85:. The arguments presented for deletion of this are not well made. The CSD criterion for attack pages does not apply here, since it is extremely difficult to argue that a page considering, with clear third-party media referencing, the proceedings of an election campaign, can be designed only to attack. The BLP line is just a cheap attempt to circumvent a proper discussion: we're talking about two prominent politicians in a public domain fair-game election fight, not some libellous mal-reporting. The more persuasive class of deletion argument is that this is just an amusing phrase that may burn brightly for a few days, but will then be forgotten -- since this would be an indication of non-notability in encyclopedic terms (i.e. in-line with WP policy).
1324:, arguments that it "has been covered" are not arguments that the phrase is worthy of an article; every turn of phrase in a Presidential election is to some extent covered, and no-one is proposing "I wish I could use my middle name" as an article, nor should they. Just because the latter was used, and was reported on does not mean that we need an article, nor that, since we have an article, we need to "explain" the context, nor since we need to "explain" the context does some partisan have an opportunity to WP:COATRACK on a rehash of birtherism. The phrase does not really exist outside of recent Obama campaign and surrogate promoters, the existence of the article is pure political promotion,
950:
575:& referenced well enough to merit inclusion. I've removed the partisan language, made the first reference go to the CNN article on its importance among the political neologisms of 2012, and synthesized a section addressing its coinage with the earliest uses of it, pre-dating Obama's recent use. Included is a reference to a quote of a listserv post by Ben Zimmer, Chair of American Dialect Society's New Words Committee on its coinage in April 2011.
1116:
widely used in differing contexts. We shouldn't have articles about "binders full of women" or "bitter clingers" or "Obamanomics" or any other political catchphrase that doesn't have any real notability. If we start to see it in language outside the context of simply making fun of Mitt Romney in the context of a tight political election, that would be a different matter. It's suitable for wiktionary or nothing at this point.
31:
2285:
2261:
2248:
2043:. I'm sorry, but anyone who claims this thing is in such widespread usage that it has entered the general public discourse is either a) lying or b) insulated in a world of the Democratic Underground, MoveOn, and Mother Jones. It is a minor political neologism used in political ads and stump speeches, nothing more.
2077:"TOTUS" never achieved anything resembling widespread media coverage. There's no comparison to "Romnesia". Pretending that it's known only to those who exclusively read left-wing media is absurd. It's a staple of the President's stump speech. Everybody who looks at election coverage knows about "Romnesia". —
1115:
If you have evidence of "single-handedly reframed the picture of who Romney is" in a neutral point of view, then please provide it - actual evidence that it changed the trajectory of the election itself or election strategy by the parties in any manner. As it is, it's a One Event joke, not something
99:
Therefore, I do not find that a rough consensus has been demonstrated for deletion. There are numerous suggestions of redirecting and/or merging to a suitable target and this seems a reasonable disposition given the debate. By way of providing an immediately actionable result, I'll redirect to what I
88:
The keep arguments are often not a great deal better, as mere references to Google hits do not establish anything other than temporary interest in a topic since we are still so close to the event in question. It is hard to give a great deal of weight to keep arguments asserting the historic nature of
2514:, very selectively, to an appropriate campaign article. This is one of dozens of similar political memes generated by the overheated political and media atmosphere surrounding the US presidential elections. It stands to be mentioned in the context of the campaign, but as a word it very likely fails
1727:
Even granting your premise that bad faith nominations should be discarded, you have used the other nomination to deduce that this one is in bad faith too. Can you use the other one to deduce that all of Arzel's
Knowledge edits are in bad faith? And anyway I don't grant your premise, because you're
1409:
Not just because of the widespread notability of the phrase, which should be enough, but also because of the partisan "reasoning" being applied to argue for its deletion (it's silly, it's crazy, it's an attack, let's delete it for now and check back after the election, etc). Something doesn't become
1075:
It's been used for a couple of days. Wiki, for very good reasons, it's a depository for every meme that pops up. If
Romnesia enters the lexicon rather than just being a joke for a few days, the article can be recreated. Doing stuff like this and we'll have pages for Obamaitis and Obambi and every
917:
Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the
Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books
1624:
The editor made it perfectly clear that he wants it deleted because he's a Romney sycophant. It's a bad-faith nomination, so you can't argue that it's not also about the editor. The other article was kept due to no consensus, and this one might end up that way too. If the editor had made good-faith
1427:
Not just because of the non notability of the phrase, which should be enough, but also because of the partisan "reasoning" being applied to argue for its retention (it's news, it's not crazy, it's not an attack, let's keep it for now and check back after the election, etc). Something doesn't become
574:
In the four days since the prior comment indicating 1M Google results, the term now has risen to over 4.9M Google results, including hundreds of image results and dozens of videos. Importance is no longer debatable. The only thing in question is whether the WP material is neutral and researched
407:
as simply not notable, since covering every catchphrase a campaign uses would be excessive; the nominator's objections seem a bit spurious, as the article is about Obama's use of the word. (As covered in thousands of news articles; are they all attacking Romney for political purposes? No, they're
1447:
Not a newly made up word (see article). Not being used solely to attack a person (use has extended to Ryan and the entire base of their supporters). Not being used solely for political purposes (has become a more general term, referring to any politically-motivated "forgetfulness".) Also, it's
89:
a phrase that is only a few days old. However, a number of the keepers do a fair job of defending against claims of neologism (mainly that
Knowledge is clearly not being used to create the phrase itself), and thus have a WP policy basis that has not been successfully challenged, in my judgement.
