Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Wave 2018

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 to United States elections, 2018. Content may be merged from history. Sandstein 16:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Wave 2018

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. 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. ----ZiaLater (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 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 coverage. (I'll make a formal vote once I've had a better chance to look over the sourcing). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 Rainbow wave rather than a blue wave, while another article by the Hill indicates that there was a countering red wave. 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. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Spirit of Eagle: 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 landslides, being part of a huge "wave", etc. Since this article was created before the election, most of its content seems WP:CRYSTALBALL. 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.[1][2][3] ----ZiaLater (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article is about 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 notable.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Misnomer; it never happened. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-documented. I don't like the argument that it didn't happen, because we still have the JobsNotMobs article even though Republicans lost the House. wumbolo ^^^ 21:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: This may have to be looked at as well. JobsNotMobs does not seem very notable or encyclopedic.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem here isn't the question of whether the election results represented a "blue wave" happening or not — the problem is that regardless of whether it happened or not, none of the content really demonstrates a reason why "Blue Wave 2018" would need a separate article from United States elections, 2018. It's not a standalone thing 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 United States elections, 2006, and the only difference between the 2018 and 2006 blue waves runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS: our job is not to create or maintain an article about every phrase that happens to pop up in the current news cycle, it's to create and maintain articles about things that people will still be looking for articles about ten years from now. And by the same token, we never created an article about "Orange Crush" as a campaign mantra in the Canadian federal election, 2011 either — we do list it as an entry on Orange Crush (disambiguation), but the link is to the main election article itself, rather than to a standalone article about the use of "Orange Crush" in that election as a thing in its own right. JobsNotMobs is not the same thing: that's an actual concept that was brought up as a campaign issue intended to influence the election results, not just a descriptive phrase about one party's prospects in the election results. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can be fully replaced by a single sentence in United States elections, 2018, which is all the due WP:WEIGHT this concept deserves in an encyclopedia. -- Netoholic @ 13:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per User:Netoholic and WP:NOTNEWS. The topic is/can be covered in encylopedic fashion at United States elections, 2018. (Delete JobsNotMobs too if ideological parity is desired.) — AjaxSmack 03:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "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 United States elections, 2006 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. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States elections, 2018. 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. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States elections, 2018 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. Levivich (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2018 (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.