Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama-ism

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. I also took the liberty to salt it, since Obamaism has also been salted for the same purpose. → Call me Hahc21 02:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obama-ism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of trivia. Maybe transwiki to Wikiquote.

The sources, esp. the WSJ one, actually contain some more detailed analysis, which would be fitting for the Barack Obama article, but the rest of this is just a list of mistakes by a single person. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

KEEP The article covers a phenomenon that has received extensive covereage from multiple reliable sources. It needs be expanded and improved similar to Bushisms. --HansBarack (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — HansBarack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't consider about.com a reliable source. There is very little real content here (under Discussion), which can be merged into Barack Obama. The rest is a list of quotes and trivia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Would also suggest renaming Bushism to Bush-ism (currently a redirect, to keep in line with the naming convention. Reaganism and Clintonism, for example, are about their policies not verbal mistakes.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why? This is a discussion, not a vote. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that my opionion was too subtle. Keep since we have allowed a Bushism to exist then so should this as long as the entries are valid.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a discussion that's in a format more suitable for a vote. Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

great point. --143.215.75.183 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — 143.215.75.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete or Merge to Bushism or something like that. It isn't notable by itself, based on the length of the article. Epicgenius (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets all criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. It's about a subject that has received significant media coverage during the last few years. I can see why some people might not like it, but that's not a reason to delete it. --143.215.75.183 (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there was substantial content about background of Obama-isms in the article, it can be kept. As of now, it is a stub, notwithstanding the unencyclopedic list of such gaffes. Epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what would you like to see included? --143.215.75.183 (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably coverage of the subject by reliable news sources and comments about Obama-isms by notable people, as well as a brief history of the term. The list can still be kept, but it shouldn't be so long that the entire article consists of a list of such linguistic errors. Epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

then let's do that instead of deleting! Some of what you are asking for is already there (coverage of the subject by reliable news sources and comments about Obama-isms by notable people). I agree that we need to work on the history of the term. --143.215.75.183 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly a speedy delete as a recreation of the article once deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obamaism (2nd nomination). There is a Bushism article because the term itself has come into use by reliable sources over the years; "Obamaisms" is a only a jeering neologism used by generally fringe, non-WP:RS sources. What this becomes then is a List of Obama gaffes, something which is a redlink because it would be little more than a POV-slanted hit-piece, not an encyclopedia article. It doesn't help much that the article was created by a single-issue account, along with an IP user and voter here. This topic area is ripe with hijinks over the years, and this ones doesn't smell any different. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

