Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and rename to You didn't build that. Most of the arguments for deletion denounce this article as a POV fork without addressing the issue that the topic is actually a subtopic fork. There is clear consensus from the discussion below that the speech has adequate independent notability, and aptly so due to the controversy and criticism around it. Editors should be reminded that NPOV applies to the way Wikipedia editors present the content of an article, not the quality of the topic itself. Consensus is also clear that "You didn't build that" is a better title than the current article name. Deryck C. 23:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech

2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inappropriate content fork from Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. One speech in a campaign of many, only given an article because of a line the Republicans are trying to use as an attack against Obama. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, article clearly passes WP:GNG, has 14K google news hits, and 12.8 million general google hits; this clearly means that the speech received significant coverage. Although one can argue that the content of this newly created article can be merged and redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, the content about the speech there was deleted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: not a POVFORK. All viewpoints are neutrally represented. We must keep in mind the campaign responded to the controversy. The article is well sourced and passes WP:N. This speech garnered substantial coverage in RS. Deleting it would be tantamount to censorship.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 04:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment/Question What is the notability threshold of a Presidential speech? I ask because President Obama has a number of other speeches with their own articles, even one 2008 campaign speech when he wasn't even the nominee yet (see A More Perfect Union (speech)). --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article A More Perfect Union (speech), it clearly received significant coverage per WP:GNG. If it were treated as an event, one can question if the event passes WP:EFFECT.

I am of the opinion that the speech which is the subject of the article being discussed here, if treated as an event, does pass WP:EFFECT given the impact it has had on the overall campaign since it occurred.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have a horse in this race; I've never set foot in America and never will. US politics is about as relevant to me as Chinese politics is. With that said, one look at this article tells me that it's deceptive from start to finish. This isn't an article about the 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech. It's about one US political group finding an excuse to bristle and take umbrage very loudly on national TV, so as to try to damage another US party. Cynical though it is, it could be notable in its own right. But if so, the article should be called You didn't build that (which is presently a redirect). Either we want a different article with this title, or we want this article with a different title, or both. We can't keep this article with this title.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning why I named the article the name it presently has is because I felt that naming it, "You didn't build that" maybe considered as non-neutral by some editors, even though it is that phrase which is the most well known of the speech. The reasoning for this is that although a particular passage of a speech is highly notable, as in the case with the "Ask not.." statement in the JFK Inaugural address speech, that doesn't mean that the article title should be named for that highly notable portion of the speech.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep/Rename Agree with S Marshall that it could be named "You didn't build that" and focus around that aspect. That one statement has been the campaign Meme from the right and unless things seriously change it looks to be so for the durration. Obama and his tema have also gone through great lengths to try and refine/clarrify his statements on the Meme as well. Arzel (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a POV fork designed to highlight a Republican talking point. It pretends to be neutral by presenting all sides, but its very existence draws attention that it doesn't deserve. And the creator of the article should be chided for creating it, given their participation in discussions on this subject at Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As another participant in that discussion, I strongly disagree with Scjessey and consider that comment irrelevant here. Wookian (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I believe that the "creator of the article should be chided for creating it" is not assuming good faith of myself. Although I participated in the discussion as stated above, I had always maintained my position that the subject is notable per WP:GNG, and when the section was unilaterally blanked from the article which was being discussed, as appears to also have been the case in the You didn't build that article, it made sense to me that since the subject was highly notable that an article be created of it.

I attempted to be as neutral as possible in its creation, by giving balanced coverage of commentators from both sides of the spectrum, and naming it in a neutral manor.

Given that I have only include 30 (or so) references which give the event significant coverage and there are THOUSANDS of references that can be drawn upon to expand the article, if it is felt that the present article is unbalanced, there is room for those POVs (if presented in a neutral manor) to grow.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I was not assuming good faith. I consider this to be a bad faith article creation on your part to further a political agenda. You went ahead and created despite oodles of comments telling you it wasn't appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

citation needed] If the section can't be made WP:NPOV without context and it's too big for Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, the obvious solution is splitting. Morphh[1] invokes WP:SUMMARY. CallawayRox (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Agree that a random political speech isn't notable, but the widely publicized "you didn't build that" phrase from the speech is notable and deserves a place in wikipedia. It has been discussed by both candidates. Since there is debate over 'context' of this phrase, I agree that the context is the entire speech, hence this article. Other option is to rename article as "you didn't build that" (not my preference). While the article name is debatable, the topic and its treatment here is solid, so don't delete. Keep. MPS (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be a place for political catch phrase articles... e.g., Read my lips: no new taxes, It's the economy, stupid, Giant sucking sound et al. MPS (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:COATRACK for the quotation—also, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. If kept or recreated, a rename to You didn't build that is appropriate; let the topic stand or fall on its own merits instead of burying it with another topic. The analogy to JFK's inaugural is spurious, as that event had lasting significance and notable passages besides just "Ask not." --BDD (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

