton or the Ronald Reagan articles! 67.161.46.135 09:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's currently being used in many places. It'll be around a year from now.

Keep - The word is flying around everywhere, and Wikipedia was the first place I thought to check on keeping a good current account of its origin and usage, as well as tracking how widespread its adoption has been.
Keep--wasn't "Watergate" in the same category as "Fitzmas" in the 70s. Gee, that term didn't last ... Blueboy96 17:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in Plame Affair Daemon8666 18:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep I looked here first as well when it popped up on my forums of interest 140.226.23.177 18:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I spotted this in a debate forum and had no idea what it meant. This was the first place I checked. I'd still be in the dark if not for this entry. --Rethgryn 20:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only if the indictments are successfully prosecuted. If Fitzgerald is successful he will be marked in history and Ftzmas will be a legendary term.

Keep - It's too soon to tell whether or not it will "be around in a year". Why not wait and find out? What's the rush to delete? It has appeared in the Washington Post as well as the Huffington Post and the Al Franken show, and is very rapidly expanding in usage as shown by word searches: 13,700 at A9 for you google doubters. As has been noted elsewhere, "Yesterday's Neologisms, like yesterday's jargon, are often today's essential vocabulary." -- Jotter 20:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! - I always look to wikipedia to keep me current on topics, I am so far out of pop cultrue and don't have time to search a million websites. Is this not what wikipedia is for? If this disappears in a week, delete it then, but hang onto it until fitzmas is over.

Keep! - Limbaugh and Hannity are using the term now, it's offically 'crossed over' and has become more than "Very obscure topic"

Keep for now. Delete later if it fizzles. "Watergate" would have been AfD at the beginning, but is now an important cultural reference point. Ronabop 21:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Duh!! Not only are there now 161,000 hits in Google (for the record, that's more hits than Tallahassee, Florida has residents), but that's up from approximately zero less than three weeks ago. That's pretty amazing. Only time will tell if it remains relevant, but it's certainly relevant now. --PHenry 21:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - especially after the Economist article about it, I bet that's where the Google searches are coming from

Just did a search on Economist.com and there it was! I'd say when THE economics magazine covers something, it's notable. — ceejayoz ^talk 03:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I heard the term and went looking for it. Wiki allows the etymology of new and dynamic entities to be collected and disseminated. Isn't that part of the charter? OldZeb 00:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps redirect to a more detailed article 68.23.150.75 04:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Any further indictments relating to the Bush administration and the Iraq 'conflict' will be refered to with the same term - and I think there will be many indictments. 217.35.93.233 11:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Plame affair, or possibly keep. This is very notable, but I doubt enough can be said about it to deserve an article. It can be split back off later if necessary. ~~ N (t/c) 13:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Solid keep. Plame affair is big enough already. ~~ N (t/c) 22:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly encyclopedic. Google hits should be used with common sense, not as an absolute indicator of whether an article should be kept or not. Impaciente 15:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT -- just put it in the page with Plame Affair page

Keep it as addendum to Plame affair. It does not match importance, not will it remain as a cultural reference as "Watergate" or the "Saturday Night Massacre" have.

A great part of wikipedia's importance is that it's where people go to find out about the stuff that Brittanica, etc. do NOT cover. This counts~ it's a small cultural part of our history, and will give future readers an idea what not only what was going on, but the flavor of how people felt about it. Imagaine the poor researcher who comes across it 20 yrs from now! I'd like to think that Wikipedia will still be up and running to inform him that Fitzmas was not a typo or mispronunciation in his original source material.

Redirect to Plame affair, and add a brief mention of this term. Andrew Levine 02:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect of course anyone can redirect, months from now... Ashibaka (tock) 04:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and worthy of an article. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 00:34, 28 October 2005 (EDT)}
Merge The content belongs in with Plame affair. --moof 07:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Aspen tree. David Sneek 13:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's obviously now clearly got a life of it's own and, if it occurs, will have ramifications beyond the outing of valerie plame. sure, it will be obscure one day, but is eventual obscurity reason to delete knowledge? 68.161.7.86 14:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I saw a reference to this online and wanted to find out what it means, never having heard it before. On Wikipedia I quickly found a concise, unbiased explanation. This is exactly the kind of thing that Wikipedia can do better than traditional reference materials. 170.35.208.22 14:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wait until after Fizmas to delete. AaronSw 16:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redirect to plame investigation or somewhere relevant. With only 1 indictment handed out and not even for leaking a CIA agent's identity, it seems fitzmas was a bit of a let down. I've only heard the term on lefty blogs talking about the indictments with eager glee, and a few righty blogs mocking the left ones. Another week or so and no one will remember 'fitzmas'. -Viper Daimao 18:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As long as you have a page for 'Bennifer', you should keep Fitzmas kwm
Keep - just because it was not a massive set of indictments does not make the term any less valid and any less used
Keep - It is useful information for those unfamiliar with the term.209.176.128.228 19:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Plame affair. Not even close to notable enough to have it's own article. —thames 20:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A political term which has been ubiquitous in the blogosphere.--The lorax 20:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's only a one liner for a late night talk show host. 68.4.214.127 21:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Term is now being used beyond the blogs. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article CIA leak grand jury investigation and Plame Affair are large and difficult to keep organized with fast breaking news changes. Maybe in a year or two all these articles can be merged.--FloNight 21:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - With Fitzgerald calling another grandjury, and the amount of use in the mainstream media, it will be used for quite a while in the future. --waffle iron 22:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia has many articles of less import. This article might help people understand a current meme. --User:Chad okere Oct 28

