Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack-etology


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Barack-etology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I see no long-term notability in documenting U.S. President Obama's picks and predictions for the NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship. And even with the few sources currently on the page, "Barack-etology" seems like a neologism. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable neologism (at best). Carrite (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This is right above List of baseball games in which he threw out the first pitch. Now if he had won Warren Buffett's billion dollar prize for getting every pick right ... Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into Bracketology. I considered nominating this as well, but it turns out the term has been in use by the media for some time now.  I agree that it's not worthy of an article on its own, but it's become an interesting note in the whole "filling in brackets" thing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge into Bracketology - I agree with Thargor Orlando. The page on its own is not worthy. User talk:BenoitHoog 18:34 06 April 2014 (GMT+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.68.217.204 (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete/do not Merge this information is not significant enough for Wikipedia and does not belong on the bracketology page either, as that would be giving it undue weight. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge just a paragraph, then redirect into its own section in Bracketology. We don't need Obama's yearly picks being merged, but a subsection describing the overview of what it is would be warranted. It's gained notoriety as a fun annual even that Obama loves participating in, but it doesn't require a devoted article entirely to it. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate collection of information. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs ) ~ 19:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely do not merge with bracketology. Bracketology is the prediction of which teams will make the tournament.  Obama's prediction is who will win the games.  It seems to me that the cultural phenomenon of filling out brackets should have an article (if it doesn't already), which could mention Obama'a picks, but that theoretical article is definitely not the same thing as what is covered at bracketology.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So that article does exist at March Madness pools (although it should be broadened to include non-money pools). If there is anything worth merging, it should go there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as hopelessly trivial. Pichpich (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Would this even be an article if it was someone other than Barack Obama? Liz  Read! Talk! 21:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivial crap. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  23:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Faddish coverage for a little while doesn't make something notable.  if merged, then only at ThaddeusB corrects the merge target; WP does not have to do anything stupid in response to the fact that journalists making up silly names for things sometimes do so on a factually faulty basis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.