“The name Forward has been frequently used as a name for influential leftwing newspapers and publications, denoting an urge for progress,” the entry added in a section titled "controversy."
However, after the entry came under heavy criticism, the "controversy" section has been scrubbed:
Furthermore, the original entry had three citations: an NPR article, “Microform review, Volume 10,” and “Body Cultures: Essays on Sport, Space, and Identity." But since the writing of this article, both "Microform" and "Body Cultures" have been removed.
A number of online users have flagged the entry as junk and called for its deletion. Consequently, if you go to the “Forward” slogan entry, you’ll be greeted with this:
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed.
KEEP all information related to FORWARD as it is current and a relevant discussion.; If you delete this slogan, then that would set the precedent to delete all campaign slogans of any type, and there are many Wiki entries. That's censorship. Keep Wikipedia about fact and not political opinion.
Another user on the “Keep” side of the debate writes:
Other political and presidential slogans DO have pages of their own. Witness: It's the economy, stupid, Stay the course, Read my lips: No new taxes, Morning in America and even Tippecanoe And Tyler Too, not to mention a host of other political slogans. The important part is: does the slogan rise to a measure of being of interest in and of itself, because of its impact or its controversial nature?
In this case, it does - there is sufficient press coverage and controversy. If nothing else, just witness this discussion as a measure of the controversial nature of the slogan.
However, on the “Delete” side, one user thinks:
Political silly season has no business on Wikipedia. Can be mentioned on 2012 U.S. presidential election, but any linking to socialist/communist causes would be original thought. Let's let the readers make that jump and judge the accuracy of that link for themselves.
[N]o relevance, no connection, no citation to make genuine connections, just random connections of arbitrary words to create a link for another political campaign. John Kerry V George W Bush "Flip-flopping" primarily because most of the arguments for keeping state that obama is a socialist as a means at making him look bad means that it violates WP:NPOV and sadly it cannot be salvaged.
The debate is ongoing and the question as to whether the Wikipedia entry should be deleted is still up for discussion. However, seeing as how the part that alluded to “leftwing newspapers and publications” has already been removed, it seems like one side of the debate has won.
This article has been updated.