Talk:Romnesia

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)