Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Affirmative Action President

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative Action President

More neologism shenanigans. And if these guys are going to attack "Barak Obama," they should at least give him the courtesy of correctly spelling his name. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it's mentioned in passing in Conservapedia's article ("Its entry on Obama also asserts that he "has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action"). That's surely enough! TheresaWilson (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Alas, they spelled it right and I didn't. Probably had something to do with the hour of the morning.

Please, do NOT consider this an anti-Obama article. I assure you it is not. The need for it arose as I was working on the Conservapedia article. (Refer to my change in the Political ideology section.)

Counting Fox News Corp, this is creeping into use via America's right / neo-cons. My intent is to

document the societal and historical occurrence
capture the actual verbiage before it's altered at its source (In other words, have an accurate portrayal even if it's changed at its source later.)
use it to document the Political Ideology section of Conservapedia

Although the original article mentions affirmative action, it missed the even more powerful insinuation of "Affirmative Action President", a powerful accusation. Without this backup article, part of the reference material to explain Conservapedia would go missing.

As far as it being a neologism, that's true. All words start that way, including, say feminazi. Perhaps it's just me, but since this is something happening in our society, affecting our society, and potentially affecting our history, I felt it was worth documenting.

regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Conservapedia is not a reliable source, just as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Not every fulminating rant from the extreme right attacking Obama needs its own Wikipedia article. Edison (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy. We can bring it back if it actually makes it into common usage. RayAYang (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. Attack page (for all intents and purposes). Borderline racist nonsense. Neologism. RS issues. Protonk (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV. I did not support Obama during the primaries but do now. The concept of this article is bullshit. He did not win through AA. There ought to be a policy WP:Bullshit that (in summary) states all bullshit should declared by consensus, bullshit, and then deleted. This AfD would be in complete compliance with such policy. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Edison. The main (albeit not exclusive) source used for this article is another wiki, which is an inherently unreliable source. At best, this topic might warrant one sentence of coverage in a hypothetical Criticism of Barack Obama article. I don't know why we would need to devote so much space to crediting Andrew Schlafly for making up this phrase -- particularly when it had been applied by others back in 2001 to George W. Bush. [1] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable neologism. Nsk92 (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10 (attack pages). The name and the conservapedia page themselves are attacks, of course, but I also feel that it can be an attack to give this sort of content more prominence than it deserves. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Metropolitan90 pretty much covered it. This isn't the first use of the word, nor will it be the last. Though not a supporter of Obama, I can see the intent of the article, which isn't informative in nature. I also agree with the notion regarding referencing a wiki within a wiki...not so much on the reliable source side of things. --Infero Veritas (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2008 (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.