337:
reference. I read it and do not think it applies. Multiple reliable sources are available. I certainly could see this being merged with a history of the 2012 presidential election instead of having its own topic, although the "Read my lips" entry certainly seems to have established political
799:
Yes, as of a few days ago, adopted as an attack phrase by a campaign, together with social media campaigns to promote its use. A note in the
Article on the Obama campaign would be appropriate, as this is a campaign strategy, but length is determined by how important this tack is to the Obama
789:
I don't see how this could be seen as an article "created in an attempt to use
Knowledge to increase usage of the term". This is a term invented by the President of the United States, and has been a major element of his stump speeches. Clearly it's not just your run-of-the-mill neologism. —
1742:
It's never "too late" to point out bad faith. Now, if he had taken the same relatively-neutral tone for that one as for this one, he might have got away with it. But he betrayed his true colors, so any politics-oriented edits he makes have to be looked at closely for potential bias.
2492:
to the article on the campaign. Possibly the funniest thing Obama has ever said in a speech, but not something that merits a stand-alone article. To our friends outside of the United States: the election is now less than two weeks away so this sort of silliness
1157:
in 1994. Obama's use of the term catapulted it into the mainstream, and it's reasonable to expect searches from people curious abut the term. The level of detail provided here would be lost were it to be merged to one of the presidential election articles.
278:) 21:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC). What was a political slogan had lasting memory and importance. We need to wait and see if Romnesia continues to grow in importance, and not merely consider deleting an article because it makes someone look bad.--
333:. And I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain things, putting knowledge in a convenient form for easy understanding. A mere list of articles without explaining things would be of limited value. Thanks for the
361:
You can really tell it is close to the election as all manner of crazy is being put forth on WP. I have never seen where a newly made up word with zero historical significance has had an article to promote the word. WP is
1345:
This article explains a very appropriate term of political hypocrisy. The definition will ensure that people in politics don't just forget their convictions and allow them to pull away from them when it is convenient.
1448:
historical in terms of Obama's use of it being a turning point in the campaign. Where else if not WP will this level of resources on the term be able to be compiled in near-real-time and then kept for later reference?
1097:
your comparison to non-substantive LOLcat memes is fallacious. 'Romnesia' is already having an impact on this election. For better or for worse it has almost single-handedly reframed the picture of who Romney is.
2060:
217:
536:
1687:. Unless he was only kidding when he said, "This is an attempt by the left to attack Mitt Romney and push the continued fictional "War on Womnen"." Not only politically biased, but also can't spell. ←
438:, but that would obviously require a good bit of pruning. Though that seems reasonable if this just fades away in a couple days as is likely...I guess we'll probably see before the AfD even closes. –
1728:
too late; once other editors have given good faith reasons to delete, their reasons ought to have some weight. A preferable solution would be to do something to Arzel that does not affect content.
1076:
subvariant of
Lolcats there is. Is anyone looking forward to the debates about whether Basement Cat (704,000 results) is more or less individually notable than Business Cat (1.4 million results)
266:
Knowledge is meant to be a tool to help explain things. Not only is the article well researched and referenced, it explains a term future generations are likely to be confused about. Examples:
1328:
and WP bars pure
Advocacy articles for good reason. That the media has reported on the Obama political strategy might mean a mention in the Campaign Articles, as a strategy, but little else.--
480:
it is already obvious that from a historical standpoint this word is going to figure as a key aspect of the 2012 presidential campaign. Doing a Google search shows that there are already
617:
So you are saying it wasn't important until it was used to attack Romney politically by Obama? Therefore it is nothing but an a political attack phrase which at most should be merged.
1684:
1293:
Not the way AfDs work. FIRST notability and criteria for inclusion established, THEN an
Article is allowed, not; write article, then wait a month to see if it becomes notable.--
2056:
2104:
2055:. "Romnesia" is down on the same level as the old Rush Limbaugh-penned "TOTUS" (Teleprompter of the United States) which was dealt with appropriately several years ago. See
170:
1390:
Essentially, an admission that your reason for wanting the article is to express your, and the Obama campaign's opinion or attack on Romney, as per WP:CSD or WP:ADVOCATE--
556:
296:
Knowledge is not a "tool to explain things". It's an encyclopedia for notable articles. For your second argument, if you say that we need to wait, you should read
211:
481:
1625:
nominations based on wikipedia policy rather than on the "I don't like it because it attacks my guy" principle, his odds of succeeding might have been better. ←
40:
502:
Google hits are not an argument considered on an AfD page on
Notability. Neither "historical" nor "key" can in any way be construed as "obvious", WP:CRYSTAL.--
2095:
where we can leave a small mention of it. Seems like a nice alternative to deletion and this subject is blatantly inappropriate as an independent article.--
1371:
This has nothing to do with Knowledge. It's not Knowledge's mission to punish or reward people for behavior, but to serve as an encyclopedia. There is no
757:; "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Knowledge to increase usage of the term.", and per
857:
1154:
2276:
829:, obviously, as explained above. Why do those of us in the rest of the world always have to suffer such nonsense when it's election season in the US?
