Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.

I am no stranger to closing contentious AFDs, so I am happy to volunteer here.

By my count, there were thirty-nine !votes by anon IPs or newly-made accounts with few or no other edits. These are generally discounted in the closing of AFDs because such participants tend to be unaware of the various notability requirements that have been developed by Wikipedians through our experience of trying to build an encyclopedia.

Of the remaining !votes, nine are to keep (some "weak" and some "strong"); thirty-seven are to delete (again, with various degrees of strength and urgency); five are explicitly for moving or merging; and thirty-two are to redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. The move/merge voters and the redirect voters generally enunciate the common idea that this title is by itself innocuous, and that the subject of the title, although not independently encyclopedically notable, warrants mention in the campaign article (where it is, indeed, mentioned at this time). Furthermore, the arguments for deletion tend to be directed towards the content of the article, as opposed to any import of the title. It is uncontroverted that the word "Forward" is in fact an "Obama-Biden campaign slogan". Similarly, although the anon and new user keep votes might not reflect policy, the underlying theme generally expressed in those votes is that the information regarding pundits and commentators criticizing the selection of the word, "Forward" should be included in the encyclopedia. The function of conveying information is served just as well by discussion in a section in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 as it is in a separate article (perhaps better, because it can then be read within the context of the entire campaign). A redirect will be picked up in Google searches, and will allow readers seeking information on the slogan to find the place in the encyclopedia where such information can be found. The slippery-slope argument that having such a redirect opens the door to NPOV redirects is belied by the existence of RfD processes specifically geared towards eliminating improper redirects.

Because there is a clear consensus against having a separate article at this title, but no consensus against maintaining the redirect, I make the following determination. The overall result of this discussion is that the current content of the article should be deleted, and the title redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. As to the content (which has shifted considerably over the duration of this discussion), that is a matter to be hashed out on the talk page of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)

Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan) (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)
  • DO NOT DELETE -- Just because some people don't like the message doesn't mean that it should be removed from everyone's access. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.73.44.10 (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! It shows the relation of like minds with like agendas..which is why it was put under the politic heading in the first place— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.17.32.194 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep! Wikipedia articles so long as they are not infringing on copy right or violating any laws should not be deleted. Edited for accuracy perhaps but not deleted because they are an Inconvenient truth.
  • Delete—"Other stuff doesn't exist" doesn't work any more than WP:OSE does, but the end result is the same. Delete, since there's nothing worth merging right now. The proper place for this is, indeed, in the campaign article. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 16:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This doesn't even rise to WP:DICDEF level. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & edit, edit, edit, edit. It now can include so many Wisconsin items, per Rachel Anne Maddow, wonderful. Save the page. Also: « Toyota: Moving forward with America  », @ 200 miles per hour, over a cliff, with the accelerator & brake pedal stuck,..... hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 02:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE; KEEP all information related to FORWARD as it is current and accurate as well as adding the usage by Obama-Biden, the American people have the right to know the facts as they play out and become history. The Socialist movement in the United States must be recorded for historical purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.80.77 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • INCLUDE DO NOT DELETE; Do not succumb to the Political pressures or it will just take away from the credibility of Wikipedia completely. The main stream news has already become tainted and not trusted by the vast majority of the U.S. citizens as well as citizens from other countries when polled. PLEASE DO NOT FOLLOW IN THIER FOOTSTEPS...DO NOT DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.80.77 (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SENSOR should actually be a choice here, after all thats what most of the folks that are commenting to DELETE or even SPEEDY DELETE what is that? SPEEDY DELETE,is that like "hurry up get rid of it quick" why? What's the big deal, it's not as though we live our lives from everything that we read here, we are not talking about adding something to the Constitution or the Bible and Wikipedia has the right to modify, change, add anything they like at any time so why not just leave it alone and allow the current association to be made since there are many people who believe that very thing. That there is a strong tie between Obama and Socialism, it's not some secret, if you think it is well, cats's out of the bag. REDISTRIBUTION or wealth is Socialist period and Obama, Biden. Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and a host of others in the current administration state publicly that they not only think redistribution of weath is a good thing, they support and promote it in there legslation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.80.77 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This topic is separate from the general workings of the Obama 2012 campaign. The article references an attempt to link a historical meme with a current political push. That linkage, or lack thereof, is separate from the Obama campaign's statements about the President, his record, etc., all of which are suitable for inclusion in the campaign article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.176.235.154 (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SENSOR SHOULD BE A CHOICE SENSOR should actually be a choice here, after all that’s what most of the folks that are commenting to DELETE or even SPEEDY DELETE what is that? SPEEDY DELETE, is that like "hurry up get rid of it quick" why? What's the big deal, it's not as though we live our lives from everything that we read here, we are not talking about adding something to the Constitution or the Bible and Wikipedia has the right to modify, change, add anything they like at any time so why not just leave it alone and allow the current association to be made since there are many people who believe that very thing. That there is a strong tie between Obama and Socialism, it's not some secret, if you think it is well, cats’ out of the bag. REDISTRIBUTION of wealth is Socialist period and Obama, Biden. Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and a host of others in the current administration state publicly that they not only think redistribution of wealth is a good thing, they support and promote it in there legislation. (New here so please accept my appoligies for the report, wanted to add signature) John.ryff (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy DeleteWe at wikipedia cannot allow any hint of socialism linked to Barack Obama, a great and magnificent president. It is the duty of Wikipedia to maintain left wing bias (per a systemic bias of white, mostly left wing young authors). It would not be in our best interest to keep any article that induces negative thoughts about the Mighty Barack Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.49.73 (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: The "Forward" slogan for the Obama/Biden 2012 campaign appears to be factual as does the use of the word "Forward" in Communist or Marxist-Socialist publications today and in the past, ergo inclusion within Wikipedia is justified and exclusion/sensorship or removal would appear to be politically motivated and go against the principles of freedom of speech which Wikipedia promotes. If this information were factually incorrect, removal would be justified.
  • KEEP all information related to FORWARD as it is current and a relevant discussion.; If you delete this slogan, then that would set the precedent to delete all campaign slogans of any type, and there are many Wiki entries. That's censorship. Keep Wikipedia about fact and not political opinion.Halin805 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)— Halin805 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Speedy Delete no relevance, no connection, no citation to make genuine connections, just random connections of arbitrary words to create a link for another political campaign. John Kerry V George W Bush "Flip-flopping" primarily because most of the arguments for keeping state that obama is a socialist as a means at making him look bad means that it violates WP:NPOV and sadly it cannot be salvaged. Jarunasax (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)— Jarunasax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP Wikipedia is supposed to be FREE speech, without political manipulation. Don't let the far-left silence the truth because they simply do not like it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.79.204.118 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Controversy over this slogan has made it notable on its own, unlike most campaign slogans. Vegasprof (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move - A (referenced) discussion on the use of the word "Forward" as a political slogan would be appropriate. Use in the Obama campaign and its implications (or lack thereof) could be discussed, but its use in the Obama campaign as the subject of an entire article is too narrow. No speedy delete, and no keep, and no left or right wing rants. PAR (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - part of a particularly obvious effort to tie a single word in the English language, the state motto of Scott Walker's own Wisconsin among other things, to eviallll commynism, and thus to smear the Eisenhower Republican Obama as a commie. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep At first blush, I leaned toward deleting this, but it has indeed taken on a life of its own making it, for the moment, notable. Should the subject fizzle out, or the campaign not push this aspect any further, the question of deletion can be revisited.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 17:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or delete without prejudice - political wranglings aside, the topic is article-worthy, but the article as it stands is absurdly useless. Stubs are fine when an article is being started, but not when they are high visibility and used for political points. --B (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP BECAUSE OF PROMINENT NOTE BY NOTABLE RIGHT-WING NEWS AGGREGATOR DRUDGE REPORT ("WIKIPEDIA mulls deleting entry on Obama-Biden slogan...") --34C34C (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)— 34C34C (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP - I'm unsure why there's such a quick move to delete in this case when many private citizens have had such a hard time removing disparraging content they've "discovered" about themselves on wiki. This move to delete, or even suggest deletion, reeks of bias and only confirms suspicions about the validity and/or truthfulness of the articles on wikipaedia. Just because content may be offensive to some is not an excuse to censor it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.134.37.3 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 May 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I am seeing references to this slogan all over the news and whether it is stays the major slogan of a political campaign or not, the history of this slogan and the choice of it is notewothy. Deleting this would hide an important context of the slogan and its history. Its as if a major campaign chose the slogan Arbeit macht frei and we deleted the article showing how it was previously used. I came here specifically to get info on previous use of this slogan after reading about it in the news and was shocked that some are attempting to delete it. SHAME! 