Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obamaism (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Obamaism
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unreferenced article with an obvious political slant about an unlikely neologism. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Barack Obama. It's not actually a neologism, as the article is incorrect as to its first usage (New York Times March 2008 and The New Yorker April 2009 are just two examples, not to mention the previous AFD)—but there isn't necessarily a need for this article, and even if there was, this one isn't it.
 * Delete This is the second nomination and there really isn't a a reason for this article. (Natt39 (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC))
 * Delete. G4 Speedy. Best regards,  Cindy  ( talk to me ) 02:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a neologism, does have a number of hits in notable places, but this article is about something else entirely and is pretty slanted, and any article about Obamaism would need to be written from scratch. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unless "Believing in nothing whatsoever outside of getting re-elected again" has been elevated to an -ism without my noticing it... More Campaign 2012 lemmingstupidism. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - not awful, as they go, and it has been cited and defined in reliable sources, but unless I see some secondary sources, this article is to soon. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacking significant coverage in reliable independent sources, fails WP:GNG & WP:NEO. No objection to a redirect to Barack Obama.--JayJasper (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, multiple reliable sources have the word which is the subject of the article, however it appears that not all of the RSs use the word to mean the same thing. Additionally, from just skimming through the RSs I am unsure that the they discuss the subject in a manor which would be considered significant coverage in WP:GNG. Perhaps, if it would be best to userfy to improve it before returning it to the article space. The WP:TOOSOON opinion may not be relevant as some of the usages of the word go back to at least 2010.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Definite Delete The article I'm looking at, contrary to what RightCowLeftCoast says is 4 lines of text with no sources. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2012 (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.