- Obama Bin Laden (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
While the title of the article may seem inflammatory, the main information on this article was that it was a portmanteau of Barack Obama and Osama Bin Laden and generally used as a political epithet. Also in the article, it was stated that Dean Singleton used this portmanteau in front of Obama. This was speedily deleted without review by administrator Bearian as a personal attack, which if the content of the deleted article were shown, it would clearly be shown that the content was not a personal attack at all. The article was sourced, and though a stub, was encyclopedic.XCD (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Malformed DRV fixed. Deleting admin notified. Moved to September 30's log from September 29. Tim Song (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The main point of the article "generally used as a political epithet" was totally unsourced. Closing as WP:CSD#G10 was appropriate in this case. Kevin (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse BLP vio plain and simple. WP:COATRACK Spartaz Humbug! 04:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the closure, but I would remark that it's a plausible error. Oh, not for an American, but there are probably European children and teenagers who use Wikipedia who would make that mistake.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per all above; obvious BLP issues, sourced only to a blog. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per Kevin. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from the closing admin. - I stand by my decision to "speedy and salt", and am frankly proud of it. The title is inflammatory and its only real purpose is as an insult to the leader of the Free World. The only source in the stub was a blog, not a reliable source. It is clearly not a "generally used ... political epithet" (emphasis added). We all watch the news, and while this was fleeting news, we are not idiots; we all know that this has not been used in a widespread fashion yet "Lair!" was a much more notable epithet. The creator is a
WP:FEED well-documented troll, whom we should not feed, and IMHO, ought to be banned from Wikipedia by the community. If we were to allow this deletion to be reversed, Wikipedia and all of us would be made the fools. I, for one, am sick of the trolling vandals in our article space. They are well-funded and can go back to their corner of The Internet. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm pretty sure you did not intend to link to WP:FEED... Tim Song (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, I fixed my wrong link. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we just snow endorse this per the views expressed above and move on? Seems like a waste of time to keep this open. Tim Song (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse deletion this version It isn't clear to me that it is impossible to make a reliably sourced article about the use of this epithet. But this isn't that. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as a similar little-used neologism Ogabe, was tossed a few weeks back as well. There's no place for this sort of thing here. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The restraint shown in the above endorsements is admirable. The person who created this would do well to go away from here very quietly and keep their head down for a while. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. There isn't even a topic here that "Obama Bin Laden" refers to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Make a redirect Doesn't belong as a stand alone article, but likely should be a redirect to an article that covers the topic. I've certainly heard it used a LOT and I live in a very liberal part of the country. We shouldn't shy away from coverage of terms we don't like, but this one doesn't have enough RSes to be a stand alone article at this time. Hobit (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely not. Redirects do not have to follow WP:NPOV, but they still have to pass WP:V, and thins thing certainly hasn't passed into common enough usage to warrant a redirect. "Just hearing it around" is not a valid justification. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [2] is media matters covering the term (among other terms), [3] and [4] cover different people using the term by mistake, [5] NPR listing it as a common attack on Obama, [6] is an example of a major columnist using the term, [7] says that it was a term used by his opponents. The list goes on and on. I personally think an article on the topic isn't justified, but a redirect? Certainly. Hobit (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the last link there has any discussion of "Obama bin laden" as a specific term; the others are a smattering of coverage about Osama/Obama mix-ups, whether intentional or suspect. Apples and oranges. We're talking about widespread usage or citation of this specific term, similar to birthers, truthers, deathers, etc... Tarc (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For an article, sure. That's why I agree with you. But for a redirect? WP:V is passed and it has certainly passed into more common usage than most of our articles. Hit "random article" a few times if you doubt. Hobit (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where would you want to redirect the term to? About half of the cites you give are to people calling Barack Obama "Obama Bin Laden", and the other half are to people calling Osama Bin Laden "Obama Bin Laden". Redirecting to either one of them would make a lot of Obama supporters justifiably angry. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Every article should do more good than harm. This article does not have the potential to grow up into one that provides any beneficial purpose, and currently it serves to slander and malign an icon in American politics. BLP, COATRACK, WP:V, and NPOV are all fail in this case. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Sometimes the lack of an article contains more encyclopedic information than an article ever could. Abductive (reasoning) 02:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