216.178.108.235 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Calm Down Section Break (Full Protection)

  • Comment. Please can we have a cup of coffee and relax. There's no chance of this discussion being closed early - there are too many editors commenting, and too many varied opinions. But please remember, the Articles for Deletion process is driven by consensus, not a count of the votes for Keep vs Delete vs whatever. If you believe this should be kept (or deleted), please make a reasoned statement saying why. Linking that reason to Wikipedia's policies is useful as well. Reasons that don't apply policies are less likely to be persuasive. Copy-pasting previous responses will be even less persuasive. This is intended to be a debate, so debate the article and the subject on the merits please. Thank you. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tea sounds good. There is no relevant modern controversy that exist the only controversy is the original paper having most of it's editors arrested in the 1800's there is no current relevance.Jarunasax (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Based solely on the choice of "Forward" by President Obama dn his campaign, the phrase "Forward" is now becoming a meme. References are appearing across media today, and it is a slogan which has clearly become a touchstone for political, cultural, and media/internet rights debate. If this entry succumbs then we should probably clean out the other 10% of Wikipedia entries which have much less visibility and impact. Floyddabarber (talk)Floyddabarber 18:29 2 May 2012 (UTC) — Floyddabarber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Do Not Delete Isn't it ironic that people are trying to politically censor the democratic party's campaign slogan. How embarrassingly undemocratic of the democrats. Let the people know the facts so they can represent the democracy with their votes. All Americans should be against censorship, stop putting your party above the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.70.222.31 (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing worth merging here, either; and we need to keep an eye on the SPA's. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you take out the SPAs and unsigned comments, you're pretty much left with a bunch of experienced editors agreeing that this is an utterly absurd debate to be having.JoelWhy (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- political spam, utterly non-notable. Same goes for any slogan, any party, any campaign, any country. Appalled. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to 2012 election campaign page, where it can have a section, including the negative information and links to socialism etc. neither "Hope and change" or "Yes we can" have standalone pages, and both were widely covered. Additionally Yes we can has the same linkage ("si se puede") so is almost a perfect analogue Gaijin42 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This article points to other stand-a-lone Wikipedia pages for "forward" in other languages. For example, Russian (Vpered), Italian (Aventi!) and Hebrew (Kadima). Are we to have meaningful articles on "Forward!" in a good handful of languages EXCEPT english? I think that would NOT be wise, and hope you keep this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CWNpuppy (talk • contribs) 18:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC) — CWNpuppy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • DELETE This should be incorporated into a general Obama-Biden 2012 Campaign article. If and when this gets important/significant enough to significantly affect the campaign during the course of the election season, it would be appropriate to create a special article for it. Currently fails WP:GNG. Tmfs10 (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)— Tmfs10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • KEEP Such a sudden move to remove this reeks of bias and merely serves to confirm the perception about the reliability and accuracy of articles on Wikipaedia. Given that this wiki article on Rick Santorum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(neologism)#Reception_and_political_impact) contains a personally motivated attack by Dan Savage, where is the outcry to remove this? Is "that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."