654:"Blue Wave" is a term, and phenomenon (potential, worked towards or real) which has received significant coverage this year, outside the US as well as inside (I'm in Australia, and there were frequent references to it in discussions and reports about the US elections - and one of the existing references in this article is from the UK). The fact that there isn't an article about the blue wave in 2006 does not seem a valid reason to delete this article - although it might be possible to revise the article to "Blue Wave (US elections)", and have subsections on 2018, 2006, etc. (I also find coverage of "Blue Wave (of) 2006", and there is no mention of the term at all in the
332:. Following the elections, it seems there are arguments on both sides of United States politics that there was either a "wave" or not one. This can never be determined except for possibly by scholars in some time. However, the term "blue wave" still is mostly discussed as the "potential" of the Democratic party making huge gains during the election. This is highly subjective and seems to not be the case.
270:
I've seen this term frequently used and described in media sources over the past few months. I'm really not seeing how
Crystal applies here, given the expansive coverage before the midterm. Even if Republicans win all 435 House seats (a laughable proposition), it still doesn't change the pre-existing
327:
The way I interpreted this article was that it was created out of the potential that a "wave" of
Democratic politicians would be elected. That is also how I read it in the media, not being portrayed necesarily as a "movement" but the "potential" of Democrats achieving a majority, winning in
711:. It's a term that was generally used to describe the desired outcome in those election for the US Democrat party, and has no notability independent of those elections. People may wish to search it in future to see what articles from the pre-election period were talking about.
293:
I've looked through the sources, and I think this meets notability requirements. The amounts of sources proposing a "blue wave" are massive, and even now there is wide discussion about what happened. One CNN article is calling the event a
732:
for reasons stated by FOARP. "Blue wave" was a descriptive term for a victory by one of the parties in the election, e.g., "Will there be a 'blue wave?'" Nicknames don't usually merit their own separate articles.
213:
361:
a prediction, rather than a prediction in and of itself. This prediction was heavily prominent during the 2018 midterm cycle; the very fact that its still being discussed, debated and disputed indicates its
391:
248:. Should not have been originally created and it is debatable of whether this will be notable given the results being announced. Also, there has not been a history of any other "wave" articles. ----
302:. There was some concerns about WP:Crystal, but I don't think the policy applies: the article does not make a prediction, but describes a prediction made by numerous third parties.
166:
207:
371:
658:
article.) There's a
Category of "American political catchphrases" (with 119 pages), so why not add this one? It certainly exists, and has significant coverage.
113:
98:
295:
518:
of its own, it's just an aspect of the election itself. We didn't create or maintain or keep "Blue Wave of 2006" as a separate article from the
173:
502:. The problem here isn't the question of whether the election results represented a "blue wave" happening or not — the problem is that
139:
134:
337:
143:
543:
126:
93:
86:
17:
228:
333:
328:
landslides, being part of a huge "wave", etc. Since this article was created before the election, most of its content seems
299:
195:
729:
708:
655:
631:
596:
547:
519:
511:
53:
107:
103:
676:
506:
of whether it happened or not, none of the content really demonstrates a reason why "Blue Wave 2018" would need a
759:
307:
276:
40:
189:
422:
742:
720:
697:
667:
646:
610:
587:
490:
457:
429:
403:
383:
352:
311:
280:
261:
185:
68:
663:
755:
329:
245:
36:
542:. And by the same token, we never created an article about "Orange Crush" as a campaign mantra in the
235:
322:
303:
272:
639:
607:
416:
221:
130:
738:
484:
399:
379:
346:
298:
rather than a blue wave, while another article by the Hill indicates that there was a countering
255:
659:
627:
583:
527:
452:
82:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
754:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
534:
that happens to pop up in the current news cycle, it's to create and maintain articles about
271:
coverage. (I'll make a formal vote once I've had a better chance to look over the sourcing).
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
600:
437:
well-documented. I don't like the argument that it didn't happen, because we still have the
201:
716:
335:
688:
623:
604:
539:
122:
74:
59:
734:
478:
395:
375:
340:
249:
579:
468:
443:
160:
635:
574:
the election results, not just a descriptive phrase about one party's prospects
474:
438:
712:
562:
in its own right. JobsNotMobs is not the same thing: that's an actual
750:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
530:: our job is not to create or maintain an article about every
526:
difference between the 2018 and 2006 blue waves runs afoul of
679:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
392:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
630:. The topic is/can be covered in encylopedic fashion at
156:
152:
148:
220:
538:
that people will still be looking for articles about
685:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
762:). No further edits should be made to this page.
595:- can be fully replaced by a single sentence in
558:the use of "Orange Crush" in that election as a
441:article even though Republicans lost the House.
390:Note: This discussion has been included in the
370:Note: This discussion has been included in the
550:, but the link is to the main election article
477:does not seem very notable or encyclopedic.----
603:this concept deserves in an encyclopedia. --
372:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
234:
8:
114:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
638:too if ideological parity is desired.) —
389:
369:
473:This may have to be looked at as well.
554:, rather than to a standalone article
546:either — we do list it as an entry on
56:. Content may be merged from history.
