Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)


 * 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 redirect. I am no stranger to closing contentious AFDs, so I am happy to volunteer here.

By my count, there were thirty-nine !votes by anon IPs or newly-made accounts with few or no other edits. These are generally discounted in the closing of AFDs because such participants tend to be unaware of the various notability requirements that have been developed by Wikipedians through our experience of trying to build an encyclopedia.

Of the remaining !votes, nine are to keep (some "weak" and some "strong"); thirty-seven are to delete (again, with various degrees of strength and urgency); five are explicitly for moving or merging; and thirty-two are to redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. The move/merge voters and the redirect voters generally enunciate the common idea that this title is by itself innocuous, and that the subject of the title, although not independently encyclopedically notable, warrants mention in the campaign article (where it is, indeed, mentioned at this time). Furthermore, the arguments for deletion tend to be directed towards the content of the article, as opposed to any import of the title. It is uncontroverted that the word "Forward" is in fact an "Obama-Biden campaign slogan". Similarly, although the anon and new user keep votes might not reflect policy, the underlying theme generally expressed in those votes is that the information regarding pundits and commentators criticizing the selection of the word, "Forward" should be included in the encyclopedia. The function of conveying information is served just as well by discussion in a section in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 as it is in a separate article (perhaps better, because it can then be read within the context of the entire campaign). A redirect will be picked up in Google searches, and will allow readers seeking information on the slogan to find the place in the encyclopedia where such information can be found. The slippery-slope argument that having such a redirect opens the door to NPOV redirects is belied by the existence of RfD processes specifically geared towards eliminating improper redirects.

Because there is a clear consensus against having a separate article at this title, but no consensus against maintaining the redirect, I make the following determination. The overall result of this discussion is that the current content of the article should be deleted, and the title redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. As to the content (which has shifted considerably over the duration of this discussion), that is a matter to be hashed out on the talk page of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

[[Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)]]

 * Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan) ([ edit] &#124; talk &#124; [ history] &#124; [ protect] &#124; [ delete] &#124; [ links] &#124; [ watch] &#124; [ logs] &#124; [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#pages=&project=en.wikipedia.org views]) – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Not notable on its own. Could be included under Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Given that Yes we can doesn't have its own page, it's hard to see how this would qualify for a stand alone article. West Eddy (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * **KEEP** - Cowards, why delete something that is true? Very PROGRESSIVE Comrads... — Preceding unsigned  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.83.242 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * **KEEP** - IF you are going to have a page about the slogan itself then this page should stay. However, both pages should really go. Why have a page on "Forward" at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcamos (talk • contribs) 17:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * **KEEP** - Other political and presidential slogans DO have pages of their own. Witness:  It's the economy, stupid, Stay the course, Read my lips: No new taxes, Morning in America and even Tippecanoe And Tyler Too, not to mention a host of other political slogans.  The important part is: does the slogan rise to a measure of being of interest in and of itself, because of its impact or its controversial nature?  In this case, it does - there is sufficient press coverage and controversy. If nothing else, just witness this discussion as a measure of the controversial nature of the slogan.  Keep it.
 * KEEP It's been covered so much in the newsmedia now that it's risen to the level of notability. Hanxu9 (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is very reasonable. User:Funkju 16:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete-"Freedom of speech demands that this not be deleted. Lefties, of course, will want it deleted, because it shows Obama for what he is... a Socialist."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.116.133 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.116 (talk)
 * Do not Delete-"This article is important and is only being discussed because it paints Obama as a Scoialist. Important to today's political converstaion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.116.133 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not Delete-"This article is important and is only being discussed because it paints Obama as a Scoialist. Important to today's political converstaion" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.116.133 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE -- Just because some people don't like the message doesn't mean that it should be removed from everyone's access. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.73.44.10 (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep! It shows the relation of like minds with like agendas..which is why it was put under the politic heading in the first place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.17.32.194 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep! Wikipedia articles so long as they are not infringing on copy right or violating any laws should not be deleted. Edited for accuracy perhaps but not deleted because they are an Inconvenient truth.
 * Delete—"Other stuff doesn't exist" doesn't work any more than WP:OSE does, but the end result is the same. Delete, since there's nothing worth merging right now.  The proper place for this is, indeed, in the campaign article.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 16:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete This doesn't even rise to WP:DICDEF level. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete per nom. & others. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Redirecting to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 might be considered, should a few more secondary sources surface, but definitely does not merit a stand-alone article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Anything that needs to be written about the slogan can be incorporated into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, rather than existing as its own article. Peacock (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. A redirect doesn't really work, as this is an unlikely search term. But we should still see if there is a redirect that does make sense here. I also don't think this makes it to Speedy Deletion; what criteria does it meet? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is exactly the place for compilation of facts on relevant topics, including politics. Value of an electronic encyclopedia is that it can quickly tie together such facts, rather than wait until next year's edition. Thus, move forward. In the weeks ahead there will be many students investigating this topic who would never have seen the historical connection between this 21st century slogan and its parallel use by earlier statist regimes on other continents.Jhacklem (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — Jhacklem (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Too soon to delete. This topic is undoubtedly going to be developing a history over the next week or two. Either the Obama campaign wants to be associated with a Socialist shibboleth or they have committed a political blunder.  Either way there is going to be some reporting to be done on this topic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.178.75.196 (talk) 20:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Then I'd argue that it's too soon to add. We shouldn't WP:CRYSTAL on Wikipedia. Also, if it did become an encyclopedic topic it should be included in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. -- NINTENDUDE 64 20:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. At best, I'd think this could possibly by mentioned in the disambiguation page without a Wikilink. -- NINTENDUDE 64 20:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Reading through comments from other posters here, I think that a redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 is the best course of action. While I never seen this in any way becoming an encyclopedia article, I do see value in redirecting to the 2012 campaign page since it has been chosen as the official slogan. -- NINTENDUDE 64 01:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not the subject of multiple, independent published pieces of coverage in so-called reliable sources. Campaign 2012 fooliganism, fodder for POV war. Carrite (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. At most, this looks like it could be worth one sentence in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. The article currently consists of only one sentence (with a reference) anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep & edit, edit, edit, edit.  It now can include so many Wisconsin  items, per  Rachel Anne Maddow, wonderful.  Save the page.  Also:  «  Toyota: Moving forward with America  », @ 200 miles per hour, over a cliff, with the accelerator & brake pedal stuck,.....     hopiakuta   Please  do   sign  your  communiqu%c3%a9 .%7e%7eThank You,   DonFphrnqTaub  Persina. 02:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP all information related to FORWARD as it is current and accurate; Delete Obama-Biden Campaign Slogan, it is redundant. ABOin2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABOin2012 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)  — ABOin2012 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong delete Political silly season has no business on Wikipedia. Can be mentioned on 2012 U.S. presidential election, but any linking to socialist/communist causes would be original thought. Let's let the readers make that jump and judge the accuracy of that link for themselves. -- McDoob  AU  93  14:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP all you libs sure love to hide the truth and if wikipedea is going to fold to your bull they will lose a lot of users get a spine wik — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.245.253.90 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP Otherwise this is a chapter in 1984, verbatim.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.147.191.50 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE; KEEP all information related to FORWARD as it is current and accurate as well as adding the usage by Obama-Biden, the American people have the right to know the facts as they play out and become history. The Socialist movement in the United States must be recorded for historical purposes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.80.77 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * INCLUDE DO NOT DELETE; Do not succumb to the Political pressures or it will just take away from the credibility of Wikipedia completely. The main stream news has already become tainted and not trusted by the vast majority of the U.S. citizens as well as citizens from other countries when polled.  PLEASE DO NOT FOLLOW IN THIER FOOTSTEPS...DO NOT DELETE  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.80.77 (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * SENSOR should actually be a choice here, after all thats what most of the folks that are commenting to DELETE or even SPEEDY DELETE what is that? SPEEDY DELETE,is that like "hurry up get rid of it quick" why?  What's the big deal, it's not as though we live our lives from everything that we read here, we are not talking about adding something to the Constitution or the Bible and Wikipedia has the right to modify, change, add anything they like at any time so why not just leave it alone and allow the current association to be made since there are many people who believe that very thing.  That there is a strong tie between Obama and Socialism, it's not some secret, if you think it is well, cats's out of the bag.  REDISTRIBUTION or wealth is Socialist period and Obama, Biden. Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and a host of others in the current administration state publicly that they not only think redistribution of weath is a good thing, they support and promote it in there legslation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.80.77 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This topic is separate from the general workings of the Obama 2012 campaign. The article references an attempt to link a historical meme with a current political push. That linkage, or lack thereof, is separate from the Obama campaign's statements about the President, his record, etc., all of which are suitable for inclusion in the campaign article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.176.235.154 (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * SENSOR SHOULD BE A CHOICE SENSOR should actually be a choice here, after all that’s what most of the folks that are commenting to DELETE or even SPEEDY DELETE what is that? SPEEDY DELETE, is that like "hurry up get rid of it quick" why?  What's the big deal, it's not as though we live our lives from everything that we read here, we are not talking about adding something to the Constitution or the Bible and Wikipedia has the right to modify, change, add anything they like at any time so why not just leave it alone and allow the current association to be made since there are many people who believe that very thing.  That there is a strong tie between Obama and Socialism, it's not some secret, if you think it is well, cats’ out of the bag.  REDISTRIBUTION of wealth is Socialist period and Obama, Biden. Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and a host of others in the current administration state publicly that they not only think redistribution of wealth is a good thing, they support and promote it in there legislation. (New here so please accept my appoligies for the report, wanted to add signature) John.ryff (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy DeleteWe at wikipedia cannot allow any hint of socialism linked to Barack Obama, a great and magnificent president. It is the duty of Wikipedia to maintain left wing bias (per a systemic bias of white, mostly left wing young authors).   It would not be in our best interest to keep any article that induces negative thoughts about the Mighty Barack Obama.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.49.73 (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP: The "Forward" slogan for the Obama/Biden 2012 campaign appears to be factual as does the use of the word "Forward" in Communist or Marxist-Socialist publications today and in the past, ergo inclusion within Wikipedia is justified and exclusion/sensorship or removal would appear to be politically motivated and go against the principles of freedom of speech which Wikipedia promotes. If this information were factually incorrect, removal would be justified.


 * (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/30/news/la-pn-obama-campaign-video-forward-20120430) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WbQe-wVK9E) (http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2012/04/30/obama-campaign-reveals-new-slogan-forward/) (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57424018-503544/obamas-2012-campaign-pitch-forward/) (http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/may/02/proggies-muck-wikipedia/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.233.2 (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP: Deleters: censorship is a slippery slope (say that 5 times fast - but its true. Don't be afraid of the truth) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CerpherJoe (talk • contribs)


 * Do not delete. Silly argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.179.215.139 (talk • contribs)


