Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama chmo!

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 no consensus. Insufficient policy-informed opinions to establish consensus. "MORE KNOWLEDGE, NOT LESS" doesn't become a better argument because it's in all caps, and conversely this is clearly not an attack page, or it would have been speedied. Perhaps this can be renominated some time later.  Sandstein  12:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obama chmo! (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)

The article suggested that because of the fact that Wikipedia is not a coatrack. It is possible that this is an attack page. — _cheloVechek / ^talk 00:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not an "attack page" in wikipedia understanding; it is reporting of the "attack" in real life, just as the article Holocaust denial article is not a propaganda of denialism. Neither it is a coatrack; all text is about the same subject. The nom probably confuses the term with the concept of WP:TRIVIA (a collection of random examples). But again, WP:TRIVIA allows trivia covered in reliable sources. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We're not the home of every 'anti-person' slogan ever thrown out into the ether; silly attempt to make a phrase a thing by 'but it has an article here' reasoning. Nate • (chatter) 04:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no we are not a home to "every anti-person" blurb, only to "notable anti-person" blurbs. So, what is your argument that this phrase is nonnotable? - üser:Altenmann >t 06:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep satisfies WP:GNG. IMO notable as a quirk of Cold War II. Stupid, but wikipedia has plenty examples of encyclopedic stupidity. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it is a pretty trivial attack page on Obama. There is one RS, but it seems that it reports the slogan as a symptom of a bigger problem, Russia's young and poor want a war against the US. Neither sounds very realistic, rather it sounds like a propaganda campaign. If 3 very reliable sources outside of Russia report it, maybe it might be notable. But "there's other stupid stuff on Wikipedia" doesn't sound like a reason to keep it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - I genuinely looked up "chmo" that I saw somewhere else, and this was the ONLY factual result I got. MORE KNOWLEDGE, NOT LESS! (The main reason I quit editing for you clowns, too many anti-knowledge deletion queens!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.179.86 (talk) 01:16, December 16, 2015‎ (UTC)
• Delete for policy reasons. As far as chmo goes, per IP editor 72.129.179.86 Wikipedia is not a dictionay, as far as the info in this article goes Wikipedia is not news. --Bejnar (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it is not news anymore. And neither it is a dicdef. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ping}Altenmann}} Old news is still news. Could you explain your reasoning? --Bejnar (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2015 (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.