[8][15] newsworthy, whereas the Obama Administration choosing a campaign slogon traditionally associated with socialism is not? The fact that we're even having this discussion speaks to the skewed, partisan nature of wikipaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.134.37.3 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete WP:NOT Crystal ball. It can always be added later, IF it actually become notable. The Determinator p t c 18:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge the entire sentence into the main campaign article). Rather think the nomination and what BDD, Peacock, CapMan07008, and others said sums it up pretty well. Thing isn't really notable by itself, doesn't have much of anything to say about it, and even if there might wind up something about it later, crystal ball and all that and there's a main article where it would be better said anyway, etc. — Isarra ༆ 18:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • After much consideration, and reading through the legitimate (read: not sock/meatpuppet) comments, I believe this article should be kept, but moved, per User:PAR above. In my opinion, the use of the word "Forward" as a political slogan merits an article. However, Pres. Obama's reelection campaign's use of it should only be a portion of that article. Furthermore, deleting this article outright would be an embarrassment to the project, and further reinforce stereotypes about who we are and what we're about, and while that's not the primary consideration here, it's not nothing either. LHM 18:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Article. The use of "Forward" by Obama's campaign will naturally make people look at where it has been used before. The Hitler Youth having a marching song, "Forward, Forward", and he Maoists using the phrase, "Forward" in their campaign to overthrow the Nationalists in 1949 is certainly interesting in a historical context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigedlb (talk • contribs) 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE I don't see what makes this encyclopedic. There's barely any information on the article anyways. If it becomes something that actually warrants an article in an encyclopedia, then bring it back, but for now delete it.Allemannster (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, belongs in article about the campaign, not standing alone. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nothing to this article, and its entire single sentence stating the slogan exists can be comfortably placed in the main 2012 campaign article. I wasn't contributing heavily back in 2008, but I guess nonsense like this crops up every four years. No major coverage in reliable secondary sources to flesh this out beyond some silly partisan bickering. —Torchiest talkedits 19:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NEO, hell it's one single line you get more in a dictionary. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last three "delete" recommendations have cited as their primary reason, a paucity of current content. This is not a valid argument, given that the article previously had much more content, but was pared to this single sentence, and then fully protected. LHM 19:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The controversy over this slogan makes it notable and historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markcronan (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any media coverage of this "controversy"? West Eddy (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator – On 17:12, 2 May 2012‎ (UTC) the article was placed under full protection, under which no editors except for Wikipedia administrators can contribute to the article. The full protection expires on 17:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC): here's the diff page. This discussion may need to be extended, because it may not be equitable to disallow editors to make improvements to an article while it's being discussed for deletion. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Here are more reliable sources comprised of significant coverage that qualify the notability of the topic, and can be used to expand/improve the article once it is editable by Wikipedia editors other than Wikipedia administrators:
  • Condon, Stephanie (April 30, 2012). "Obama's 2012 campaign pitch: "Forward"". CBS News. Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
  • Associated Press (April 30, 2012). "Obama Unveils New Campaign Slogan: 'Forward'". U.S.News & World Report. Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 19:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those links discuss briefly what was chosen for the 2012 slogan ("forward") before going to discussion of the 2012 campaign itself and its message. We are talking about creating an article on the slogan itself, and other than some whining from non-notable partisans about how it reflects on traditional socialist usage of the word "forward", there is nothing out there providing in-depth coverage about the slogan in its own right. Sources that make mention of what slogan is chosen for a national campaign is a part of routine election coverage, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps. My read is that those articles talk more about what the campaign is doing and how it is positioning itself going into the Gen'l Election rather than what the slogan is (or may yet be). I'm still not seeing why this would not be better as part of the campaign article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards Delete: At the moment, it consists of one sentence. And not all slogans are really article-worthy. If someone can put in verifiable info that can show notability (thought that will probably only come well after the election -- the reason that "it's the economy, stupid" is notable and, say "Don't change horses in mid-stream" isn't is that the former was memorable to be quoted long after the election in question in a context that calls back to the election) then I'd be willing to change my vote. Pat Payne (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The page is currently fully protected, in which only Wikipedia administrators can contribute to it. This is likely a factor why the article is currently very short as of the time of this post. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOVE After reading the article and the talk page comments, it seems pretty clear that there is nothing noteworthy about 'Forward' as a campaign slogan, yet. As of this writing the previous campaign slogan 'Hope' does not have its own dedicated wikipedia page. This may be better served as an addition to Barack Obama as this slogan is not discussed in the section labeled '2012 presidential campaign'. Notably, 'Hope' is discussed in that pages '2008 presidential campaign' section. It's my opinion that this page should be deleted and integrated as a side note on appropriate pages.