 * Do not delete. The page is truthful in its assertion, and is a reference. It does not assert any political bias one way or the other.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.187.151 (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Part of the political tomfoolery that should be included in the campaign articles. Closing admin - keep voters have been canvassed -, amongst others. Hipocrite (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Enough with the political nonsense and meatpuppets coming from everywhere on this AfD. Article doesn't show any sources to verify it's notability, and a campaign slogan isn't enough for it's own article. Merging into the 2012 US Presidental Campaign or the Obama article might be the way to go here. The sooner this AfD is closed, the better to stem all of this puppet nonsense. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has been linked to by Drudge Report as "WIKIPEDIA mulls deleting entry on Obama-Biden slogan..." Just FYI for potential high traffic, not as part of the discussion. Hello32020 (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this AFD and debate open the full 7 days. No one should speedy this. It's way too political and hot now. FYI: Linked off of Drudge: http://i.imgur.com/NQDj3.png Herp Derp (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP all information related to FORWARD as it is current and a relevant discussion.; If you delete this slogan, then that would set the precedent to delete all campaign slogans of any type, and there are many Wiki entries. That's censorship. Keep Wikipedia about fact and not political opinion.Halin805 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — Halin805 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 *  Speedy Delete no relevance, no connection, no citation to make genuine connections, just random connections of arbitrary words to create a link for another political campaign. John Kerry V George W Bush "Flip-flopping" primarily because most of the arguments for keeping state that obama is a socialist as a means at making him look bad means that it violates WP:NPOV and sadly it cannot be salvaged. Jarunasax (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — Jarunasax (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Speedy Delete - Yes we can doesn't have its own page. Would only be a page for campaign puffery.  Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. TuckerResearch (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP Wikipedia is supposed to be FREE speech, without political manipulation. Don't let the far-left silence the truth because they simply do not like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.79.204.118 (talk • contribs)


 * Keep Controversy over this slogan has made it notable on its own, unlike most campaign slogans. Vegasprof (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fringe caterwauling by Rush Limbaugh and NewsMax don't really count towards notability, sorry. Tarc (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment By attempting to marginalize the most-listened to radio program in the entire nation through referring to it as "fringe", you reveal your bias.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 17:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Move - A (referenced) discussion on the use of the word "Forward" as a political slogan would be appropriate. Use in the Obama campaign and its implications (or lack thereof) could be discussed, but its use in the Obama campaign as the subject of an entire article is too narrow. No speedy delete, and no keep, and no left or right wing rants. PAR (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Way too soon to tell if a campaign slogan will be iconic enough to justify a separate article, e.g. The buck stops here. The faux "controversy" is a smattering of non-notable far-right criticism that does not justify a separate article.  Perhaps an entry and a mention of the criticism is worth it at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Tarc (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:EVENTJoelWhy (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It can't be denied that it's relevant, and factual, and significant.130.111.163.179 (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment violates WP:ATTACK as it is an aimed attack at a campaign. It is a campaign slogan, but the connection with marxist writings in a magazine that was a musical and theatre review it laughable Jarunasax (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment to your Comment. That Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 chose Forward as their slogan is factual.  How is that an attack?  Exactly how?  Be precise.Sturmde (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment in Response The original posting has been altered removing the linking to the "socialist german newspaper" proving even more that the initial connection was drummed up to cause conflict, check the history of the pages edits like "The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other leftwing newspapers and publications" and the recent vandalism on the page, but you can look at that yourself [vandal] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarunasax (talk • contribs) 17:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep >>> it's historical input and relevant to the discussion of political change in America.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.120.28 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is already a list of campaign slogans here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_slogans. Many of these slogans link to its own wikipedia page, not a redirect. Some are quite new. Why should this not be included, but others can? Who determines it's way too soon?  It's an official campaign slogan and also has other meanings behind it, and therefore should be kept.69.208.134.208 (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - part of a particularly obvious effort to tie a single word in the English language, the state motto of Scott Walker's own Wisconsin among other things, to eviallll commynism, and thus to smear the Eisenhower Republican Obama as a commie. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  16:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep At first blush, I leaned toward deleting this, but it has indeed taken on a life of its own making it, for the moment, notable. Should the subject fizzle out, or the campaign not push this aspect any further, the question of deletion can be revisited.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 17:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy or delete without prejudice - political wranglings aside, the topic is article-worthy, but the article as it stands is absurdly useless. Stubs are fine when an article is being started, but not when they are high visibility and used for political points. --B (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP BECAUSE OF PROMINENT NOTE BY NOTABLE RIGHT-WING NEWS AGGREGATOR DRUDGE REPORT ("WIKIPEDIA mulls deleting entry on Obama-Biden slogan...") --34C34C (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — 34C34C (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KEEP - I'm unsure why there's such a quick move to delete in this case when many private citizens have had such a hard time removing disparraging content they've "discovered" about themselves on wiki. This move to delete, or even suggest deletion, reeks of bias and only confirms suspicions about the validity and/or truthfulness of the articles on wikipaedia.  Just because content may be offensive to some is not an excuse to censor it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.134.37.3 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 May 2012‎ (UTC)
 * KEEP I am seeing references to this slogan all over the news and whether it is stays the major slogan of a political campaign or not, the history of this slogan and the choice of it is notewothy. Deleting this would hide an important context of the slogan and its history. Its as if a major campaign chose the slogan Arbeit macht frei and we deleted the article showing how it was previously used. I came here specifically to get info on previous use of this slogan after reading about it in the news and was shocked that some are attempting to delete it. SHAME! 216.178.108.235 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Everybody Calm Down Section Break (Full Protection)

 * Comment. Please can we have a cup of coffee and relax. There's no chance of this discussion being closed early - there are too many editors commenting, and too many varied opinions. But please remember, the Articles for Deletion process is driven by consensus, not a count of the votes for Keep vs Delete vs whatever. If you believe this should be kept (or deleted), please make a reasoned statement saying why. Linking that reason to Wikipedia's policies is useful as well. Reasons that don't apply policies are less likely to be persuasive. Copy-pasting previous responses will be even less persuasive. This is intended to be a debate, so debate the article and the subject on the merits please. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note I asked for and received a full protect of the article. As the previous poster stated, we can all calm down and discuss this rationally. Safiel (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP It should absolutely stay--to do elese would be a political decision. Keep it along with a discussion about the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.33.197.54 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 May 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Comment Tea sounds good. There is no relevant modern controversy that exist the only controversy is the original paper having most of it's editors arrested in the 1800's there is no current relevance.Jarunasax (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP Based solely on the choice of "Forward" by President Obama dn his campaign, the phrase "Forward" is now becoming a meme. References are appearing across media today, and it is a slogan which has clearly become a touchstone for political, cultural, and media/internet rights debate. If this entry succumbs then we should probably clean out the other 10% of Wikipedia entries which have much less visibility and impact. Floyddabarber (talk)Floyddabarber 18:29 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete Isn't it ironic that people are trying to politically censor the democratic party's campaign slogan. How embarrassingly undemocratic of the democrats. Let the people know the facts so they can represent the democracy with their votes. All Americans should be against censorship, stop putting your party above the country.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.70.222.31 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nothing worth merging here, either; and we need to keep an eye on the SPA's. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you take out the SPAs and unsigned comments, you're pretty much left with a bunch of experienced editors agreeing that this is an utterly absurd debate to be having.JoelWhy (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete- political spam, utterly non-notable. Same goes for any slogan, any party, any campaign, any country. Appalled. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * redirect to 2012 election campaign page, where it can have a section, including the negative information and links to socialism etc. neither "Hope and change" or "Yes we can" have standalone pages, and both were widely covered. Additionally Yes we can has the same linkage ("si se puede") so is almost a perfect analogue Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP This article points to other stand-a-lone Wikipedia pages for "forward" in other languages. For example, Russian (Vpered), Italian (Aventi!) and Hebrew (Kadima). Are we to have meaningful articles on "Forward!" in a good handful of languages EXCEPT english? I think that would NOT be wise, and hope you keep this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CWNpuppy (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * DELETE This should be incorporated into a general Obama-Biden 2012 Campaign article. If and when this gets important/significant enough to significantly affect the campaign during the course of the election season, it would be appropriate to create a special article for it. Currently fails WP:GNG. Tmfs10 (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — Tmfs10 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * KEEP Anything else would be just show the bias of a site suppsed to be open and honest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.85.8.33 (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP Such a sudden move to remove this reeks of bias and merely serves to confirm the perception about the reliability and accuracy of articles on Wikipaedia. Given that this wiki article on Rick Santorum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(neologism)#Reception_and_political_impact) contains a personally motivated attack by Dan Savage, where is the outcry to remove this?  Is  "that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."[8][15] newsworthy, whereas the Obama Administration choosing a campaign slogon traditionally associated with socialism is not?  The fact that we're even having this discussion speaks to the skewed, partisan nature of wikipaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.134.37.3 (talk • contribs)


 * KEEP People have the right to know the history of such slogans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.236.228.225 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * DELETE This doesn't need it's own article. The content (what little there is) should be folded into an appropriate existing article.  74.61.32.25 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP It is historically relevant and well supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biccat (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT Crystal ball. It can always be added later, IF it actually become notable.  The Determinator   p  t  c  18:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (or merge the entire sentence into the main campaign article). Rather think the nomination and what BDD, Peacock, CapMan07008, and others said sums it up pretty well. Thing isn't really notable by itself, doesn't have much of anything to say about it, and even if there might wind up something about it later, crystal ball and all that and there's a main article where it would be better said anyway, etc.  — Isarra ༆ 18:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * After much consideration, and reading through the legitimate (read: not sock/meatpuppet) comments, I believe this article should be kept, but moved, per User:PAR above. In my opinion, the use of the word "Forward" as a political slogan merits an article. However, Pres. Obama's reelection campaign's use of it should only be a portion of that article. Furthermore, deleting this article outright would be an embarrassment to the project, and further reinforce stereotypes about who we are and what we're about, and while that's not the primary consideration here, it's not nothing either. LHM 18:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the Article.  The use of "Forward" by Obama's campaign will naturally make people look at where it has been used before.   The Hitler Youth having a marching song, "Forward, Forward", and he Maoists using the phrase, "Forward" in their campaign to overthrow the Nationalists in 1949 is certainly interesting in a historical context.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigedlb (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And over the gates of Auschwitz it said "Work shall set you free" -- does that mean we shouldn't work anymore? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * DELETE I don't see what makes this encyclopedic. There's barely any information on the article anyways. If it becomes something that actually warrants an article in an encyclopedia, then bring it back, but for now delete it.Allemannster (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, belongs in article about the campaign, not standing alone. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing to this article, and its entire single sentence stating the slogan exists can be comfortably placed in the main 2012 campaign article. I wasn't contributing heavily back in 2008, but I guess nonsense like this crops up every four years. No major coverage in reliable secondary sources to flesh this out beyond some silly partisan bickering. —Torchiest talkedits 19:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NEO, hell it's one single line you get more in a dictionary. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The last three "delete" recommendations have cited as their primary reason, a paucity of current content. This is not a valid argument, given that the article previously had much more content, but was pared to this single sentence, and then fully protected. LHM 19:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The controversy over this slogan makes it notable and historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markcronan (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any media coverage of this "controversy"? West Eddy (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator – On 17:12, 2 May 2012‎ (UTC) the article was placed under full protection, under which no editors except for Wikipedia administrators can contribute to the article. The full protection expires on 17:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC): here's the diff page. This discussion may need to be extended, because it may not be equitable to disallow editors to make improvements to an article while it's being discussed for deletion. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – Here are more reliable sources comprised of significant coverage that qualify the notability of the topic, and can be used to expand/improve the article once it is editable by Wikipedia editors other than Wikipedia administrators:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 19:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 19:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 19:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Those links discuss briefly what was chosen for the 2012 slogan ("forward") before going to discussion of the 2012 campaign itself and its message. We are talking about creating an article on the slogan itself, and other than some whining from non-notable partisans about how it reflects on traditional socialist usage of the word "forward", there is nothing out there providing in-depth coverage about the slogan in its own right.  Sources that make mention of what slogan is chosen for a national campaign is a part of routine election coverage, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – See my comment below, more sources exist. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Obviosuly fails GNG, this has no significance on it's own, and Wikipedia is not a pawn for political action from any POV.Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to United States presidential election, 2012. It only deserves a brief mention on the Obama page, and if it does become significant or controversial, it will be within the context of that campaign and shouldn't have to be moved again. Also, I'm getting the feeling that there are some editors who want to place what might be considered undue weight on the historical use of the term. That page should get enough bi-partisan and experienced editors that appropriate weight will be applied, and protections and blocks can be undertaken in a timely manner (copy of my comment made on article talk page). TreacherousWays (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete&redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 per 'I like Ike'. If there's no standalone article for 'I like Ike' (a political phrase most adult Americans know), then 'Forward' certainly doesn't merit a standalone article. Even as a constituent in the larger Campaign article, does anyone here seriously imagine that this one-word slogan will ever belong in 'Category:Political catch phrases'? The bland slogan "Forward" is not now (and almost certainly never will be) notable in itself, and therein is its clear distinction from notable political catch phrases. Even then, editors should know that neither Morning in America nor It's the economy, stupid was ever an official, announced campaign slogan. The slogans Read my lips: No new taxes and Tippecanoe And Tyler Too were anti-candidate slogans which achieved notability despite the wishes of the candidates. If you folks really want to gnash some partisan teeth, head over to comment on the brand-new GOP-bashing article War on Women, resurrected despite an administrative deletion a few weeks ago.--24dot (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with I Like Ike comment - this is not Wiki material put under Presidential Campaign — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksolid (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - More reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail (in addition to the ones I posted above):
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 20:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. My read is that those articles talk more about what the campaign is doing and how it is positioning itself going into the Gen'l Election rather than what the slogan is (or may yet be). I'm still not seeing why this would not be better as part of the campaign article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. My read is that those articles talk more about what the campaign is doing and how it is positioning itself going into the Gen'l Election rather than what the slogan is (or may yet be). I'm still not seeing why this would not be better as part of the campaign article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Leaning towards Delete: At the moment, it consists of one sentence. And not all slogans are really article-worthy. If someone can put in verifiable info that can show notability (thought that will probably only come well after the election -- the reason that "it's the economy, stupid" is notable and, say "Don't change horses in mid-stream" isn't is that the former was memorable to be quoted long after the election in question in a context that calls back to the election) then I'd be willing to change my vote. Pat Payne (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The page is currently fully protected, in which only Wikipedia administrators can contribute to it. This is likely a factor why the article is currently very short as of the time of this post. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I did a (non-controversial, I think) rename, per WP:NDASH; could someone please do a histmerge, taking the discussion at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forward_%28Obama-Biden_Campaign_Slogan%29&action=edit] across to the new TP title? I'm not very good at those. Thanks!  It Is Me Here  t / c 21:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 (changing from my earlier support for speedy deletion). The subject has received enough valid media coverage to warrant recognition within WP namespace. Per comments of 24dot, it does not presently merit a stand-alone article, although if significant coverage in reliable independent sources persists over time, recreation of the article should be considered.--JayJasper (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There are article about other campaign slogans. This is no different.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you mind citing wikipedia which articles you think reflect this? When it comes down to it there are SOME articles for campaign slogans, which they have due to cultural significance outside the campaign trail. MichaelJPierce (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. There may be a paragraph or two of salvageable information, but this is mostly just inuendo p  b  p  21:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while we're at it, full protect the redirect against creation p  b  p  13:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect - not notable on its own. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * MOVE After reading the article and the talk page comments, it seems pretty clear that there is nothing noteworthy about 'Forward' as a campaign slogan, yet. As of this writing the previous campaign slogan 'Hope' does not have its own dedicated wikipedia page. This may be better served as an addition to Barack Obama as this slogan is not discussed in the section labeled '2012 presidential campaign'. Notably, 'Hope' is discussed in that pages '2008 presidential campaign' section. It's my opinion that this page should be deleted and integrated as a side note on appropriate pages.


 * Have you looked at Forward the disambiguation page for the word? You can see that there are many other pages that use forward in different ways, but those pages are usually for when the word Forward is the proper name for a position, book, or political party. Not just a slogan. You may be right to suggest a Forward (Slogan) page. However, this article is built specifically with (Obama-Biden Camaiphn Slogan) built into it. It is overly specific to keep as a generic landing point for general knowledge of the use of the word. Plus, citation would be needed for your claims. MichaelJPierce (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect (to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012) or Delete. There's nothing to say about this slogan yet beyond 'it exists'. Yes, we have articles on some other political slogans, but those are the ones which demonstrated long-term notability; this one hasn't yet. (I note that we don't have articles on the slogans of Mitt Romney or any of the other candidates, either. Let's keep it that way.) Robofish (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Dear god it's a damn sentence! Not an article! It fails WP:NOTNEWS as well! I had no idea that an AFD that otherwise should have been a clear delete would get hounded by a bunch of off site users who just need to keep it for pollitical reasons. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep the page with the long history of the use of the slogan. It is key and relevent to current history to understand the values from history that current leaders are trying to emulate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.138.253 (talk • contribs) 10:13, May 2, 2012‎
 * Comment Maybe starting an article on Backwards (Republican Party Slogan) would help soothe Conservative concerns? The Man Who Would B.B. King (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Believe the subject is relevant.Dave Nes (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Dave Nes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herp Derp (talk • contribs)
 * Please use four tilda's to sign all comments you contribute. MichaelJPierce (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Robofish, and the fact that slogans like Country First and Change we can believe in are redirected to their respective campaigns. Doing anything else would be a purely political choice, and a very strange one at that. Even if Forward becomes a rallying cry, I cannot imagine it will echo through history like the very few US Campaign Slogans who merit their own articles (I only find three, Tippecanoe and Tyler too, Morning in America and It's the economy, stupid). If Redir fails, I would back Delete instead per WP:NN. Cheers & Thanks, Kevin/Last1in (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of enduring notability. Looks like a case of WP:ONEEVENT. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - As indicated in other posts, there are other articles focusing on prior campaign slogans. While some may not like the prior political connotations of the term "Forward", that should not be the basis for interfering with an article that naturally evolve in breadth and depth as a vast number of Wikipedia articles do. Twren1000 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Minimal and tangential mention in reliable sources. No evidence of notability except among idiot-fringe political bloggers and opinion-page commentators who are merely engaging in election-year silliness. Very doubtful that the topic will have lasting significance. Also WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:COATRACK. Very disturbed by the off-line canvassing on multiple sites and obvious duplicate "keep" !votes. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Boy, what a mess THIS is... I hate when deletion discussions boil over into the real world. Anyway, should be obvious per WP:NOTNEWS, lack of independent, reliable sources (other than those stating that the slogan exists), and the fact it was already being used as a WP:COATRACK. Easily could be covered by a line or two in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Of course, putting nothing past the insanity of American politics, if this becomes a huge campaign issue, and multiple independent sources cover it, the article could be re-created. - Running On Brains (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: in the four years we've been confronted by King Obama, I have yet to hear the 'Truth', unless he was unaware he was being 'overheard'... Just another 'slogan' and means even less than moveon dot org or msLSD's slogans of 'lean forward'.. Delete It!User:LGReedLandis ☡ 02.05.12  —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Delete – The concept itself is not of any independent notability; it fails WP:GNG and does not measure up to a WP:1E. Any encyclopedic information belongs in the campaign article, but because the title is neither well-formatted per MOS, nor a highly plausible search term, there should be no redirect. JFHJr (㊟) 02:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per NOTNEWS. Since it is not highly plausible search term, as noted by JFHJr, don't make a redirect. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  05:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, no need for a redirect. "Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)" is hardly a likely search term. There isn't enough for an independent article; the source provided does not actually discuss the slogan at all, and the "controversy" sources predate Obama/Biden's use: WP:SYN applies. Huon (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Significant coverage

 * Culminated from source searching and the article's Talk page: Talk:Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan). Editors: Please feel free to add additional reliable sources comprised of significant coverage about the topic to this section . Northamerica1000(talk) 21:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Beyond passing mentions, but not quite significant coverage

 * — A newsblog source

Continuation of comments

 * Strong redirect to the 2012 Obama campaign article. A slogan that is only a few days old cannot have the sort of enduring notability that rarely allows for certain lines, like I like Ike, to have their own articles. WP:NOTNEWS.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Yaksar. Nev1 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Delete per Yaskar and others. More well-known slogans don't have articles (I Like Ike is a redirect) so why should this?   Hot Stop   22:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect (to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012) or Delete. Per Robofish, per WP:NOTNEWS, and in opposition to using Wikipedia as part of the US 2012 presidential campaign noise machine. Edison (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Yaksar. It's just to early to tell what role the slogan will play in the campaign at this point. --Soman (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 or Delete. Thousands of factoids spew forth during political campaigns and are covered by the media. We do not indiscriminately create separate articles for all of them. -- Neil N   talk to me  23:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.  City O f  Silver  23:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the current campaign article. Though this should have at least a sentence or two over there, if not a whole paragraph, considering its coverage. Silver  seren C 00:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested; splitting this into an article is absurd overcoverage  DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per Hot Stop and Yaksar — we have no way to guarantee that this slogan will be remembered after Obama leaves the White House, while a slogan that really is remembered half a century later doesn't have its own article. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation. The subject itself appears to be notable, and a reasonable candidate for an article.  Even though articles do not exist for most other political, advertising, or other slogans, a case can be made that this subject is significant, encyclopedic, and worthy of it own article.  If we can get over the political issues, some advertising slogans are campaigns and the slogans that go with them are surely notable subjects.  This may or may not be such a case.   However, neither the present sub-stub, or any prior version, makes that case and in prior versions it was clearly a useless POV fork.  If there were anything worth saving that would balance in favor of saving and improving the article.  However, there is currently nothing to save, and attempts so far to expand the article have simply repeated partisan attacks on Obama.  - Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * redirect to obama presidential campaign, with a #link to a section covering the slogan. No need for a separate article now. --KarlB (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:THISISNTATEAPARTYBLOG. Moronic POV-pushing drivel... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to main campaign article. There isn't yet really enough reliably sourced, neutral material on this subject. We don't need a separate article to cover every single partisan political accusation. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Who will search for "Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)"? -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  10:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone who clicks on a link to Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan), especially those on websites discussing the debate over this article. Redirects are cheap. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Comrades. We should create standalone articles for every slogan, every gaffe and every dog or cat mentioned by either candidate in this election campaign. Because for sure they will be blown up by media sources and we will have no trouble adding "reliable" cites to these articles. Another alternative would be for somebody to set up some triviapedia. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Yaksar; and WP:NOTNEWS. Slightly POV-pushing + notability should be corrorborated with multiple reliable sources, which this article lacks in. All the best to closing admin! -- MST ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 12:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete political slogans can be notable but they need to have sustained lasting coverage. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we do not create standalone articles on everything that got brief press coverage. Can't really see the point of a redirect as the title is an unlikely search term and there is no significant content to merge. Hut 8.5 12:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect per DGG Nobody Ent 13:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:PERNOMINATOR. DGG said "as suggested" which means he did not explain his rationale. So your vote will be null if you don't provide an explanation why you believe it should be a redirect despite a lot of arguments made above for deletion and against redirect. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  13:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge/Delete/whatever This is POV drivel and doesn't need a separate article except to push POV. Read what Wikidemon wrote, there is a case to be made in the future, but that isn't now. Just for my own statement, I like Ike should be separate and probably has material. :) SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Redirect As of yet, I don't see that there is enough content or controversy to dedicate an article to this slogan. I think we should include the slogan and its criticism in the the 2012 campaign article. Morphh   (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you care reading the arguments against redirect above? -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  14:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect; I don't doubt that lots of sources have mentioned the campaign slogan (which is, after all, the point of a slogan) but I think it would be better to redirect to our existing article about the campaign. bobrayner (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect is wrong. It is getting bizarre, I don't want to repeat my argument. See above. -- Supernova Explosion   Talk  14:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Compromise. The slogan is already on the disambiguation page and List of U.S. presidential campaign slogans. If it is still in prominent use after the president officially accepts the nomination of his party at the convention, then reconsider as a stand alone article again. In the meantime, redirect to the Obama 2012 campaign article from the disambiguation page. 5Q5 (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - To piss of the meatpuppets. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete- This is a news story, not an encylcopedic topic. If this gets publicity outside the right wing blogosphere maybe we can revisit it, but until then, there's nothing worth covering here. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Now that this tempest has spun itself out of the teapot (it's not on Drudge's front page nor have I seen in it the last few news cycles), it appears that consensus has been reached. Without the call to arms and puppetry, it seems that editors agree the article should go. My comment is, if you delete it instead of redirecting it to either Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 or United States presidential election, 2012, this will become yet another pin that people stick in their anti-Wiki voodoo dolls when they want to call it elitist, communist, fascist (never understood how we can be both - go figure), ignorant dupes of the anti-something conspiracy. Just a thought. Cheers & Thanks, Kevin/Last1in (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 would seem to be the most practical move.--JayJasper (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 – Slogan, which already covers the topic. While this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources which qualifies it as a stand-alone article, it's not necessarily necessary to have one. No prejudice toward recreation if the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article becomes increasingly lengthy. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 – Slogan, Hard to say what its value is. Its import is most likely as an example of Republican reach, past the much more visible MSNBC "Lean Forward" campaign, skipping the Jewish Daily Forward, back to 19th Century German publications. It is interesting as part of the bizarre idea that Obama is a socialist, but aside from that, much ado about not very much. Now if Santorum had gotten the nomination, he could run on "backwards" and then it would be interesting.   Tedperl (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Campaign slogans are two a penny (hmm, didn't Nixon use "Forward" too? Dirty commie!) and really do not justify their own articles; they are part of an overall campaign, not notable topics in their own right. Even Margaret Thatcher's legendary "Labour Isn't Working" slogan doesn't have its own article, nor should it. Prioryman (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Either Delete or Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Not every little slogan needs an article dedicated to it. Maybe someday enough controversy/success/failure/whatever will surround the term to warrant it, but right now it is too soon. Sergecross73   msg me   22:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is entirely politically motivated. Regardless of whether the statement is true, the article exists solely to connect the Obama campaign to European Socialism and Communism by way of the disambiguation page. It's a weasely approach by Conservative American Liberalists. Aside from that, though the whole article is a sentence long and totally unnecessary as a stand-alone entry. If anything, it belongs to the "Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012" page, in which, I might point out, it already resides. Further, on the campaign page, the small section about the slogan is more extensively cited, so not only is this the article for deletion just unnecessary, it's of poorer quality than the sub-category on the campaign page. --User talk:Rexcactorum 17:51, 3 May 2012 (CST)
 * Merge & Redirect; the subject of the article in question does not appear to be independently notable per WP:NN, furthermore may I refer to WP:NOTNEWS. That being said it is related to the Obama presidential campaign, and should be redirected to that article, as suggested by others above. In its place a disambiguous page should be left in its place as other uses of the word forward that may be notable do exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete With Extreme Prejudice: POV-pushing nonsense. Wikipedia is not a right-wing, conservative, tea-party, what-the-fuck-ever blog. I also encourage anyone participating in this AfD to read this BS request made by an IP on the article's talk page, to get an idea of what kind of people are looking to "contribute" to this farce. If we're going to include any sort of information about the Obama-Biden slogan, it should be done on the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article. -waywardhorizons (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to the "redirect"-!voters: If you allow this as a redirect (which, under all other circumstances, would be judged "unlikely searchterm"), then you will get a host of redirects that are far pointier. Forward (that socialist nigniac's and his white buttboy's fascist slogan)... and all sorts of stuff. So... just delete it, salt it, and nuke anything else that comes its way. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirects are also picked up by Google and other search engines- and search terms combining these words aren't at all unreasonable for information about the term (although this is a weak argument- we shouldn't care much about what other people on the internet happen to be doing). It also isn't unreasonable if someone is looking in our search bar for this slogan and once they type in "Forward" they'll then see as an option what they are looking for. So in the sense that matters this isn't that unlikely as a search term, and searches are cheap. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see nothing pointy about leaving a redirect. It is purely descriptive, and it will certainly calm at least some of the censorship conspiracy nuts ( I know, I know, wishful thinking. ) to see that it's being covered, just not in its own article. - Running On Brains (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt This has been a train wreck from the beginning. At most, a brief mention in the main 2012 Obama campaign article would be sufficient. Do not redirect. Delete and salt. Safiel (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Additionally, if this ends as a redirect, the redirect should be subject to indefinite full protection to prevent article recreation. Safiel (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt This is not even a real issue, and only covered by any real journalist to make fun of the paranoia. Also, if you look at the "keep" votes, they are almost all sing purpose accounts or anon IPs. Wiki is getting 'Freeped' and trying to force this idiocy upon everyone. Dave Dial (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's fairly clear from the vitriol of several of the recent "delete" recommendations, that the political motivation of neither side is pure. That is why I recommended something of a middle route above, but it has gotten lost in the noise. Why not just move the page to Forward (slogan) or something similar, and include the Obama-Biden use as part of that? It's not like this word being used as a slogan is unprecedented, and a decent article could most likely be formed around the general use of it as a slogan. LHM 06:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP Why is this page allow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes, but Obama's must be deleted? If this is deleted, it wil only show bias and censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentc (talk • contribs) 08:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF. But even aside from that issue, there are far more reliable sources and discussion of that slogan over a long period of time than there are over this one. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Read My Lips" became notable not as a campaign slogan but long after, when Bush (Senior) was ridiculed at length and in public by his own political base for going back on his campaign promise. "Read My Lips" became a buzz-phrase, and is still well-known 12 years on. I'm confident that the President himself hopes that "Forward" never achieves such prominence. TreacherousWays (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator – Another user, for whatever reason, had started a deletion discussion at the article's talk page, located here: Talk:Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan) – Deletion discussion. The content there should very likely be taken into consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Suggested change of article title to Forward (political and advertising slogan). Use of FORWARD is relevant based on current news cycle discussions, and there is siginficant historical usage of the term as both a campaign and advertising slogan. Also as noted previously, other political slogans have their own wikipedia entries. Coppertwins (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect-Everyone please keep your political opinions out of this. The article has multiple sources that give it enough sources on its own to be notable, but it really should be added to the rest of the Obama presidential campaign. See this one by the huffington post and this one from the Washington Post. Also, it should be noted that We are being watched.-- SKATER  Is Back 12:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. This is just a minor point of Obama's campaign. Please see this from a wider point of view: every political campaign has a slogan, and it's only significant as part of the campaign. We don't make separate articles for them unless there are very strong sources saying that is a topic on its own. For example, scholar books describing the historical impact of the slogan. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Even with multiple sources reporting it, there just isn't much to say about it: it's Obama's 2012 campaign slogan, and it was unveiled in a seven-minute video. That's pretty much it, and I don't think that qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. A brief mention at the campaign article would suffice. The article title might be a rather unlikely search term, but hey, redirects are cheap, and someone might see it as a suggestion in the search box. Chris the Paleontologist  (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Continuation of comments (2)
Research for the closing Administrator. The "Forward" slogan currently appears on the pages below. 5Q5 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 
 * Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. What would be on topic for this article that wouldn't be equally at home in the campaign article? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, where it can be dealt with in a sentence or two. -- The Anome (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If not deleted, I believe a simple Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 would do. Allemannster (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 per Enric Naval.-- В и к и  T   07:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep While significant sourcing exists, and more likley to follow, this article needs to be watched for POV pushing.Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 as per above. Yeah, there is sources for the slogan, but the appropriate place for the slogan is the main campaign article, within a 4th, or even a 3rd level subsection. --   Luke      (Talk)   23:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. The slogan should be noted on the campaign article; a separate article is unnecessary. No evidence that this slogan is notable apart from the campaign.  --Chris (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question How would deletion help anything?  Redirecting (as I said above) would be reasonable, and people are potentially going to search for this topic — the media reports about this deletion discussion and the article itself make this otherwise-implausible search target something that people will want to find.  Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, no redirect merge Fringe-y nonsense. Redirecting it to Merging it into campaign article just distorts that article - this is a non-controversy, being drummed up for the spectacle. The slogan is already appropriately mentioned in the campaign article, but this socialist nonsense accusation is not and should not be at the present time. Tvoz / talk 16:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification The problem with this article is the second paragraph - and the weak sources listed above as "Passing mention" are all derived from the same opinion column in the Washington Times, last I checked. The slogan should be and is in the main campaign article, and that is what the above main sources talk about - the list above is misleading. Tvoz / talk 16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But you are still convinced that a redirect is not useful? It's not like the title is POV, it's descriptive. I like Ike redirects to Draft Eisenhower movement, and Yes_We_Can_(slogan) redirects to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008;I see no fundamental difference between these cases. - Running On Brains (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I meant to say that I was opposed to merge, not redirect - I am opposed to merging the nonsensical fringe material from this article into the campaign article. I do not have a problem with a redirect to that article for anyone who might search on the word "forward" looking for the slogan. I amended my comment above, and thanks for asking so I could correct my misspeak. Tvoz / talk 00:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, no merge. I agree 100% with Tvoz. This is a WP:COATRACK article for tin foil hat nonsense, poorly sourced to opinion blogs, a Facebook page, and a Wikipedia article. The first sentence of this article is already in the "Early stages" section of the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article, which is absolutely all that is warranted at this time. Newross (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a wholly unnecessary fork from Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 that is neither so long that it would cause undue weight issues in the main article nor so independently notable that it demands its own article. If "I like Ike" doesn't merit its own article after 50+ years of cultural appropriation, this one-word slogan is too ephemeral to consider. - Dravecky (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect as redundant to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, no every minute detail of a campaign needs its own article. Hekerui (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as useless duplicate of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 Bulwersator (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Forward
 * Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)
 * List of U.S. presidential campaign slogans
 * List of political slogans
 * Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012
 * 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.