101:
96:
etc., which are just redirects. This seems a strong point, to me. On Knowledge, consistency of approach is a good indicator of an existing consensus.
82:
2309:
908:
922:
The term 'Romnesia' fulfills the criteria listed in the guideline. It is notable, widely used, and there are no shortage of secondary sources. --
2280:
853:
1099:
517:
485:
339:
2453:
is an essay that lays out why something that receives widespread coverage over a short period of time does not always merit an entry, and
177:
1931:
1870:
1839:
1825:
1805:
1778:
1747:
1718:
1691:
1673:
1629:
1578:
1353:
1700:
Agreed that Arzel ought to speak more neutrally. But we ought not retaliate against Arzel by keeping articles that ought not be kept.
1274:
1011:
879:
682:
2567:
1756:
I call out your bad-faith keep vote. If you cannot assume good faith then I suggest you go do something else. Now go back to your
2132:
312:
1206:
of the US elections. Not a term that is likely to have long-lasting notability, just a turn of phrase Obama used in a speech. –
2100:
435:
17:
1166:
447:
417:
2211:
1774:
You have demonstrated that you are a Romney sycophant, so you've got no business nominating these articles for deletion. ←
2008:
in context, which explain, analyze and interprete the usuage of the word Romnesia. Thus the notability criteria found in
2052:
1757:
1231:
143:
138:
338:
rhetoric as a suitable article topic. But I think it stands well on its own and contains useful research on the term.--
232:
2466:
2113:
2092:
2040:
1641:
147:
1372:
199:
2096:
1153:
This article serves dual purpose as documenting the neologism as well as the events surrounding its use. Apparently
300:. Also, "not merely consider deleting an article because it makes someone look bad" pretty much would make this an
2465:" have passed that threshold; "Romesia" has not (as yet), and likely never will. At most, this should redirect to
1006:? These are both redirects to articles about the same subject, which incidentally can mention these neologisms.
882:. The whole point of the term is to assert that Romney has forgotten his old positions. So treat this just like
2549:
2457:
is part of a policy which notes that they need some sort of lasting impact to meet our notability requirements. "
2296:
1853:
1788:
1733:
1705:
1544:
1501:
1466:
1053:
1023:
895:
516:
Now Google is showing nearly 5,000,000 results on 'Romnesia'. Obviously this term has resonated with the people.
393:
130:
69:
46:
2205:
1649:
1615:
1484:
1395:
1333:
1298:
1186:
1103:
954:
941:
813:
639:
605:
521:
507:
489:
248:
Newly made up word being used purely to attack a living person for political purposes. WP is not a dictionary
761:; "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." There are a handful of US-political neologisms (eg.:
370:
a place to promote political advocacy. If such an article is allowed then all the other stupid articles like
343:
1849:
1357:
1273:
I would Keep for now and see how this plays out long term. Worse case Merge with debate and keep redirect. --
656:
Widespread coverage of this term and its definition. Very relevant and notable, if only for the time being.
2255:
1926:
1820:
1668:
1522:
1261:
1224:
1037:
962:
927:
686:
1974:
stipulates several criteria by which we may determine if a neologism is ready for an article in Knowledge:
1814:
Crap is crap. Doesn't matter what your agenda says you're to be doing, take the time to flush the pot. --
2317:
1415:
1379:
1278:
1121:
1081:
834:
430:
This seems to have notability established now, but it still doesn't feel like it needs an article. Prefer
193:
2545:
2268:
2192:
1921:
1815:
1663:
1452:
1433:
579:
367:
65:
92:
Finally, there is some useful discussion that there are no articles on very well-known phrases such as
1998:"...when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic"
808:, giving the phrase-du-jour of the campaign prominence over and above that warranted in the article.--
2502:
2478:
2359:
2292:
2228:
2137:
1729:
1701:
1349:
1049:
1019:
891:
678:
584:
389:
317:
189:
2047:
is a neologism that is truly a part of the general public, yet it is a redirect to the actual bill.
1256:. If a year from now it's still remembered as one of the key phrases of the election, maybe then.
329:
I consider this term much like other "game changing" political phrases in the past like this entry:
2530:
2506:
2482:
2450:
2435:
2364:
2349:
2345:
2321:
2300:
2233:
2215:
2196:
2178:
2174:
2161:
2157:
2144:
2081:
2072:
2021:
1936:
1874:
1861:
1843:
1830:
1809:
1796:
1782:
1769:
1751:
1737:
1722:
1709:
1695:
1678:
1653:
1645:
1633:
1619:
1611:
1582:
1566:
1552:
1526:
1509:
1488:
1480:
1474:
1437:
1419:
1399:
1391:
1383:
1361:
1337:
1329:
1302:
1294:
1282:
1265:
1253:
1240:
1215:
1203:
1190:
1182:
1168:
1145:
1125:
1107:
1085:
1057:
1041:
1027:
989:
985:
966:
945:
937:
931:
899:
863:
838:
817:
809:
794:
784:
745:
720:
690:
665:
661:
642:
636:
626:
608:
602:
588:
568:
548:
525:
511:
503:
493:
472:
451:
421:
397:
383:
347:
324:
287:
257:
225:
112:
1867:
1836:
1802:
1775:
1744:
1715:
1688:
1626:
1575:
1518:
1257:
1211:
1164:
1033:
958:
923:
701:
As above it has entered the political lexicon, like it or not. It's of historical significance.
