Talk:Romnesia

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Barack Obama (inactive)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama articles

Elections and Referendums

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was redirect to United States presidential election, 2012.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... in its current state it is objective and accurate. --97.118.131.86 (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because... (your reason here) --Daveandaustin (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)It is a clear definition of flip flopping. To lie without regard for fact checking or truth. Essence of what is wrong with pollitics. Fact trumpts Fiction.[reply]

Could go either way

I suggest caution and deliberation. The term is derogatory, but it may enter the political lexicon, and may become a household term at some point. If that comes to pass, Wikipedia would do well to chronicle the history of the term. If not -- it is derogatory and Wikipedia serves no purpose by keeping it alive. Sue D. Nymme (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed speedy deletion

...because a WP:G10 that blanks the page is absolutely silly. I don't find the topic notable at this time myself, but please nominate it without blanking it for no valid reason. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 03:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serioulsy, is this the purpose of WP? Some moron makes up a word to attack a living person and that is OK? Arzel (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking a page because you don't politically agree with it is okay in response? Covering political usage certainly isn't the same as an "attack page." There are legitimate reasons to nominate the content for deletion I'd say, that don't require *censoring it entirely*. Which is what you did. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 11:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check yourself there buddy. I didn't blank the page, I nominated it for deletion. Made up words are for the Urban Dictionary, not WP, especially those that have just been created. Arzel (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you didn't blank it yourself. You added a broken G10 template, which someone corrected for you, blanking the page...as would've happened if you'd correctly added the template yourself. (Or just followed the instructions: "Please also blank the page when applying this tag.") – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 14:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the moron referred to in this sentence you wrote above, Arzel? "Some moron makes up a word to attack a living person and that is OK?"--Misha Atreides (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

That some other made up words may have been used in the past ar similar is not relevant to this made up word. We need secondary sources that make the connection and what that connection is. If you want a word on Clintonesia than go submit that for a new article (which I will then also submit for deletion.) Arzel (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is making a connection, simply pointing out a similar pun on "amnesia". Another politician using his opponent's name and "amnesia" in basically the same fashion is inherently related. An article on Clintonesia would be excessive (as is this article, but pruning content based on apparent political views is not reasonable.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 15:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you make the statement that noone is making the connection when you state immediately after that you are simply pointing out a similar pun? YOU are making the connection right in your statement! You do see the contridiction in your statement do you not? Arzel (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I suppose "See also" sections are impossible, without each see also having a reference to note how it's similar to the article in question? Including similar material is not necessarily drawing a conclusion. The article is about a presidential candidate combining his opponent's name with "amnesia" in a campaign. A factoid about a previous instance in which a presidential candidate combined his opponent's name with "amnesia" is relevant to the article. WP:OR isn't meant to keep information that can be reasonably thought of as "similar" or "related" out of an article. You say that a "Clintonesia" article could be submitted. Would you argue that, if such an article did exist, "Clintonesia" wouldn't be appropriate to put in a "See also" section in "Romnesia"? I don't think that argument can be made, and it's essentially the same as including the material (but not analyzing it past noting a similarity, for the reader to conclude whatever from.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also is unrelated. You need to show some sources that make the connection. You are creating a research article by making the link here. I don't think you fully understand original research. Arzel (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While making a simple comparison can of course be described as "original research" in general usage, the point of WP:OR isn't to literally stop editors from making obvious determinations as to what's related or not related. Creating articles would be next to impossible if that was the case. Perhaps you'd be happier if the article was moved to Use of neologisms combining 'amnesia' with their opponent's names by U.S. presidential candidates. But that's not needed, since the article's scope reasonably includes that, even though the title happens to be "Romnesia." (And pending deletion anyways.) "Compiling related facts", as the essay the IP user below points to says, in other words. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stating what is obvious to any person that is aware of the existence of previous similar terminology is not original research. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The find a source stating the obvious, becuase you don't understand original research. Arzel (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those with a misunderstanding of OR.

