Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romnesia


 * 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 to United States presidential election, 2012. The arguments presented for deletion of this are not well made. The CSD criterion for attack pages does not apply here, since it is extremely difficult to argue that a page considering, with clear third-party media referencing, the proceedings of an election campaign, can be designed only to attack. The BLP line is just a cheap attempt to circumvent a proper discussion: we're talking about two prominent politicians in a public domain fair-game election fight, not some libellous mal-reporting. The more persuasive class of deletion argument is that this is just an amusing phrase that may burn brightly for a few days, but will then be forgotten -- since this would be an indication of non-notability in encyclopedic terms (i.e. in-line with WP policy).

The keep arguments are often not a great deal better, as mere references to Google hits do not establish anything other than temporary interest in a topic since we are still so close to the event in question. It is hard to give a great deal of weight to keep arguments asserting the historic nature of a phrase that is only a few days old. However, a number of the keepers do a fair job of defending against claims of neologism (mainly that Wikipedia is clearly not being used to create the phrase itself), and thus have a WP policy basis that has not been successfully challenged, in my judgement.

Finally, there is some useful discussion that there are no articles on very well-known phrases such as Obamacare etc., which are just redirects. This seems a strong point, to me. On Wikipedia, consistency of approach is a good indicator of an existing consensus.

Therefore, I do not find that a rough consensus has been demonstrated for deletion. There are numerous suggestions of redirecting and/or merging to a suitable target and this seems a reasonable disposition given the debate. By way of providing an immediately actionable result, I'll redirect to what I hope may be the neutral (i.e. neither Romney nor Obama) target of United States presidential election, 2012. Further discussion may converge on a different target. -Splash - tk 18:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Romnesia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Newly made up word being used purely to attack a living person for political purposes. WP is not a dictionary Arzel (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is meant to be a tool to help explain things. Not only is the article well researched and referenced, it explains a term future generations are likely to be confused about.  Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tippecanoe_and_Tyler_too an --Mjlef1 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC).  What was a political slogan had lasting memory and importance.  We need to wait and see if Romnesia continues to grow in importance, and not merely consider deleting an article because it makes someone look bad.--Mjlef1 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a "tool to explain things". It's an encyclopedia for notable articles. For your second argument, if you say that we need to wait, you should read WP:TOOSOON. Also, "not merely consider deleting an article because it makes someone look bad" pretty much would make this an WP:ATTACK page.  Zappa  O  Mati   22:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I consider this term much like other "game changing" political phrases in the past like this entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes. And I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain things, putting knowledge in a convenient form for easy understanding.  A mere list of articles without explaining things would be of limited value. Thanks for the WP:TOOSOON reference.  I read it and do not think it applies.  Multiple reliable sources are available.  I certainly could see this being merged with a history of the 2012 presidential election instead of having its own topic, although the "Read my lips" entry certainly seems to have established political rhetoric as a suitable article topic. But I think it stands well on its own and contains useful research on the term.--50.138.116.139 (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete You can really tell it is close to the election as all manner of crazy is being put forth on WP.  I have never seen where a newly made up word with zero historical significance has had an article to promote the word.  WP is NOT a dictionary.  WP is NOT a place to promote political advocacy.  If such an article is allowed then all the other stupid articles like Obamabots (which was speedy deleted BTW) will have to be allowed as well.  Arzel (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note -- this argument for deletion is made by the nominating Wikipedian. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as simply not notable, since covering every catchphrase a campaign uses would be excessive; the nominator's objections seem a bit spurious, as the article is about Obama's use of the word. (As covered in thousands of news articles; are they all attacking Romney for political purposes? No, they're reporting the use of the term.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 14:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to have notability established now, but it still doesn't feel like it needs an article. Prefer merge, though I'm not sure what to merge to. I guess it could go in List of political catch phrases, but that would obviously require a good bit of pruning. Though that seems reasonable if this just fades away in a couple days as is likely...I guess we'll probably see before the AfD even closes. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 05:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as something made up in one day, or an attack Non-Notable Neologism. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep it is already obvious that from a historical standpoint this word is going to figure as a key aspect of the 2012 presidential campaign. Doing a Google search shows that there are already 1,000,000+ pages mentioning this term. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Google hits are not an argument considered on an AfD page on Notability. Neither "historical" nor "key" can in any way be construed as "obvious", WP:CRYSTAL.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now Google is showing nearly 5,000,000 results on 'Romnesia'. Obviously this term has resonated with the people. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In the four days since the prior comment indicating 1M Google results, the term now has risen to over 4.9M Google results, including hundreds of image results and dozens of videos. Importance is no longer debatable.  The only thing in question is whether the WP material is neutral and researched & referenced well enough to merit inclusion.  I've removed the partisan language, made the first reference go to the CNN article on its importance among the political neologisms of 2012, and synthesized a section addressing its coinage with the earliest uses of it, pre-dating Obama's recent use.  