Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obamakin


 * 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 and redirect. Chetblong T C 03:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Obamakin

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, per WP:DICT. Gary King (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If Obamakin was a word used by notable sources (eg BBC, CBS, etc, then I would say merge it into the main article, and turn the page into a redirect. However, a Google search has not revealed any notable sources, so I vote delete. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. This is a WP:neologism--Pmedema (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom; seems to be a neologism. - Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Obama Republican.  Corvus cornix  talk  22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, this has not even gelled on blogs. A couple of appearances in comment threads isn't sufficient for even just a redirect. See protologism. --Dhartung | Talk 10:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the spelling "Obamacan" has a lot of google news hits - . We already have a redirect at Obamacan.  "Obamakin" is just an alternate spelling.   Corvus cornix  talk  18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect, this page filled with redirects, to Obamacan. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Obamacan is a redirect. :)   Corvus cornix  talk  21:15, 20 February 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.