Deletion of Forward (generic name of socialist publications)

Comment: the nominators rationale is flawed on all points. It is not "Patent Nonsense", it is very understandable prose. Patent nonsense refers to "incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history". This is coherent text, not gibberish and has referenced history. While it may, of late, be the target of some partisan editing, it is not being used as a "blatant political attack". The article existed long before the Obama campaign announced (I would speculate even came up with) their new campaign slogan. The article may have been edited by a compromised account recently, but we are not being "gamed" by one. The article was created by a respectable editor and other respectable editors have contributed to it. Only recently have questionable edits joined the fray. There are many more sources than the two mentioned and many more appear available. Did the nominator follow 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: as unnecessary and -padded  of Forward#Publications and totally implausible search term. &nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: as a  problem that serves little to no purpose already covered on the Forward disambiguation page. A glance at the "Publications" section alone tells a reader that there have been several socialist publications by the name. Relationships between individual publications should be covered in their respective articles. At a bare minimum, '''rename''' to better fit conventions--something like "Forward (socialism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: This article reminds me very much of one that featured in a previous deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid, and I highly recommend that the closure statement in that AfD should be read by participants in this one. The fundamental problem is that the article is a . There is little or no connection between the disparate publications of the same or similar name other than similar ideological outlooks. As far as I can see, there don't seem to be any publications that cover the issue of "Forwards" as a "generic name of socialist publications". It is an artificial, invented topic cobbled together from a mass of disparate sources. Individual publications such as ''Vorwärts!'' are notable and are already covered in their own articles, but the general concept does not seem to be notable nor the subject of specific coverage. The artificiality of the topic can be illustrated by the concept of an article called Times (generic name of conservative publications) linking the Times of London with various other conservative-aligned newspapers of the same or similar names. Nobody would accept that as a legitimate topic, nor should we accept this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Meets |notability and |verifiability. I agree with
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: Despite this user being a block evader, I'll still answer their comment. There is no evidence of  here. If you actually read the first citation, it clearly validates the purpose of this article. The article author has not grabbed two sources which say two different things to draw their own conclusion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: as y POV-fork of disambiguation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Serves no valid purpose. Just a useless  of the Forward|existing disambig page. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Article has existed for over a year, has decent number of cites for its length and is notable based on the common thread of being used by a number of different national communist/socialist parties. Agree that connections to Obama campaign are political opinion and |original thought and should be removed, but that does not make the rest of the article worthy of deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: it's fairly obvious to anyone that Nintendude64 is the sockpuppetteer behind most of the IP vandals showing up on the page as well as trolling this discussion and violating  quite often.  As well, nobody has yet explained why the deletion of an unnecessary  deliberately designed to be used for nasty political and anti-semitic insinuations is controversial to anyone but anti-semites. The AfD submitter has shown how easy it is to implement the content in a NEUTRAL way on the ACTUAL disambig page as well as an affected page by the slimy linking scheme, and so there is even less justification for this page's existence than might have been claimed at the outset.   — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/107.28.112.235|107.28.112.235
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: Setting aside its disreputable origin, this article in its cleaned up version appears to be .  There is a high bar here before writing articles where the subject is an exposition on words and language, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on things, not an essay on etymology.  We have rules discouraging dictionary definitions, articles about neologisms, euphemisms, and so on.  Only rarely does a turn of phrase cross the line where it is actually a distinct subject.  Thus we don't have articles about The Bee's Knees, half dozen, Involuntary termination), and so on.  If naming socialist magazines "forward" is a cultural trend, so what?  There's another cultural tendency to name news magazines the "gazette" or "inquirer" or "post", one to use archaic spellings and words to name semi-upscale housing projects (steppes, fronte), and one to name mass market passenger vehicles after cosmic phenomena or wild animals.  Observations on those tendencies are essay-like, and are not treatments of specific subject matter appropriate to an encyclopedia.  Anyway, there are no sources that tie this all together as a subject on its own.  So far all the sources just address the distinct examples, and the article makes a somewhat arbitrary grouping / list of them all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: similar to The Times (disambiguation). Currently this is something of a dictionary definition, which is |not appropriate for Wikipedia
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT)