Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama effect


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama effect

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

More neologism shenanigans. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For some reason, there's a page at Articles for deletion/Obama Effect with different content than this one, and that page is linked to from the article. Someone who knows what's going on should fix this, please? --Rividian (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, and will post what the user said in that AFD below this comment. But review to make sure I did it right is welcome. --Rividian (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a perfectly valid entry for inclusion on Wikipedia.
 * The "Obama Effect" is a term that has been used and, though new to the political lexicon, has every right to exist.
 * There is no justification for deletion, if there improvement in the article is required, then this can be done.
 * Censorship, however, of a new term, is nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bscottbscott (talk • contribs) — Bscottbscott (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note Your summary when creating the article sums it up: A potential difference between the way voters in the 2008 presidential election respond to surveys and polls and the way they might actually vote which screams original research. And censorship???  PaLEESE.  Go ahead and call us racists, too, while you are at it.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 11:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's utterly unreferenced, and purely speculative anyway... it refers to something that might be a term if a certain thing happens. This is not encyclopedic topic, based on facts in evidence. --Rividian (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. And I swear I'll pistol whip the next person who says "shenanigans". MuZemike  ( talk ) 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as pure wp:neo. P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unproven speculation. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism. Majoreditor (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete poitical sh... sh... stuff. JuJube (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete using the Wikipedia isn't for this kind of stuff effect. Just because a  neologism is used doesn't make it notable or inclusion worthy. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as the article does not establish that this has become a notable coined phrase. In fact all but one of the articles sourced seem to simply use it as a general descriptor. No prejudice against recreation if time reveals that the term "Obama Effect" actually picks up some equity, and there might be something worth merging with the main Obama article and/or the article on his campaign (I assume there is one), but I don't sense any viability as a separate article at this time. 23skidoo (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Conceeded the the term is not yet well enough established to warrant an entry. I noticed that similar political terms, for example "Reagan Democrat", have come to earn an entry and so we might expect that, in time, "Obama Effect" will likewise have a wikipedia entry that meets the standards. Bscottbscott (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. The fact is, most similar terms never rise to notability beyond the moment.  Your conclusion is also correct that the term *might* rise in notability, if he wins, and if the term continues to be used.  It just isn't there *yet* (if ever).  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 22:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism, unlikely to be ever seen again after the election. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: The article is not outstanding, but it does not violate WP:NEO, which states, "Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources" (emphasis added). This article, weak as its current draft is, is thoroughly sourced. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2008 (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.