7:
566:that was brought up as a campaign
24:
99:Introduction to deletion process
544:Canadian federal election, 2011
357:I believe that this article is
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
743:23:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
730:United States elections, 2018
721:08:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
709:United States elections, 2018
698:07:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
668:19:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
656:United States elections, 2006
647:03:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
632:United States elections, 2018
597:United States elections, 2018
548:Orange Crush (disambiguation)
520:United States elections, 2006
512:United States elections, 2018
491:00:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
414:Misnomer; it never happened.
69:16:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
54:United States elections, 2018
611:13:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
588:23:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
458:21:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
430:18:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
404:06:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
384:06:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
353:21:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
312:21:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
281:05:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
262:04:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
89:(AfD)? Read these primers!
779:
752:Please do not modify it.
514:. It's not a standalone
32:Please do not modify it.
599:, which is all the due
578:the election results.
87:Articles for deletion
540:ten years from now
700:
696:
406:
386:
104:Guide to deletion
94:How to contribute
67:
770:
695:
693:
686:
684:
682:
680:
644:
487:
472:
455:
451:
449:
446:
428:
425:
419:
349:
326:
258:
239:
238:
224:
176:
164:
146:
84:
66:
64:
57:
34:
778:
777:
773:
772:
771:
769:
768:
767:
766:
760:deletion review
701:
689:
687:
675:
673:
640:
485:
466:
453:
447:
444:
442:
423:
417:
415:
347:
323:Spirit of Eagle
320:
304:Spirit of Eagle
273:Spirit of Eagle
256:
181:
172:
137:
121:
118:
81:
78:
60:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
776:
774:
765:
764:
746:
745:
723:
683:
672:
671:
670:
649:
624:User:Netoholic
613:
590:
496:
495:
494:
493:
461:
460:
432:
418:Chris Troutman
408:
407:
387:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
330:WP:CRYSTALBALL
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
284:
283:
246:WP:CRYSTALBALL
242:
241:
178:
123:Blue Wave 2018
117:
116:
111:
101:
96:
79:
77:
75:Blue Wave 2018
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
775:
763:
761:
757:
753:
748:
747:
744:
740:
736:
731:
727:
724:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
703:
702:
699:
694:
692:
681:
678:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
650:
648:
645:
643:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
614:
612:
609:
606:
602:
598:
594:
591:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:article from
509:
505:
501:
498:
497:
492:
488:
482:
481:
476:
470:
465:
464:
463:
462:
459:
456:
450:
440:
436:
433:
431:
426:
420:
413:
410:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
388:
385:
381:
377:
373:
368:
360:
356:
355:
354:
350:
344:
343:
338:
336:
334:
331:
324:
319:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
282:
278:
274:
269:
266:
265:
264:
263:
259:
253:
252:
247:
237:
233:
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
187:
184:
183:Find sources:
179:
175:
171:
168:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
119:
115:
112:
109:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
91:
90:
88:
83:
76:
73:
71:
70:
65:
63:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
751:
749:
725:
704:
690:
674:
660:RebeccaGreen
651:
641:
619:
615:
592:
575:
571:
570:intended to
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
535:
531:
523:
515:
507:
503:
499:
479:
434:
411:
358:
341:
296:Rainbow wave
267:
250:
243:
231:
225:
217:
210:
204:
198:
192:
182:
169:
80:
61:
49:
47:
31:
28:
636:JobsNotMobs
634:. (Delete
475:JobsNotMobs
439:JobsNotMobs
208:free images
691:Sandstein
628:WP:NOTNEWS
528:WP:NOTNEWS
522:, and the
504:regardless
62:Sandstein
756:talk page
642:AjaxSmack
605:Netoholic
601:WP:WEIGHT
572:influence
37:talk page
758:or in a
735:Levivich
726:Redirect
705:Redirect
677:Relisted
508:separate
480:ZiaLater
396:Bakazaka
376:Bakazaka
362:notable.
342:ZiaLater
300:red wave
251:ZiaLater
167:View log
108:glossary
50:redirect
39:or in a
580:Bearcat
564:concept
469:Wumbolo
214:WP refs
202:scholar
140:protect
135:history
85:New to
616:Delete
593:Delete
552:itself
536:things
532:phrase
500:Delete
448:umbolo
412:Delete
186:Google
144:delete
713:FOARP
620:Merge
568:issue
560:thing
556:about
516:thing
359:about
229:JSTOR
190:books
174:Stats
161:views
153:watch
149:links
16:<
739:talk
717:talk
664:talk
652:Keep
626:and
622:per
584:talk
524:only
486:talk
435:Keep
424:talk
400:talk
380:talk
348:talk
339:----
308:talk
277:talk
268:Keep
257:talk
244:Per
222:FENS
196:news
157:logs
131:talk
127:edit
728:to
707:to
454:^^^
236:TWL
165:– (
52:to
741:)
719:)
666:)
586:)
576:in
489:)
402:)
394:.
382:)
374:.
351:)
310:)
279:)
260:)
216:)
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
737:(
715:(
662:(
618:/
608:@
582:(
483:(
471::
467:@
445:w
427:)
421:(
398:(
378:(
345:(
325::
321:@
306:(
275:(
254:(
240:)
232:·
226:·
218:·
211:·
205:·
199:·
193:·
188:(
180:(
177:)
170:·
163:)
125:(
110:)
106:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.