Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Obama Really Meant


 * 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 per clear consensus based on several policies and guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What Obama Really Meant

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

Non-notable, unreliable sources, synthesis, whatever. --- RockMFR 05:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia, IMAO has been recognized as one of the top 50 political blogs, as determined by Alexa Internet traffic ranks. Though a relatively new acronym, this represents a political issue that may heavily affect the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, which may in turn play a significant role in determining the Democratic nominee.tc2011 (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. nneonneo (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, something made up on a blog one day is not a good basis for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Sure looks like a purely political attack. BWH76 (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to A More Perfect Union or similar campaign coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as coatrack. Celarnor Talk to me  08:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Colonel Warden. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol merge vote.svg|15px]] Merge &mdash; per Colonel Warden. &#151;paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback) a door? 13:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I disagree with merging, since it implies an endorsement of political attack articles. There is, of course, nothing to stop anyone from adding a counterpoint to the article "A More Perfect Union".   This particular phrase is chosen because it can be made into an acronym (WORM).  One could make a similar "WHAM" article about "What Hillary Actually Meant".   Go do your mudslinging somewhere else.  Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WORM arose organically, whereas this is the first time WHAM has appeared. Documentation of actual political events does not constitute mudslinging.tc2011 (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's no indication the term has entered into general use, and at least some of the sources cited probably wouldn't pass muster with WP:SOURCES. If the term gets picked up by more mainstream media, then let's revisit it. Otherwise I agree, this comes off as an anti-Obama attack disguised as an article. Otherwise let's wait and see if it gains the same sort of equity as Bushism, for example. 23skidoo (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete'. Coatrack with no indication that the subject has entered common use.  Celarnor Talk to me  18:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. A Google search of what obama really meant worm produces 122k results, including the notable sites: oprah.com, politico.com, talkleft.com, democraticunderground.com, imao.us, blogs.abcnews.com, huffingtonpost.com, salon.com, taylormarsh.com, answers.yahoo.com, and others. The subject has a substantial foothold in common use. Recognition and use by the "mainstream media" is not necessary to legitimize Wikipedia articles. I would agree with merging per Colonel Warden, except that in practice WORM is applied to more statements than appear in that speech and its aftermath.tc2011 (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Irredeemably POV. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: 68.254.173.251 has deleted several votes from this page for some reason, and changed one of the Delete votes to Table. nneonneotalk 21:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You're right. My vote was the one changed to "Table".  Looks like 68.254.173.251 is a code for D.I.C.K.  It's not too hard to spot when something like that happens, "68".  When a page shrinks from 3,496 to 2,896 in size, it's not hard to trace.  Mandsford (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The efforts of "68" notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be any consensus for keeping this as an independent article. Of the three persons who don't request a deletion, two of them support a merge as an alternative.  Perhaps my helper was right in suggesting that we "table" the discussion and let the administrator decide.  Mandsford (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, a search of technorati shows that the term is in fact beginning to seep into the blogosphere. --Non-dropframe (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:ATTACK. MrPrada (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Original Research and violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for political agitators. --Abrech (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and others on this AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable blog meme. WillOakland (talk) 03:03, 19 April 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.