  • Have you looked at Forward the disambiguation page for the word? You can see that there are many other pages that use forward in different ways, but those pages are usually for when the word Forward is the proper name for a position, book, or political party. Not just a slogan. You may be right to suggest a Forward (Slogan) page. However, this article is built specifically with (Obama-Biden Camaiphn Slogan) built into it. It is overly specific to keep as a generic landing point for general knowledge of the use of the word. Plus, citation would be needed for your claims. MichaelJPierce (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012) or Delete. There's nothing to say about this slogan yet beyond 'it exists'. Yes, we have articles on some other political slogans, but those are the ones which demonstrated long-term notability; this one hasn't yet. (I note that we don't have articles on the slogans of Mitt Romney or any of the other candidates, either. Let's keep it that way.) Robofish (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dear god it's a damn sentence! Not an article! It fails WP:NOTNEWS as well! I had no idea that an AFD that otherwise should have been a clear delete would get hounded by a bunch of off site users who just need to keep it for pollitical reasons. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As indicated in other posts, there are other articles focusing on prior campaign slogans. While some may not like the prior political connotations of the term "Forward", that should not be the basis for interfering with an article that naturally evolve in breadth and depth as a vast number of Wikipedia articles do. Twren1000 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Minimal and tangential mention in reliable sources. No evidence of notability except among idiot-fringe political bloggers and opinion-page commentators who are merely engaging in election-year silliness. Very doubtful that the topic will have lasting significance. Also WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:COATRACK. Very disturbed by the off-line canvassing on multiple sites and obvious duplicate "keep" !votes. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Boy, what a mess THIS is... I hate when deletion discussions boil over into the real world. Anyway, should be obvious per WP:NOTNEWS, lack of independent, reliable sources (other than those stating that the slogan exists), and the fact it was already being used as a WP:COATRACK. Easily could be covered by a line or two in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Of course, putting nothing past the insanity of American politics, if this becomes a huge campaign issue, and multiple independent sources cover it, the article could be re-created. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 23:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: in the four years we've been confronted by King Obama, I have yet to hear the 'Truth', unless he was unaware he was being 'overheard'... Just another 'slogan' and means even less than moveon dot org or msLSD's slogans of 'lean forward'.. Delete It!User:LGReedLandis ☡ 02.05.12 —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete – The concept itself is not of any independent notability; it fails WP:GNG and does not measure up to a WP:1E. Any encyclopedic information belongs in the campaign article, but because the title is neither well-formatted per MOS, nor a highly plausible search term, there should be no redirect. JFHJr (㊟) 02:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need for a redirect. "Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)" is hardly a likely search term. There isn't enough for an independent article; the source provided does not actually discuss the slogan at all, and the "controversy" sources predate Obama/Biden's use: WP:SYN applies. Huon (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of sources

Significant coverage
Beyond passing mentions, but not quite significant coverage
Passing mentions

Continuation of comments

  • Redirect (to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012) or Delete. Per Robofish, per WP:NOTNEWS, and in opposition to using Wikipedia as part of the US 2012 presidential campaign noise machine. Edison (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Yaksar. It's just to early to tell what role the slogan will play in the campaign at this point. --Soman (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 or Delete. Thousands of factoids spew forth during political campaigns and are covered by the media. We do not indiscriminately create separate articles for all of them. --NeilN talk to me 23:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. CityOfSilver 23:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the current campaign article. Though this should have at least a sentence or two over there, if not a whole paragraph, considering its coverage. SilverserenC 00:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested; splitting this into an article is absurd overcoverage DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Hot Stop and Yaksar — we have no way to guarantee that this slogan will be remembered after Obama leaves the White House, while a slogan that really is remembered half a century later doesn't have its own article. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation. The subject itself appears to be notable, and a reasonable candidate for an article. Even though articles do not exist for most other political, advertising, or other slogans, a case can be made that this subject is significant, encyclopedic, and worthy of it own article. If we can get over the political issues, some advertising slogans are campaigns and the slogans that go with them are surely notable subjects. This may or may not be such a case. However, neither the present sub-stub, or any prior version, makes that case and in prior versions it was clearly a useless POV fork. If there were anything worth saving that would balance in favor of saving and improving the article. However, there is currently nothing to save, and attempts so far to expand the article have simply repeated partisan attacks on Obama. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to obama presidential campaign, with a #link to a section covering the slogan. No need for a separate article now. --KarlB (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:THISISNTATEAPARTYBLOG. Moronic POV-pushing drivel... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to main campaign article. There isn't yet really enough reliably sourced, neutral material on this subject. We don't need a separate article to cover every single partisan political accusation. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who clicks on a link to Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan), especially those on websites discussing the debate over this article. Redirects are cheap. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge/Delete/whatever This is POV drivel and doesn't need a separate article except to push POV. Read what Wikidemon wrote, there is a case to be made in the future, but that isn't now. Just for my own statement, I like Ike should be separate and probably has material. :) SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Redirect As of yet, I don't see that there is enough content or controversy to dedicate an article to this slogan. I think we should include the slogan and its criticism in the the 2012 campaign article. Morphh (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect; I don't doubt that lots of sources have mentioned the campaign slogan (which is, after all, the point of a slogan) but I think it would be better to redirect to our existing article about the campaign. bobrayner (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 – Slogan, which already covers the topic. While this topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources which qualifies it as a stand-alone article, it's not necessarily necessary to have one. No prejudice toward recreation if the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article becomes increasingly lengthy. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 – Slogan, Hard to say what its value is. Its import is most likely as an example of Republican reach, past the much more visible MSNBC "Lean Forward" campaign, skipping the Jewish Daily Forward, back to 19th Century German publications. It is interesting as part of the bizarre idea that Obama is a socialist, but aside from that, much ado about not very much. Now if Santorum had gotten the nomination, he could run on "backwards" and then it would be interesting. Tedperl (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Slogan. Campaign slogans are two a penny (hmm, didn't Nixon use "Forward" too? Dirty commie!) and really do not justify their own articles; they are part of an overall campaign, not notable topics in their own right. Even Margaret Thatcher's legendary "Labour Isn't Working" slogan doesn't have its own article, nor should it. Prioryman (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Delete or Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012#Slogan. Not every little slogan needs an article dedicated to it. Maybe someday enough controversy/success/failure/whatever will surround the term to warrant it, but right now it is too soon. Sergecross73 msg me 22:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is entirely politically motivated. Regardless of whether the statement is true, the article exists solely to connect the Obama campaign to European Socialism and Communism by way of the disambiguation page. It's a weasely approach by Conservative American Liberalists. Aside from that, though the whole article is a sentence long and totally unnecessary as a stand-alone entry. If anything, it belongs to the "Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012" page, in which, I might point out, it already resides. Further, on the campaign page, the small section about the slogan is more extensively cited, so not only is this the article for deletion just unnecessary, it's of poorer quality than the sub-category on the campaign page. --User talk:Rexcactorum 17:51, 3 May 2012 (CST)
  • Merge & Redirect; the subject of the article in question does not appear to be independently notable per WP:NN, furthermore may I refer to WP:NOTNEWS. That being said it is related to the Obama presidential campaign, and should be redirected to that article, as suggested by others above. In its place a disambiguous page should be left in its place as other uses of the word forward that may be notable do exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With Extreme Prejudice: POV-pushing nonsense. Wikipedia is not a right-wing, conservative, tea-party, what-the-fuck-ever blog. I also encourage anyone participating in this AfD to read this BS request made by an IP on the article's talk page, to get an idea of what kind of people are looking to "contribute" to this farce. If we're going to include any sort of information about the Obama-Biden slogan, it should be done on the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article. -waywardhorizons (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to the "redirect"-!voters: If you allow this as a redirect (which, under all other circumstances, would be judged "unlikely searchterm"), then you will get a host of redirects that are far pointier. Forward (that socialist nigniac's and his white buttboy's fascist slogan)... and all sorts of stuff. So... just delete it, salt it, and nuke anything else that comes its way. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects are also picked up by Google and other search engines- and search terms combining these words aren't at all unreasonable for information about the term (although this is a weak argument- we shouldn't care much about what other people on the internet happen to be doing). It also isn't unreasonable if someone is looking in our search bar for this slogan and once they type in "Forward" they'll then see as an option what they are looking for. So in the sense that matters this isn't that unlikely as a search term, and searches are cheap. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing pointy about leaving a redirect. It is purely descriptive, and it will certainly calm at least some of the censorship conspiracy nuts (I know, I know, wishful thinking.) to see that it's being covered, just not in its own article. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt This has been a train wreck from the beginning. At most, a brief mention in the main 2012 Obama campaign article would be sufficient. Do not redirect. Delete and salt. Safiel (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt This is not even a real issue, and only covered by any real journalist to make fun of the paranoia. Also, if you look at the "keep" votes, they are almost all sing purpose accounts or anon IPs. Wiki is getting 'Freeped' and trying to force this idiocy upon everyone. Dave Dial (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's fairly clear from the vitriol of several of the recent "delete" recommendations, that the political motivation of neither side is pure. That is why I recommended something of a middle route above, but it has gotten lost in the noise. Why not just move the page to Forward (slogan) or something similar, and include the Obama-Biden use as part of that? It's not like this word being used as a slogan is unprecedented, and a decent article could most likely be formed around the general use of it as a slogan. LHM 06:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of comments (2)

Research for the closing Administrator. The "Forward" slogan currently appears on the pages below. 5Q5 (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Forward_(Obama–Biden_campaign_slogan)&oldid=1172666192"