Talk:Baghdad Bob

RFD discussion: February–April 2022
Nickname of an individual. Equinox ◑ 09:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a basis for deletion on its own. This should be sent to RfV. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Is it not? I don't like to imagine us having potentially thousands of somewhat SoP nicknames like ... Your example of "Dubya" is at least a unique word. Equinox ◑ 09:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They are not really SOP, are they? Neither nasty nor Nick helps me figure out who this epithet is commonly used for, same goes for Baghdad and Bob or orange and man. I actually think WT:NAMES is not that clear on epithets for individual persons (it even concedes that much: "but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules"). If it came to a vote to revise WT:NAMES, I think I'd be in favor of including more epithets rather than fewer. as the creator. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 09:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (reply to Equinox) This came up in the Jar'Edo Wens discussion semi-recently. Nicknames for public figures commonly used in both the media and casual conversation seem to fall under the CFI umbrella. This individual has a Wikipedia article and the epithets are apparently prominent enough to warrant mention in the lede paragraph. So this seems like a question for RfV to sort out. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to verify here; the existence of the name is not seriously in question. The question for RFD is "does this sequence of letters, having appeared three times in citable sources with approximately the same meaning, deserve a definition?" Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. My response is below. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  19:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * My inclination would be to delete, but in the past we have tended to keep nicknames like Talk:J-Lo, so the general trend / consistency would seem to point in the direction of keeping it. Meh. - -sche (discuss) 16:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not hyperpartisan for keeping it despite having created it. I was probably working by analogy from some other nickname and I must have felt that it was in line with WT:NAMES and WT:NSE and also completely not SOP (Baghdad Bob is not a "Bob"). On the other hand I can understand the desire to place some limits on a potentially infinite repository of derogatory nicknames. Abstain for now. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  19:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * People are saying "this should get RFV consideration", but why? If the entry were an actual person's name like, say,, we would delete without hesitation. A nickname is the same thing, a "handle" to a specific person. Unless it's a special single word of its own like "BoJo" or "Dubya" I don't see the argument at all. Nicknames are just names. Equinox ◑ 22:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * RFD-deleted —Svārtava (t/u) • 13:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

RFD discussion: November 2022–January 2023
Both entries were deleted solely for being nicknames of an individual (specifically ). Not only is there no rule against including nicknames of public figures, we have a whole category for them. There is absolutely no reason to keep these deleted under our current policy. Binarystep (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Undelete: our multi-word nickname entries include Beijing Biden, Chimpy McFlightsuit, Chimpy McHalliburton, Chimpy McHitlerburton, Darwin's Bulldog, David Miscarriage, Elongated Muskrat, Forrest Trump, God Emperor, Korea Fish, Le God, Mango Mussolini, Orange Man, Pharma Bro, Sleepy Joe, Uncle Joe, and Vegetable English. If this is to be deleted, there needs to be a specific rationale distinguishing deletion-worthy multi-word nicknames from keeping-worthy multi-word nicknames. Nicknames are not the pinnacle of lexicography but are more interesting than 10,000 nonX entries (and semiX, proX, antiX, pseudoX, etc.), and they present unique differentiating value, unlike the potential 1 million duplicated taxa from Wikispecies. More at . --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Undelete: I like our nickname entries and I have personally found them useful in the past (I also created some like ). I don't think multi-wordness is of any relevance for most of them (the exception being things like Vladimir Pootin when we already have Pootin). &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Undelete - so long as they pass CFI and aren't personal names, they're fine. What seems particularly compelling to me is that these are monikers, originally used without the consent (or likely knowledge) of the person they refer to. Theknightwho (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Undelete both. For me the criterion whether the term has become lexicalized is not simply whether it is used, but more specifically whether it is used in other contexts than the original and without explanation, as we see for Baghdad Bob here, here and here, and for Comical Ali here, here and here. As these uses show, the terms also have acquired the (derogatory) meaning of “someone who brazenly maintains a lie in spite of clear evidence to the contrary”.  --Lambiam 14:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Undelete per nom. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 05:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Undelete per all of the above. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ought to have been undeleted by now. What's going on here? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * RFD-undeleted. J3133 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)