To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. I seriously doubt that articles from 1992 are going to mention anything to do with this. We CANNOT make the link without a secondary reliable source making the link. Arzel (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Combining facts and information is what is happening there.

...as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources 85.170.164.197 (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing from 1992 mentions anything related to this current event. YOU are the one that is making the conclusion and thus creating original research. Arzel (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious presidential candidate name portmanteau with the word amnesia is obvious. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Daveandaustin's edits

User Daveandaustin is attempting to utilize this page for partisan campaigning by loading the article full of alleged examples of Romnesia taken from an August 2012 Rolling Stone article. Daveandaustin's edits are not about the word "Romnesia" and its impact on the 2012 US Presidential election but are original research to define what is Romnesia. I have reverted these non-NPOV edits now on two occasions. I recommend that other editors either try to severely curtail this and edit his additions to be from a neutral standpoint and on-topic about the word or else just outright revert them. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is worse that the page is turning into an WP:ATTACK page, aside from the OR which you clearly outlined. Arzel (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this revert edit summary will attest to I am inclined to agree with that assessment. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on actual speech but....

I suggest if not done already merge some of this information into an article from which candidate came up with this , but after done so, turn Romnesia into a redirect and then link it to the appropriate section in the article from where it was merged to. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so Romnesia is not notable but its VIRAL which it got a lot of attention to be notable so I don't know at this point. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a place to discuss what will become of this page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romnesia. You may make your opinions known there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How long is an AfD result to redirect binding?

The admin who closed the RfD on this article admitted they made a mistake, so I restored from the redirect. What is the time limit, if any, that an AfD decision to redirect is valid for? Paum89 (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The admin in question did not make any such admission, as he stated a short while ago at the deletion review. You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting his words. Tarc (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The decision is binding until the concerns that lead to the deletion decisions have been appropriately addressed. If three books from reliable publishers came out tomorrow discussing the word "Romnesia", its eymology, placed its use into context, discussed its impact, etc. showing that it was not just a flash in the pan political campaign attack angle, this article could be recreated then. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To more directly answer the question, absent exceptional circumstances, such as the Closing Admin stating that the Close had been in error (which I agree, would have allowed reversion, but by the Admin), just like AfDs, DR should be up at least a week before any action can be taken.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin has not responded to my questions at DRV. The closing statement comprises a blatant admission of error by the closing admin. The strongest valid argument in favor of the redirect is that Obamacare redirects to something with a different name. Obama coined the term Romnesia to document a blatant pattern and practice of political deception characterized by rapid shifting of positions, inability to present a mathematically balanced plan for taxes and spending, and a lack of reliability. History will not look kindly on those who claim that the term is non-notable. Paum89 (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued proclaimations of "admin error!!!! grevious, unprecedented, historical mistake of history shattering proportions" here carry no weight. the discussion is Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_October_29#Romnesia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: at the risk of being looked upon unkindly by history, I've fully protected the redirect to put a stop to the edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that the target of the redirect does not include the redirected term? Paum89 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can start a WP:RFC to find community consensus for a "better" target if you wish. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 would be a better target, but it doesnt have "Romnesia", either, although we could start a section "Sinking to the level of Limbaughisms". 17:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Is that what you call the struggle against hypocognition? Paum89 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, its what I call the lamest attempts at argument based solely upon sophomoric wordplay to attempt to denegrate an opponent. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that "Obamacare doesn't have its own article" is absurd. Obamacare redirects to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, because they're the same thing. Romnesia is now redirected to United States presidential election, 2012, which is not the same thing. The article about the campaign doesn't even mention the use of the term "Romnesia" as one of President Obama's signature lines on the stump. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then 1) provide a better alternative 2) work to get "romnesia" entered into United States presidential election, 2012 3) find new sources that overcome the reasons that carried the AfD. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "reasons that carried the AfD" were an admin deciding to close in a way that didn't fit with any consensus formed in the discussion. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]