are you dismissing all of the WP:RS used in the article and that the term has been used since at least 2008 in your decision? --143.215.75.183 (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheBlaze, Media Matters, Fox News, and about.com? Yea, I think I'll take a pass on those, thanks. Gossipy, taboid-ish "HURR DURR look at the funny thing the president just said!" coverage of disparate events does not add up to an "Obamaism". It is a concocted neologism much like the old "TOTUS" was. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but those are reliable sources. Ditto for the 7-8 others you didn't list. ABC News, Time Magazine, Mumbai Mirror, etc etc etc. --HansBarack (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources that mention gaffes and verbal miscues on occasion, sure, but you're trying to stitch them together into a grand theme of "Obamaisms" that simply does not exist. i.e. making the source say something different from what they actually say. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several of them use the term explicitly and directly compare it to Bushisms. --HansBarack (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 3 more reliable sources using the term that aren't referenced in the article: Toronto Sun / Hindustan Times / Holland Sentinel / Obamaism likely won't reach the degree of Bushism but it has arrived nonetheless. --HansBarack (talk) 01:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The project does not judge notability by the headline, but by the body of the article. Nice try. Tarc (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the headlines are indicative of what's in the bodies of the articles. Not sure what your point is here. --HansBarack (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no usage of the term beyond the headline; "Obamaism" is not actually a thing discussed by the sources. Again, articles here and there of misstatements do not add up to the neologism that you are trying to concoct. Read up on WP:SYNTH sometime, and this will be the last moment of time I waste on a one-trick pony. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you missed that the articles were actually about "Obamaisms." Generally, reliable sources don't use titles that aren't related to the content of the articles as you are suggesting. For example one of the articles states in the body (not the title): "While outgoing US President George W Bush’s famous quotes, better known as 'Bushisms', kept political humorists busy through his two terms, President-elect Barack Obama too has opened an account in the humour dictionary with his gaffes being compiled as Obamaisms." --HansBarack (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't create the term or contribute to its current popularity. It is used extensively on the internet and in other media as we have established. Please do not insult others who have different opinions from you. I have backed my opinion up with research. I would appreciate it if you did the same. --HansBarack (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as repost, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obamaism (2nd nomination). NawlinWiki (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nawlin, thanks for the old deletion vote. It looks like "Obamaism" was deleted a few years ago because it wasn't properly sourced. That doesn't look like a problem with this page. I see over 10 reliable sources used many of which refer to the Obamaism term itself. No question to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfHeel8283 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — WolfHeel8283 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Having a certain number of sources, alone, do not dictate notability. It's the relative coverage of it, as well as how well known the subject is, that does. Many reliable newspapers and news outlets report about trivial and insignificant things. Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's an outstanding AFD delete on it. Although a small number of journalists have used the term 'Obamaism' the topic has very low numbers of not very high quality references. This kind of thing should be deleted in all but the most extreme examples, it's just not truly encyclopedically notable. It's not like any of these mistakes have caused diplomatic incidents, they're just trivia. It's just not notable. Wikipedia isn't WIKIQUOTE, and we don't collect information indiscriminately.Teapeat (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Tarc suggests, this is a POV magnet - it is trivia and has had no impact other than to fuel the fringe. (And fwiw, the piece is full of typos - not a reason for deletion per se, but perhaps an indication of a rush to create an attack piece rather than a reasoned article.) Tvoz/talk 18:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unconstructive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
DELETE NOW GET RID OF THIS RACIST TRASH!!!!!! TEAPARTY FACISTS NEED TO STOP DISRESPECTING OUR PRESIDENT AND LEADER!! PERSERVE WIKIPEDIA FROM THESE EVIL PEOPLE!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomJones41 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article may be premature, but I can see the possibility that the term is beginning to take off and could someday pass WP:NEO as a notable phrase / concept. Perhaps it will even become a family of articles about famous people's linguistic pecadillos. Although not inherently encyclopedic, it becomes encyclopedic if people's having fun with it offwiki becomes a notable thing in the world. Someday we may have an article [[List of famous people's malapropisms with "-ism" suffix]] to complement our List of scandals with "-gate" suffix article. What I'm saying is that it's not inherently notable or non-notable, just a question of strength of sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be on to something with a List. Do you know if there are more articles out there about politicians? Juno (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is in progress, the term (without variants) has 40,000 ghits and they have some decent RSs. Bushisms stands as an article, so too will this. Juno (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is clearly a repost of Obamaism and does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It is conceivable that this might become a thing in the future, but it's something of a stretch right now. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This isn't a real thing, nor backed up by reliable sourcing. Obvious attempt to circumvent 3rd nomination and timing. Perhaps in the future something along the lines of this might be feasible, but it is definitely not now. Dave Dial (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main criticism so far is that it's not reliably sourced. I guess that's true if you don't consider the Wall Street Journal, About, Time Magazine, the Washington Times, and Media Matters reliable sources. The next criticism is that it's been deleted before. If it wasn't notable a few years ago does not make it not notable today. The concept is used extensively on the net and elsewhere. It would be nice if the delete votes did more than using vague generalities to declare it not notable. I don't know why we need a double standard to keep this article out. --HansBarack (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of course it's funny when the POTUS stuffs up, and that's a great space-filler. But there is no credible suggestion that Obama is known for using unconventional phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms, or semantic and linguistic errors. In fact, all observers know that Obama is an under-performer in those areas, compared with many other public figures. The problem for this article is that there is no notability of the topic—the attention is just ephemeral joke-of-the-day combined with attacks from opponents who are still upset about the attention drawn to Obama's predecessor in a manner that was notable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "But there is no credible suggestion that Obama is known for using unconventional phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms, or semantic and linguistic errors." The references show otherwise. --HansBarack (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "In fact, all observers know that Obama is an under-performer in those areas, compared with many other public figures." What you or I think we 'know' is irrelevant. This point is also irrelevant. The point is that the Obamaism phenomenon has received extensive media coverage. --HansBarack (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The problem for this article is that there is no notability of the topic" The references show otherwise. --HansBarack (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The attention is just ephemeral joke-of-the-day combined--" The references show otherwise. The term goes back at least to 2008. --HansBarack (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "-with attacks from opponents who are still upset about the attention drawn to Obama's predecessor in a manner that was notable." Please assume good faith. Bush didn't make any more verbal gaffs that one would expect for the amount of public speaking he did, but that doesn't matter. It's notable because it received extensive media coverage. It's the same with Obamaism. He probably doesn't make more gaffs than would be expected, but it still has received extensive coverage. --HansBarack (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc. Edison (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There just isn't enough secondary coverage regarding the notability of an Obama-ism, and personally I've never heard the term used before. Orser67 (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am labeling myself as a single purpose user despite the fact that I contribute extensively under my IP address. If I don't label myself as such, someone else will. Given the unfair criticism this article seems to be receiving I don't feel comfortable commenting with my regular IP. Now for my opinion…. I don't recall seeing such a high bar set at an AfD. The article is well sourced and easily meets notability guidelines. Having voted for Obama twice myself, I have to wonder why this article is facing so much unqualified resistance? OpenMind14 (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC) — OpenMind14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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.