443:
413:
2449:
as yet another political neologism, which will be forgotten 2 weeks after the election is over.
2389:
the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy".
239:
371:
2313:
2184:
1411:
1375:
1117:
1077:
830:
801:
741:
564:
544:
468:
334:
297:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2544:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1835:
The President himself has invoked it repeatedly. Not that the President is notable, though. ←
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2431:
2337:
2188:
2117:
2048:
2017:
1449:
1429:
1141:
848:
the US; I'd almost rather see a Cialis commercial at this point. In case it's not obvious,
576:
301:
283:
275:
109:
1048:
Delete the content and install a redirect. The content can be added to the target article.
2498:
2471:
2127:
1765:
1714:
Bad-faith nominations (of which this and the other article are two) should be discarded. ←
1178:
805:
716:
702:
622:
379:
307:
253:
2518:; we may reconsider this should it turn out to have any significance after the election.
736:
at all. I do not buy that it is in any way of long lasting value - even as a neologism.
2521:
2391:
2341:
2170:
2153:
2068:
2001:
1980:
1015:
981:
657:
936:
No dent in "larger society", unless the Obama campaign bus is bigger than I thought.--
205:
2561:
2515:
2454:
2419:
2415:
2403:
2395:
2378:
2333:
2329:
2121:
2009:
1979:"To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable
1971:
1967:
1945:
1917:
1325:
1321:
1249:
1207:
1159:
758:
754:
439:
409:
363:
134:
1787:
EVERYONE should be in the business of nominating this type of crap for deletion. --
2458:
2271:, this political jargon cannot be applied widely because it can only be applied to
2152:
Notable portmanteau covered in reliable sources. A notable point in the elections.
1139:
per Collect and Anythingyouwant. Election silliness isn't always articleworthy. --
763:
737:
560:
540:
464:
1517:
There are major problems with the article but its clearly noteworthy and not new.
164:
1479:
Hard to dislike this comment for all its twisted logic. It is just so amusing. --
2427:
2272:
2242:
2078:
2013:
1563:
1003:
883:
791:
330:
279:
271:
105:
1761:
1658:
Wow! You know political affiliations of other contributors? I'd call that a
712:
618:
375:
267:
249:
2469:, as suggested by several others, but outright deletion is more appropriate.
2279:
in 11 days, then the term will most likely not be used after that. However,
2124:. This has a better chance on Know Your Meme or Urban Dictionary than here.
2064:
2044:
999:
887:
774:
93:
2227:
into campaign article. Not notable enough for its own article; neologism.
2204:
per Nouniquenames. Remember to comment on the content and not the editor.
2411:
2399:
2005:
1007:
388:
Note -- this argument for deletion is made by the nominating Wikipedian.
126:
118:
1944:
Neologism that meets the GNG. In use since 2011, popularized in 2012.
1010:
is mainly a content fork for people dissatisfied with the treatment in
769:
2398:
as her/his deletion rationale, yet s/he has failed to explain how the
463:
as something made up in one day, or an attack Non-Notable Neologism.
1610:
Please address issues/edits, not editors. This is not an argument.--
732:"political silly season word of the week" is not sufficient to meet
1662:
statistical anomally (must remember my party training and all). --
1465:
people" is an unusual defense claim. It takes guts. I like it. --
2462:
2061:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama
100:
hope may be the neutral (i.e. neither Romney nor Obama) target of
1801:
Not when said deletion is expressely pushing a partisan agenda. ←
374:(which was speedy deleted BTW) will have to be allowed as well.
2538:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
2187:
coverage of campaign soundbites by the political press. End of.
434:, though I'm not sure what to merge to. I guess it could go in
25:
1683:
I do when they make it abundantly clear. See his comments in
537:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
2383:"...when making your case or responding to others, explain
2057:
Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 16#TOTUS
1591:
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1428:
more notable over time, it never was on the front page. --
104:. Further discussion may converge on a different target. -
1410:
less notable over time, it only falls off the front page.
1316:
Cannot understand how it even got to AfD; is a clear-cut
1181:
on the Obama campaign article. Please take it up there.--
2423:
2418:? I'm asking because the article actually does fulfill
2291:
Check. This is why I think the article should be kept.
160:
156:
152:
224:
2416:
Knowledge's Notability Policy for Neologisms (WP:NEO)
1987:
about the term or concept, not books and papers that
1685:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women
1562:
Clearly notable, with wide coverage of the phrase. —
635:
it was used by Obama to attack Romney politically. --
2358:of the BLP or ATTACK policies. I'm not seeing it.
2354:Please explain how you think the article violates
1920:, purely negative and BLP ish, take your pick. --
844:How do you think we feel having to put up with it
773:) that are notable - this one is not one of them.
