Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama-ism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HansBarack (talk | contribs) at 13:44, 17 March 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Obama-ism

Obama-ism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(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]


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 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) This template must be substituted.[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]
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.
  • 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]
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Obama-ism&oldid=600007923"