Keep and please note that I'm a regular Wikipedia contributor and no one "told me to come here" (I followed a link from the article on Fitzgerald). This should absolutely be kept. If Wikipedia is to remain relevant and up-to-the-minute, it needs to be on top of evolving phrases and Internet memes. I've seen this term in several places on the Web in the past few days, and it's entirely possible that people might come to Wikipedia for a definition. No more deletionist nonsense! How many times do we have to reiterate that Wikipedia is not paper? Moncrief 05:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a great example of how Wikipedia is special and what it's good at. There is no other place that could do this, document an unbiased explanation of a word or concept as it emerges in real time. I think that's unique and it shows what a wiki can do. I'm not a contributor so my comments might not matter. But I'm actually excited about what Wikipedia is turning into. There are more and more examples where Wikipedia is THE source of reference and the only one. [Comment added by User:67.94.56.66]
- Actually there shouldn't be any examples where wikipedia is the only reference, it is supposed to be a secondary source. If there are no other sources, how can we check that what it says is true (WP:V) ?. Kappa 06:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable: Over 300,000 Google hits. No need to merge either as it has enough content to stand as its own article. - Mr. Tibbs 06:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - I agree that it will be all but forgotten in six months. Eideteker 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable for 403,000 Google hits. Agree with Mr. Tibbs. Frankchn 16:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with "Plamegate" Affair - Useful in context, not much on its own AbrahamFowler 18:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge+Redirect to Plamegate or Move to Wiktionary - As the term is used elsewhere and can be cited (and is according to some here used extensively) it's worth keeping in some form. It will be clear later whether this is worthy of its own entry or not, but certainly the existance and popularity of the term now mean we should keep this information. --Zippy 19:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. Possibly merge and redirect in the future if the term loses steam. Though I have edited an article or two for Wikipedia, I came to the Fitzmas article and this delete discussion from a link in a CNet news story [2]. For better or worse, Wikipedia is now a major source of information on current popular culture. To this end it offers near instant coverage of new phenomena and generally balanced coverage hammered out by passionate people on both sides of the issue. This is no small thing, even if the articles are less than seamless as a result. --agr 22:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely used. --194.94.44.4 14:01, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This term could and has already become a substitute for "CIA Leak Case." If Wikipedia can hold articles on obscure Kansas City Pitchers like "Chris George" (Search for it if you don't believe me) then Wikipedia can and should hold "Fitzmas"
Keep - Now over 717,000 Google hits, numerous mentions in mainstream news, and some fairly extensive merchandizing items... people are talking about putting up their Fitzmas decorations. The term is now considerably more relevant than dozens of others which have been active on Wikipedia for long periods of time... indeed, it seems implausible that this call for deletion would even exist if not for the political nature of the subject. --CBDunkerson 23:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Make that 929,000 Google hits now... that's growth of 212,000, in less than twelve hours. Meanwhile, "Lost Liberty Hotel" at 37,600 hits, "Troopergate" at 15,200, "Filegate" at 115,000 (referring to at least three different things), "Pardongate" at 13,900, et cetera all remain pages in Wikipedia. --CBDunkerson 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Plamegate Affair as previously proposed. David | Talk 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Plame Affair as a slimmed down mention. It's notable enough for that, but not for its own article. Imp i 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Easily notable enough now. Not a dicdef. — brighterorange (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like what Fitzgerald is doing, but the fact is this joke will be old by ... Thanksgiving. Daniel Case 03:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - I don't really know how to parse the information, but someone should look at Language Log's analysis of the development of the neologism in a historical context [3]. It even links to WP! Smmurphy 05:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Language Log's analysis has taken the discussion of this term a bit more academic and insightful --nertzy 06:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now referenced in the Guardian, which brought me here. – Kaihsu 14:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect or Keep; The information should be available somewhere. At the moment, we can't see what sort of long-term implications the situation holds, or what weight the term will carry. Regardless of the number of Google hits, the term is, at the moment, neologistic. The current situation could be flash-in-the-pan, or it could end up being another Watergate. The long-term status of the term and article information are, therefore, very up in the air. However, it seems to me that the term has become ubiquitous enough to warrant the information being available, at least for the present, regardless of political feelings. It wasn't coined here, and it's become culturally notable. Now, while I can well imagine that the specificity of the term may well prevent it from becoming common jargon, it could also grow to encompass other similar phenomena. Part of the beauty of WP is the dynamic ability to incorporate concepts, terms, and events that may have significant historical impact, rather than having to wait for years while the ramifications of an event are weighed, costs are analyzed, articles are written, and the editions published. I would also comment that if there are those who think this should be deleted or not simply out of political spite, they should reexamine their reasoning. SchrodingersRoot 15:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So long as the investigation is ongoing, people will refer to Fitzmas. If more indictments come down, it may well be used to differentiate (as noted somewhere in the morass above). I was happy to be able to quickly find out what Fitzmas was all about by just querying wikipedia. Andrew 21:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per nom. -Andrew 03:10, 1 November 2005 (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.