331:http://en.wikipedia.org/Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes
72:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2552:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2258:: the article gives more than just a definition
2245:established with multiple secondary references,
1032:So are you advocating deletion or a redirect? --
268:http://en.wikipedia.org/Tippecanoe_and_Tyler_too
1574:. Bad-faith nomination by a Romney supporter. ←
1500:election year sillyness. needs to go now. --
557:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
436:List of political catch phrases#United States
238:
8:
918:and papers, say about the term or concept...
675:The term has entered the political lexicom
555:Note: This debate has been included in the
535:Note: This debate has been included in the
1596:The following discussion has been closed.
1587:
554:
534:
1866:Yup. His Mama didn't raise no rednecks. ←
1539:the term, simply primary source examples
1177:Again, that is an argument to circumvent
102:United States presidential election, 2012
83:United States presidential election, 2012
2406:. Could Editor Truthsort please explain
631:No, I'm saying it wasn't even important
2310:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
2169:. Press coverage indicates notability.
1848:the president flushes the toilet, too.
1155:Mormon women also coined with this word
45:For an explanation of the process, see
711:What is the historical significance?
7:
2004:which directly write about the word
998:Why then is there no article titled
2189:Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)
1012:Political positions of Mitt Romney
880:Political positions of Mitt Romney
408:reporting the use of the term.) –
41:deletion review on 2012 October 29
24:
2283:
2259:
2246:
1640:Would someone uninvolved please
854:The Blade of the Northern Lights
29:
2120:, with a possible violation of
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
2256:Knowledge is not a dictionary
1202:another article based on the
2531:09:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
2507:18:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
2483:16:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
2436:09:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
2365:07:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
2350:03:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
2322:22:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
2301:21:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
2234:19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
2216:18:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
2197:15:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
2179:15:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
2162:11:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
2145:22:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
2105:22:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
2082:09:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
2073:15:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
2053:Public image of Barack Obama
2022:11:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1983:, such as books and papers,
1937:04:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1875:14:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
1862:12:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
1844:12:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
1831:07:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
1810:01:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
1797:21:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1783:19:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1770:14:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1752:05:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1738:04:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1723:04:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1710:04:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1696:04:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1679:04:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1654:03:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
1634:13:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
1620:14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1583:03:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1567:03:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1553:02:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1527:02:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1510:01:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1489:03:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
1475:02:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1438:00:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1420:23:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
1400:14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1384:22:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
1362:22:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
1338:14:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
1303:14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1283:12:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
1266:03:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
1241:01:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
1216:00:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
1191:14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1169:22:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
1146:10:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
1126:19:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
1108:06:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
1086:04:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
1058:16:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
1042:16:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
1028:01:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
990:01:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
967:16:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
946:14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
932:01:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
900:23:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
864:22:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
839:22:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
818:14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
804:is an attempt to circumvent
795:03:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
785:21:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
746:19:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
721:17:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
691:04:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
666:01:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
643:13:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
627:17:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
609:20:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
589:01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
569:16:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
549:16:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
526:12:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
512:14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
494:16:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
473:15:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
452:05:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
422:14:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
398:21:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
384:14:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
348:02:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
325:22:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
288:21:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
258:14:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
113:18:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
2467:Public image of Mitt Romney
2281:notability is not temporary
2114:Public image of Mitt Romney
2093:Public image of Mitt Romney
2041:Public image of Mitt Romney
1223:as a stinkin' attack page.
2584:
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
2568:Pages at deletion review
2541:Please do not modify it.
1599:Please do not modify it.
1373:WP:DUDETOTALLYDESERVESIT
1002:, and no article titled
61:Please do not modify it.
2497:trail off fairly soon.
1857:aka The Red Pen of Doom
1850:Obama's bathroom habits
1792:aka The Red Pen of Doom
1548:aka The Red Pen of Doom
1543:by political hacks. --
1505:aka The Red Pen of Doom
1470:aka The Red Pen of Doom
1461:person, it's attacking
734:notability requirements
1271:KEEP or merge/redirect
484:mentioning this term.
2422:. See my explanation
2269:Sister Souljah moment
2012:have been fulfilled.
1972:policy for neologisms
1916:and salt. Neologism,
366:a dictionary. WP is
2097:The Devil's Advocate
2000:. There are several
1457:"It's not attacking
1966:- article fulfills
2306:Merge and redirect
980:per MishaAtreides
2529:
2481:
2414:article violates
2402:article violates
2381:stipulates, that
2363:
2275:, so if he loses
2232:
2214:
2116:. A violation of
2051:is a redirect to
2002:secondary sources
1993:(emphasis mine).
1981:secondary sources
1910:
1909:
1858:
1793:
1549:
1506:
1471:
1352:comment added by
890:...as a redirect.
866:
681:comment added by
571:
551:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
2575:
2543:
2528:
2526:
2519:
2477:
2474:
2392:Editor Truthsort
2362:
2290:
2287:
2286:
2266:
2263:
2262:
2253:
2250:
2249:
2231:
2210:
2142:
2140:
2135:
2130:
1959:
1958:
1955:
1952:
1949:
1934:
1929:
1924:
1859:
1856:
1828:
1823:
1818:
1794:
1791:
1676:
1671:
1666:
1601:
1588:
1550:
1547:
1507:
1504:
1472:
1469:
1364:
1238:
1229:
1162:
860:
843:
782:
781:
778:
693:
601:per 2001:db8. --
591:
482:1,000,000+ pages
322:
320:
315:
310:
243:
242:
228:
180:
168:
150:
77:The result was
63:
33:
32:
26:
2583:
2582:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2558:
2557:
2556:
2550:deletion review
2539:
2522:
2520:
2472:
2360:KillerChihuahua
2293:Victor Victoria
2288:
2284:
2264:
2260:
2251:
2247:
2229:KillerChihuahua
2138:
2133:
2128:
2126:
2110:Delete/Redirect
1956:
1953:
1950:
1947:
1946:
1932:
1927:
1922:
1854:
1826:
1821:
1816:
1789:
1730:Anythingyouwant
1702:Anythingyouwant
1674:
1669:
1664:
1597:
1545:
1515:Keep and reform
1502:
1467:
1347:
1232:
1225:
1160:
1050:Anythingyouwant
1020:Anythingyouwant
909:WP: #Neologisms
892:Anythingyouwant
858:
779:
776:
775:
676:
582:
390:Victor Victoria
318:
313:
308:
306:
185:
176:
141:
125:
122:
70:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2581:
2579:
2571:
2570:
2560:
2559:
2555:
2554:
2534:
2533:
2509:
2486:
2485:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2324:
2303:
2267:Check. Unlike
2236:
2218:
2199:
2181:
2164:
2147:
2107:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2025:
2024:
1970:. Knowledge's
1961:
1939:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1656:
1646:Anonymous209.6
1638:
1637:
1636:
1612:Anonymous209.6
1603:
1602:
1593:
1592:
1586:
1585:
1569:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1512:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1481:Anonymous209.6
1441:
1440:
1422:
1403:
1402:
1392:Anonymous209.6
1388:
1387:
1386:
1366:
1365:
1340:
1330:Anonymous209.6
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1295:Anonymous209.6
1286:
1285:
1268:
1243:
1218:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1183:Anonymous209.6
1172:
1171:
1148:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1100:85.170.164.197
1089:
1088:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1034:Misha Atreides
993:
992:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
959:Misha Atreides
938:Anonymous209.6
924:Misha Atreides
920:
913:
912:
902:
869:
868:
867:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
810:Anonymous209.6
748:
726:
725:
724:
723:
706:
705:
696:
669:
668:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
637:Metropolitan90
612:
611:
603:Metropolitan90
595:
594:
593:
592:
587:comment added
552:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
518:85.170.164.197
504:Anonymous209.6
497:
496:
486:85.170.164.197
475:
457:
456:
455:
454:
425:
424:
402:
401:
400:
353:
352:
351:
350:
340:50.138.116.139
327:
291:
290:
246:
245:
182:
121:
116:
75:
74:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2580:
2569:
2566:
2565:
2563:
2553:
2551:
2547:
2542:
2536:
2535:
2532:
2527:
2525:
2517:
2513:
2510:
2508:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2491:
2488:
2487:
2484:
2480:
2476:
2475:
2468:
2464:
2460:
2456:
2452:
2448:
2445:
2444:
2437:
2433:
2429:
2426:. Thank you.
2425:
2421:
2417:
2413:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2393:
2390:
2387:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2366:
2361:
2357:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2331:
2328:
2325:
2323:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2307:
2304:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2257:
2244:
2240:
2237:
2235:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2219:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2208:
2203:
2202:Speedy delete
2200:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2182:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2168:
2165:
2163:
2159:
2155:
2151:
2148:
2146:
2143:
2141:
2136:
2131:
2123:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2108:
2106:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2090:
2087:
2083:
2080:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2027:
2026:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2003:
1999:
1996:
1992:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1962:
1960:
1943:
1940:
1938:
1935:
1930:
1925:
1919:
1915:
1912:
1911:
1876:
1872:
1869:
1868:Baseball Bugs
1865:
1864:
1863:
1860:
1851:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1841:
1838:
1837:Baseball Bugs
1834:
1833:
1832:
1829:
1824:
1819:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1807:
1804:
1803:Baseball Bugs
1800:
1799:
1798:
1795:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1780:
1777:
1776:Baseball Bugs
1773:
1772:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1749:
1746:
1745:Baseball Bugs
1741:
1740:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1720:
1717:
1716:Baseball Bugs
1713:
1712:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1693:
1690:
1689:Baseball Bugs
1686:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1677:
