Deletion of Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)

Comment: No indication of enduring notability. Looks like a case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: the subject of the article in question does not appear to be independently notable per , furthermore may I refer to . That being said it is related to the Obama presidential campaign, and should be redirected to that article, as suggested by others above. In its place a disambiguous page should be left in its place as other uses of the word forward that may be notable do exist
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: no need for a redirect. "Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan)" is hardly a likely search term. There isn't enough for an independent article; the source provided does not actually discuss the slogan at all, and the "controversy" sources predate Obama/Biden's use:  applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: Per , hell it's one single line you get more in a dictionary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: The concept itself is not of any independent notability; it fails  and does not measure up to a . Any encyclopedic information belongs in the campaign article, but because the title is neither well-formatted per MOS, nor a highly plausible search term, there should be no redirect
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:1E)

Comment: Boy, what a mess THIS is... I hate when deletion discussions boil over into the real world. Anyway, should be obvious per , lack of independent, reliable sources (other than those stating that the slogan exists), and the fact it was already being used as a . Easily could be covered by a line or two in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Of course, putting nothing past the insanity of American politics, if this becomes a huge campaign issue, and multiple independent sources cover it, the article could be re-created
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012) or Delete. Per Robofish,  per , and in opposition to using Wikipedia as part of the US 2012 presidential campaign noise machine
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Other stuff doesn't exist" doesn't work any more than  does, but the end result is the same.  Delete, since there's nothing worth merging right now.  The proper place for this is, indeed, in the campaign article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)

Comment: Please can we have a cup of coffee and relax. There's no chance of this discussion being closed early - there are too many editors commenting, and too many varied opinions. But please remember, the Articles for Deletion process is driven by |consensus, not a count of the votes for '''Keep''' vs '''Delete''' vs whatever. If you believe this should be kept (or deleted), please make a reasoned statement saying why. Linking that reason to Wikipedia's policies is useful as well. Reasons that don't apply policies are less likely to be persuasive. Copy-pasting previous responses will be even less persuasive. This is intended to be a debate, so debate the article and the subject on the merits please. Thank you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: violates  as it is an aimed attack at a campaign. It is a campaign slogan, but the connection with marxist writings in a magazine that was a musical and  theatre review it laughable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attack page (WP:ATTACK)

Comment: This doesn't even rise to  level
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: If you allow this as a redirect (which, under all other circumstances, would be judged "unlikely searchterm"), then you will get a host of redirects that are far pointier. Forward (that socialist nigniac's and his white buttboy's fascist slogan)... and all sorts of stuff. So... just delete it, |salt it, and nuke anything else that comes its way
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT)

Comment: This is not even a real issue, and only covered by any real journalist to make fun of the paranoia. Also, if you look at the "keep" votes, they are almost all |sing purpose accounts or anon IPs. Wiki is getting 'Freeped' and trying to force this idiocy upon everyone
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: political slogans can be notable but they need to have sustained lasting coverage. Wikipedia is |not a newspaper and we do not create standalone articles on everything that got brief press coverage. Can't really see the point of a redirect as the title is an unlikely search term and there is no significant content to merge
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per Yaksar; and . Slightly POV-pushing + wp:n|notability should be wp:v|corrorborated with multiple wp:rs|reliable sources, which this article lacks in. All the best to closing admin
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to the 2012 Obama campaign article. A slogan that is only a few days old cannot have the sort of enduring notability that rarely allows for certain lines, like I like Ike, to have their own articles. 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Minimal and tangential mention in reliable sources. No evidence of notability except among idiot-fringe political bloggers and opinion-page commentators who are merely engaging in election-year silliness. Very doubtful that the topic will have lasting significance. Also ,  and . Very disturbed by the off-line canvassing on multiple sites and obvious duplicate "keep" !votes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Now that this tempest has spun itself out of the teapot (it's not on Drudge's front page nor have I seen in it the last few news cycles), it appears that consensus has been reached. Without the |call to arms and |puppetry, it seems that editors agree the article should go. My comment is, if you delete it instead of redirecting it to either Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 or United States presidential election, 2012, this will become yet another pin that people stick in their anti-Wiki voodoo dolls when they want to call it elitist, communist, fascist (never understood how we can be both - go figure), ignorant dupes of the anti-something conspiracy. Just a thought. Cheers & Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS||WP:MEAT)

Comment: This is a |news story, not an encylcopedic topic. If this gets publicity outside the right wing blogosphere maybe we can revisit it, but until then, there's nothing worth covering here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Then I'd argue that it's too soon to add. We shouldn't  on Wikipedia. Also, if it did become an encyclopedic topic it should be included in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: I did a (non-controversial, I think) rename, per ; could someone please do a histmerge, taking the discussion at //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forward_%28Obama-Biden_Campaign_Slogan%29&action=edit across to the new TP title? I'm not very good at those. Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (:WP:NDASH)

Comment: Per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: per Robofish, and the fact that slogans like ''Country First'' and ''Change we can believe in'' are redirected to their respective campaigns. Doing anything else would be a purely political choice, and a very strange one at that. Even if ''Forward'' becomes a rallying cry, I cannot imagine it will echo through history like the very few US Campaign Slogans who merit their own articles (I only find three, ''Tippecanoe and Tyler too'', ''Morning in America'' and ''It's the economy, stupid''). If Redir fails, I would back '''Delete''' instead per . Cheers & Thanks
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN)

Comment: spaced en dash}} Here are more Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources comprised of |significant coverage that qualify the Wikipedia:Notability|notability of the topic, and can be used to expand/improve the article once it is editable by Wikipedia editors other than Wikipedia administrators
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)