Included is a reference to a quote of a listserv post by Ben Zimmer, Chair of American Dialect Society's New Words Committee on its coinage in April 2011.  VikramSurya(talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per 2001:db8. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So you are saying it wasn't important until it was used to attack Romney politically by Obama? Therefore it is nothing but an a political attack phrase which at most should be merged.  Arzel (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying it wasn't even important after it was used by Obama to attack Romney politically. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Widespread coverage of this term and its definition. Very relevant and notable, if only for the time being. Dmarquard (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The term has entered the political lexicom  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.99.17 (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC) [only WP contribution of IP]
 * Keep As above it has entered the political lexicon, like it or not.  It's of historical significance. Kevin Baastalk
 * What is the historical significance? Arzel (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete "political silly season word of the week" is not sufficient to meet notability requirements at all. I do not buy that it is in any way of long lasting value - even as a neologism. Collect (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:NEO; "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.", and per WP:NOT; "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." There are a handful of US-political neologisms (eg.: swiftboating, birther) that are notable - this one is not one of them.  S Pat   talk 21:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this could be seen as an article "created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term". This is a term invented by the President of the United States, and has been a major element of his stump speeches. Clearly it's not just your run-of-the-mill neologism. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, as of a few days ago, adopted as an attack phrase by a campaign, together with social media campaigns to promote its use. A note in the Article on the Obama campaign would be appropriate, as this is a campaign strategy, but length is determined by how important this tack is to the Obama campaign. WP:POVFORK is an attempt to circumvent WP:UNDUE, giving the phrase-du-jour of the campaign prominence over and above that warranted in the article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously, as explained above. Why do those of us in the rest of the world always have to suffer such nonsense when it's election season in the US? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you think we feel having to put up with it in the US; I'd almost rather see a Cialis commercial at this point. In case it's not obvious, delete.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 22:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Political positions of Mitt Romney. The whole point of the term is to assert that Romney has forgotten his old positions.  So treat this just like Obamanomics and ObamaCare...as a redirect.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As per WP: #Neologisms:
 * Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept...
 * The term 'Romnesia' fulfills the criteria listed in the guideline. It is notable, widely used, and there are no shortage of secondary sources. --Misha Atreides (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No dent in "larger society", unless the Obama campaign bus is bigger than I thought.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Google and Bing--Misha Atreides (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per MishaAtreides Casprings (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why then is there no article titled ObamaCare, and no article titled Obamanomics? These are both redirects to articles about the same subject, which incidentally can mention these neologisms.  Romnesia is mainly a content fork for people dissatisfied with the treatment in Political positions of Mitt Romney.  See WP: Fork.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So are you advocating deletion or a redirect? --Misha Atreides (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the content and install a redirect. The content can be added to the target article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete It's been used for a couple of days. Wiki, for very good reasons, it's a depository for every meme that pops up.  If Romnesia enters the lexicon rather than just being a joke for a few days, the article can be recreated.  Doing stuff like this and we'll have pages for Obamaitis and Obambi and every subvariant of Lolcats there is.  Is anyone looking forward to the debates about whether Basement Cat (704,000 results) is more or less individually notable than Business Cat (1.4 million results) CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Strawman your comparison to non-substantive LOLcat memes is fallacious. 'Romnesia' is already having an impact on this election. For better or for worse it has almost single-handedly reframed the picture of who Romney is. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If you have evidence of "single-handedly reframed the picture of who Romney is" in a neutral point of view, then please provide it - actual evidence that it changed the trajectory of the election itself or election strategy by the parties in any manner. As it is, it's a One Event joke, not something widely used in differing contexts.  We shouldn't have articles about "binders full of women" or "bitter clingers" or "Obamanomics" or any other political catchphrase that doesn't have any real notability.  If we start to see it in language outside the context of simply making fun of Mitt Romney in the context of a tight political election, that would be a different matter.  It's suitable for wiktionary or nothing at this point. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Collect and Anythingyouwant. Election silliness isn't always articleworthy. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article serves dual purpose as documenting the neologism as well as the events surrounding its use. Apparently Mormon women also coined with this word in 1994. Obama's use of the term catapulted it into the mainstream, and it's reasonable to expect searches from people curious abut the term. The level of detail provided here would be lost were it to be merged to one of the presidential election articles. Gobōnobō  + c 22:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, that is an argument to circumvent WP:UNDUE on the Obama campaign article. Please take it up there.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete another article based on the WP:RECENTISM of the US elections. Not a term that is likely to have long-lasting notability, just a turn of phrase Obama used in a speech. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as a stinkin' attack page. Automatic  Strikeout  01:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO and WP:RECENTISM. If a year from now it's still remembered as one of the key phrases of the election, maybe then.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP or merge/redirect I would Keep for now and see how this plays out long term. Worse case Merge with debate and keep redirect. --216.81.94.76 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the way AfDs work. FIRST notability and criteria for inclusion established, THEN an Article is allowed, not; write article, then wait a month to see if it becomes notable.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Cannot understand how it even got to AfD; is a clear-cut Speedy Delete under WP:CSD, arguments that it "has been covered" are not arguments that the phrase is worthy of an article; every turn of phrase in a Presidential election is to some extent covered, and no-one is proposing "I wish I could use my middle name" as an article, nor should they. Just because the latter was used, and was reported on does not mean that we need an article, nor that, since we have an article, we need to "explain" the context, nor since we need to "explain" the context does some partisan have an opportunity to WP:COATRACK on a rehash of birtherism. The phrase does not really exist outside of recent Obama campaign and surrogate promoters, the existence of the article is pure political promotion,WP:CSD and WP bars pure Advocacy articles for good reason. That the media has reported on the Obama political strategy might mean a mention in the Campaign Articles, as a strategy, but little else.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP This article explains a very appropriate term of political hypocrisy. The definition will ensure that people in politics don't just forget their convictions and allow them to pull away from them when it is convenient.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.99.181 (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's not Wikipedia's mission to punish or reward people for behavior, but to serve as an encyclopedia.  There is no WP:DUDETOTALLYDESERVESIT CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Essentially, an admission that your reason for wanting the article is to express your, and the Obama campaign's opinion or attack on Romney, as per WP:CSD or WP:ADVOCATE--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP Not just because of the widespread notability of the phrase, which should be enough, but also because of the partisan "reasoning" being applied to argue for its deletion (it's silly, it's crazy, it's an attack, let's delete it for now and check back after the election, etc). Something doesn't become less notable over time, it only falls off the front page.Sally Season (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * DELETE Not just because of the non notability of the phrase, which should be enough, but also because of the partisan "reasoning" being applied to argue for its retention (it's news, it's not crazy, it's not an attack, let's keep it for now and check back after the election, etc). Something doesn't become more notable over time, it never was on the front page. --Malerooster (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a newly made up word (see article). Not being used solely to attack a person (use has extended to Ryan and the entire base of their supporters). Not being used solely for political purposes (has become a more general term, referring to any politically-motivated "forgetfulness".)  Also, it's historical in terms of Obama's use of it being a turning point in the campaign. Where else if not WP will this level of resources on the term be able to be compiled in near-real-time and then kept for later reference? Vikramsurya(talk)
 * "It's not attacking one person, it's attacking many people" is an unusual defense claim. It takes guts. I like it. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hard to dislike this comment for all its twisted logic. It is just so amusing. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * speedy delete election year sillyness. needs to go now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and reform There are major problems with the article but its clearly noteworthy and not new. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no coverage of or analysis of the term, simply primary source examples of its use by political hacks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable, with wide coverage of the phrase. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bad-faith nomination by a Romney supporter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Please address issues/edits, not editors. This is not an argument.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The editor made it perfectly clear that he wants it deleted because he's a Romney sycophant. It's a bad-faith nomination, so you can't argue that it's not also about the editor. The other article was kept due to no consensus, and this one might end up that way too. If the editor had made good-faith nominations based on wikipedia policy rather than on the "I don't like it because it attacks my guy" principle, his odds of succeeding might have been better. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Would someone uninvolved please hat this.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! You know political affiliations of other contributors?  I'd call that a miracle statistical anomally (must remember my party training and all).  -- No  unique  names  04:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do when they make it abundantly clear. See his comments in Articles for deletion/Binders full of women. Unless he was only kidding when he said, "This is an attempt by the left to attack Mitt Romney and push the continued fictional "War on Womnen"." Not only politically biased, but also can't spell. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that Arzel ought to speak more neutrally. But we ought not retaliate against Arzel by keeping articles that ought not be kept.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Bad-faith nominations (of which this and the other article are two) should be discarded. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Even granting your premise that bad faith nominations should be discarded, you have used the other nomination to deduce that this one is in bad faith too. Can you use the other one to deduce that all of Arzel's Wikipedia edits are in bad faith?  And anyway I don't grant your premise, because you're too late; once other editors have given good faith reasons to delete, their reasons ought to have some weight.  A preferable solution would be to do something to Arzel that does not affect content.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's never "too late" to point out bad faith. Now, if he had taken the same relatively-neutral tone for that one as for this one, he might have got away with it. But he betrayed his true colors, so any politics-oriented edits he makes have to be looked at closely for potential bias. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I call out your bad-faith keep vote. If you cannot assume good faith then I suggest you go do something else.  Now go back to your Glass House.  Arzel (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You have demonstrated that you are a Romney sycophant, so you've got no business nominating these articles for deletion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * EVERYONE should be in the business of nominating this type of crap for deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not when said deletion is expressely pushing a partisan agenda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Crap is crap. Doesn't matter what your agenda says you're to be doing, take the time to flush the pot.  -- No  unique  names  07:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The President himself has invoked it repeatedly. Not that the President is notable, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * the president flushes the toilet, too. Obama's bathroom habits  --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. His Mama didn't raise no rednecks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. Neologism, WP:NAD, purely negative and BLP ish, take your pick. -- No  unique  names  04:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Neologism that meets the GNG. In use since 2011, popularized in 2012.    Th e S te ve
 * Keep - article fulfills WP:NEO. Wikipedia's policy for neologisms stipulates several criteria by which we may determine if a neologism is ready for an article in Wikipedia: 1. "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term" (emphasis mine). 2. "...when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic". There are several secondary sources which directly write about the word Romnesia in context, which explain, analyze and interprete the usuage of the word Romnesia. Thus the notability criteria found in WP:NEO have been fulfilled. Amsaim (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - or at most a redirect to Public image of Mitt Romney. I'm sorry, but anyone who claims this thing is in such widespread usage that it has entered the general public discourse is either a) lying or b) insulated in a world of the Democratic Underground, MoveOn, and Mother Jones.  It is a minor political neologism used in political ads and stump speeches, nothing more.  Obamacare is a neologism that is truly a part of the general public, yet it is a redirect to the actual bill. Nobama is a redirect to Public image of Barack Obama.  "Romnesia" is down on the same level as the old Rush Limbaugh-penned "TOTUS" (Teleprompter of the United States) which was dealt with appropriately several years ago.  See Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 16 and Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "TOTUS" never achieved anything resembling widespread media coverage. There's no comparison to "Romnesia". Pretending that it's known only to those who exclusively read left-wing media is absurd. It's a staple of the President's stump speech. Everybody who looks at election coverage knows about "Romnesia". &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Public image of Mitt Romney where we can leave a small mention of it. Seems like a nice alternative to deletion and this subject is blatantly inappropriate as an independent article.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect to Public image of Mitt Romney. A violation of WP:ATTACK, with a possible violation of WP:BLP. This has a better chance on Know Your Meme or Urban Dictionary than here.  Zappa  O  Mati   22:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable portmanteau covered in reliable sources. A notable point in the elections. Insomesia (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Press coverage indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is WP:ROUTINE coverage of campaign soundbites by the political press. End of. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per Nouniquenames. Remember to comment on the content and not the editor. T. trichiura Infect me 18:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into campaign article. Not notable enough for its own article; neologism. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability established with multiple secondary references, Check. Wikipedia is not a dictionary: the article gives more than just a definition  Check. Unlike Sister Souljah moment, this political jargon cannot be applied widely because it can only be applied to Mitt Romney, so if he loses the election in 11 days, then the term will most likely not be used after that. However, notability is not temporary  Check. This is why I think the article should be kept. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLP, WP:NEO, WP:ATTACK. Truthsort (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain how you think the article violates either of the BLP or ATTACK policies. I'm not seeing it. KillerChihuahua ?!? 07:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: WP:AFD stipulates, that "...when making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". Editor Truthsort has cited WP:NEO as her/his deletion rationale, yet s/he has failed to explain how the Romnesia article violates WP:NEO. Could Editor Truthsort please explain how the Romnesia article violates Wikipedia's Notability Policy for Neologisms (WP:NEO)? I'm asking because the article actually does fulfill WP:NEO. See my explanation here. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as yet another political neologism, which will be forgotten 2 weeks after the election is over. WP:109PAPERS is an essay that lays out why something that receives widespread coverage over a short period of time does not always merit an entry, and WP:NEO is part of a policy which notes that they need some sort of lasting impact to meet our notability requirements. "Swiftboating" and "-gate" have passed that threshold; "Romesia" has not (as yet), and likely never will. At most, this should redirect to Public image of Mitt Romney, as suggested by several others, but outright deletion is more appropriate.  Horologium  (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to the article on the campaign. Possibly the funniest thing Obama has ever said in a speech, but not something that merits a stand-alone article. To our friends outside of the United States: the election is now less than two weeks away so this sort of silliness should trail off fairly soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, very selectively, to an appropriate campaign article. This is one of dozens of similar political memes generated by the overheated political and media atmosphere surrounding the US presidential elections. It stands to be mentioned in the context of the campaign, but as a word it very likely fails WP:NEO; we may reconsider this should it turn out to have any significance after the election.   Sandstein   09:41, 28 October 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.