1672:
1667:
1661:
1657:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1628:
1627:Baseball Bugs
1623:
1622:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1600:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1589:
1584:
1580:
1577:
1576:Baseball Bugs
1573:
1570:
1568:
1565:
1561:
1558:
1554:
1551:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1519:CartoonDiablo
1516:
1513:
1511:
1508:
1499:
1498:speedy delete
1496:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1473:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1451:
1446:
1443:
1442:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1426:
1423:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1408:
1405:
1404:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1354:76.172.99.181
1351:
1344:
1341:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1318:Speedy Delete
1315:
1312:
1311:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1269:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1258:Wasted Time R
1255:
1251:
1247:
1244:
1242:
1239:
1237:
1236:
1230:
1228:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1198:
1197:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1170:
1167:
1165:
1163:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1144:
1143:
1138:
1135:
1134:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1114:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
996:
995:
994:
991:
987:
983:
979:
976:
975:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
949:
948:
947:
943:
939:
935:
934:
933:
929:
925:
921:
919:
915:
914:
910:
906:
903:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
870:
865:
861:
855:
851:
847:
842:
841:
840:
836:
832:
828:
825:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
798:
797:
796:
793:
788:
787:
786:
783:
772:
771:
766:
765:
760:
756:
752:
749:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
728:
727:
722:
718:
714:
710:
709:
708:
707:
704:
700:
697:
695:
692:
688:
684:
680:
674:
671:
670:
667:
663:
659:
655:
652:
651:
644:
641:
638:
634:
630:
629:
628:
624:
620:
616:
615:
614:
613:
610:
607:
604:
600:
597:
596:
590:
586:
581:
578:
573:
572:
570:
566:
562:
558:
553:
550:
546:
542:
538:
533:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:
513:
509:
505:
501:
500:
499:
498:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
476:
474:
470:
466:
462:
461:Speedy delete
459:
458:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
428:
427:
426:
423:
419:
415:
411:
406:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
360:
359:
355:
354:
349:
345:
341:
336:
332:
328:
326:
323:
321:
316:
311:
303:
299:
295:
294:
293:
292:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
262:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
241:
237:
234:
231:
227:
223:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
191:
188:
187:Find sources:
183:
179:
175:
172:
166:
162:
158:
154:
149:
145:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
123:
120:
117:
115:
114:
111:
107:
103:
97:
95:
90:
86:
84:
80:
73:
71:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2540:
2537:
2523:
2511:
2494:
2489:
2470:
2459:Swiftboating
2451:WP:109PAPERS
2446:
2407:
2388:
2385:
2382:
2355:
2326:
2314:Stuartyeates
2312:or similar.
2305:
2277:the election
2238:
2224:
2220:
2207:T. trichiura
2206:
2201:
2166:
2149:
2125:
2109:
2088:
2036:
2032:
2028:
1997:
1994:
1988:
1984:
1978:
1975:
1963:
1941:
1913:
1659:
1598:
1571:
1559:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1531:There is no
1514:
1497:
1462:
1458:
1444:
1424:
1412:Sally Season
1406:
1376:CoffeeCrumbs
1348:— Preceding
1342:
1317:
1313:
1275:216.81.94.76
1270:
1254:WP:RECENTISM
1245:
1234:
1233:
1226:
1220:
1204:WP:RECENTISM
1199:
1150:
1140:
1136:
1118:CoffeeCrumbs
1112:
1094:
1078:CoffeeCrumbs
1072:
977:
916:
904:
875:
871:
849:
845:
831:Phil Bridger
826:
768:
764:swiftboating
762:
750:
733:
729:
698:
694:
683:24.159.99.17
677:— Preceding
672:
653:
632:
598:
477:
460:
431:
404:
357:
356:
305:
263:
247:
235:
229:
221:
214:
208:
202:
196:
186:
173:
98:
91:
87:
78:
76:
60:
57:
36:
2273:Mitt Romney
1758:Glass House
1537:analysis of
1533:coverage of
1450:Vikramsurya
1430:Malerooster
1142:Philosopher
1004:Obamanomics
884:Obamanomics
759:WP:NOT#NEWS
583:—Preceding
577:VikramSurya
212:free images
2524:Sandstein
2499:Beeblebrox
2473:Horologium
2394:has cited
2377:Question:
2243:Notability
2185:WP:ROUTINE
1541:of its use
1326:WP:CSD#G11
1322:WP:CSD#G10
802:WP:POVFORK
800:campaign.
703:Kevin Baas
440:2001:db8::
410:2001:db8::
335:WP:TOOSOON
298:WP:TOOSOON
2546:talk page
2342:Truthsort
2338:WP:ATTACK
2212:Infect me
2171:Everyking
2154:Insomesia
2118:WP:ATTACK
2045:Obamacare
1991:the term"
1235:Strikeout
1227:Automatic
1000:ObamaCare
982:Casprings
888:ObamaCare
658:Dmarquard
561:• Gene93k
541:• Gene93k
372:Obamabots
302:WP:ATTACK
94:Obamacare
66:talk page
2562:Category
2548:or in a
2412:Romnesia
2400:Romnesia
2183:This is
2037:redirect
2006:Romnesia
1350:unsigned
1208:Muboshgu
1179:WP:UNDUE
1161:Gobōnobō
1095:Strawman
1016:WP: Fork
1008:Romnesia
876:Redirect
806:WP:UNDUE
679:unsigned
171:View log
127:Romnesia
119:Romnesia
79:REDIRECT
68:or in a
2461:" and "
2254:Check.
2079:Red XIV
2033:at most
1871:carrots
1840:carrots
1806:carrots
1779:carrots
1748:carrots
1719:carrots
1692:carrots
1660:miracle
1644:this.--
1630:carrots
1579:carrots
1564:Red XIV
1113:Comment
1014:. See
907:As per
792:Red XIV
770:birther
738:Collect
585:undated
465:Carrite
218:WP refs
206:scholar
144:protect
139:history
2516:WP:NEO
2495:should
2479:(talk)
2455:WP:NEO
2447:Delete
2428:Amsaim
2420:WP:NEO
2404:WP:NEO
2396:WP:NEO
2379:WP:AFD
2356:either
2334:WP:NEO
2330:WP:BLP
2327:Delete
2221:Delete
2122:WP:BLP
2049:Nobama
2029:Delete
2014:Amsaim
2010:WP:NEO
1968:WP:NEO
1928:unique
1918:WP:NAD
1914:Delete
1855:TRPoD
1822:unique
1790:TRPoD
1670:unique
1546:TRPoD
1503:TRPoD
1468:TRPoD
1453:(talk)
1425:DELETE
1320:under
1314:Delete
1250:WP:NEO
1246:Delete
1221:Delete
1200:Delete
1137:Delete
1073:Delete
951:Google
872:Delete
859:話して下さい
850:delete
827:Delete
755:WP:NEO
753:: per
751:Delete
730:Delete
640:(talk)
606:(talk)
599:Delete
580:(talk)
405:Delete
358:Delete
304:page.
280:Mjlef1
272:Mjlef1
190:Google
148:delete
106:Splash
2512:Merge
2490:Merge
2463:-gate
2225:merge
2129:Zappa
2089:Merge
2031:- or
1933:names
1827:names
1762:Arzel
1675:names
713:Arzel
673:Keep.
654:Keep.
633:after
619:Arzel
432:merge
376:Arzel
309:Zappa
270:an --
250:Arzel
233:JSTOR
194:books
178:Stats
165:views
157:watch
153:links
16:<
2503:talk
2432:talk
2424:here
2410:the
2346:talk
2318:talk
2297:talk
2239:Keep
2193:talk
2175:talk
2167:Keep
2158:talk
2150:Keep
2139:Mati
2101:talk
2069:talk
2065:Tarc
2059:and
2018:talk
1964:Keep
1942:Keep
1766:talk
1734:talk
1706:talk
1650:talk
1616:talk
1572:Keep
1560:Keep
1523:talk
1485:talk
1463:many
1445:Keep
1434:talk
1416:talk
1407:KEEP
1396:talk
1380:talk
1358:talk
1343:KEEP
1334:talk
1299:talk
1279:talk
1262:talk
1252:and
1248:per
1212:talk
1187:talk
1151:Keep
1122:talk
1104:talk
1082:talk
1054:talk
1038:talk
1024:talk
986:talk
978:Keep
963:talk
955:Bing
953:and
942:talk
928:talk
905:Keep
896:talk
886:and
874:and
835:talk
814:talk
742:talk
717:talk
699:Keep
687:talk
662:talk
623:talk
565:talk
545:talk
522:talk
508:talk
490:talk
478:Keep
469:talk
448:diff
418:diff
394:talk
380:talk
344:talk
319:Mati
284:talk
276:talk
264:Keep
254:talk
226:FENS
200:news
161:logs
135:talk
131:edit
2408:how
2386:how
2308:to
2223:or
2112:to
2091:to
2039:to
1989:use
1985:say
1957:ve
1951:e S
1852:--
1760:.
1642:hat
1535:or
1459:one
878:to
852:.
780:Pat
444:rfc
414:rfc
368:NOT
364:NOT
240:TWL
169:– (
81:to
2564::
2505:)
2434:)
2348:)
2340:.
2336:,
2332:,
2320:)
2299:)
2241::
2195:)
2177:)
2160:)
2103:)
2071:)
2063:.
2035:a
2020:)
1995:2.
1976:1.
1954:te
1948:Th
1923:No
1873:→
1842:→
1817:No
1808:→
1781:→
1768:)
1750:→
1736:)
1721:→
1708:)
1694:→
1665:No
1652:)
1632:→
1618:)
1581:→
1525:)
1487:)
1436:)
1418:)
1398:)
1382:)
1360:)
1336:)
1301:)
1281:)
1264:)
1214:)
1189:)
1124:)
1106:)
1084:)
1056:)
1040:)
1026:)
988:)
965:)
957:--
944:)
930:)
898:)
862:)
846:in
837:)
816:)
767:,
744:)
719:)
689:)
664:)
625:)
567:)
559:.
547:)
539:.
524:)
510:)
492:)
471:)
450:)
446:|
420:)
416:|
396:)
382:)
346:)
286:)
256:)
220:)
163:|
159:|
155:|
151:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
110:tk
108:-
43:.
2501:(
2430:(
2344:(
2316:(
2295:(
2289:Y
2265:Y
2252:Y
2191:(
2173:(
2156:(
2134:O
2099:(
2067:(
2016:(
1764:(
1743:←
1732:(
1704:(
1648:(
1614:(
1521:(
1483:(
1432:(
1414:(
1394:(
1378:(
1356:(
1332:(
1297:(
1277:(
1260:(
1210:(
1185:(
1120:(
1102:(
1080:(
1052:(
1036:(
1022:(
1018:.
984:(
961:(
940:(
926:(
911::
894:(
856:(
833:(
812:(
777:S
740:(
715:(
685:(
660:(
621:(
563:(
543:(
520:(
506:(
488:(
467:(
442:(
412:(
392:(
378:(
342:(
314:O
282:(
274:(
252:(
244:)
236:·
230:·
222:·
215:·
209:·
203:·
197:·
192:(
184:(
181:)
174:·
167:)
129:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.