BDD, you deleted my "keep" entry when you added your "delete" entry. I am willing to accept it as an honest mistake, but it is still NOT COOL. Please learn how to useexercise caution when using the Wikipedia editing system and resolve conflicts without damaging other content. Wookian (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that was indeed a edit conflict. I'm not exactly sure how it happened; I got the edit conflict message twice and certainly didn't think I had deleted anything. But yes, assume good faith and don't, if you're someone who has only been around for a couple of months, accuse people of not knowing "how to use the Wikipedia editing system." This is attracting a lot of attention, and edit conflicts will happen. I'm sorry for removing your comment, but be cool. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I do not believe that the article falls under NOTNEWSPAPER.

1) This is not an article of "first-hand news".

2) Although it could be argued that the speech falls under EVENT, given that the coverage is greater than routine (which would be something like Subject A showed up and did B ... and moving on to next event (like huge bake sale in a large metropolis)) I believe that it passes EFFECT

3) The article is not a WP:BLP1E so "Who's who" doesn't apply, nor does I believe diary apply.

As for COATRACK, given that the amount of coverage of the speech relates to the EFFECT words from the speech has had on the campaign and the perception of the current POTUS, it can then be said that anything that has a potential POV that is counter to the position of the current POTUS or his campaign could be considered COATRACK. Rather, the article (and my work on it) has attempted to balance the POVs regarding the speech, in providing the balanced perception of the wording the article does not "fail to give a truthful impression of the subject". If it is felt that an opposing view of the conservative take on the speech is not presently sufficient please help by improving the article (see WP:BEFORE). As I said above, there are THOUSANDS of reliable sources that have not yet been included in this article that can be used to expand it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep/Rename And I also disagree with renaming it to "You didn't build that". It's notable, but not notable enough to claim that verbal real estate.The examples cited below of other notable past famous phrases convinced me. The opposing sources lining up on both sides make it clear that even in full context, the entire speech is actually perceived favorably by Obama's camp and disfavorably by the Republicans (government versus free enterprise). So keep it neutral, present context and let the readers decide. Wookian (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - What this is is sheer political idiocy, the usurpation of an encyclopedia for a political campaign. These are candidates for the highest office of the country; everything they do, say, eat, joke about, slip up over is going to be printed and reprinted hundreds of time over by the end of the day. There needs to be some critical thinking here about what is routine coverage of a politician in an election years and what is truly in the spirit of the project's notability guidelines. This is just a speech. A routine political speech does not need an article. This isn't a State of the Union address. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't believe that the coverage is routine, there has been in depth coverage of the event from both sides of the political spectrum, and thus why if viewed as an event it passes EFFECT; additionally it has impacted the campaign significantly in the month's time that the speech has occurred.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 While the fact that it was picked up is ridiculous, the fact of the matter is it was picked up. It has received wide coverage and comes close to meeting GNG. I feel that it might be better off in the campaign article though. Ryan Vesey 16:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, and it's obviously not a POVFORK. Ryan Vesey 16:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Although I can understand the Merge argument, I am wary of it due to the blanking of content, as I have posted diff links here of two occasions when verified content was removed concerning this speech.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You've got a point. The campaign article is poor as it stands, but it would be giving undue weight to this issue for the entire article to be merged in. Ryan Vesey 16:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As a refresher, here is the blanking in the proposed target article, and here is the blanking of the proposed rename target.

The campaign article does need work, and given the HUGE amount of coverage the speech has received it could easily dwarf the main campaign article, and if it is merged in its present form an argument for WP:UNDUE could be made, however to remove all that verified content would be a disservice to the large amount of coverage the speech has so far had.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012: The notion that this is a neutral, evenhanded article is immediately dispelled by the Commentators section, which instead of starting with the fact-checking or balancing the views, lists all the critical comments first, and the others later. Agree with Tarc, and also that yet another ginned-up political controversy from taking words out of context is not encyclopedic. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with you that this shouldn't be notable because it is a "ginned-up political controversy", but shouldn't be notable is different from isn't notable. Ryan Vesey 16:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Most ginned-up political controversies tend not to be notable. I believe this one is not. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The content could be reordered in the response section, even chronologically, however to remove critical comments all together would create a huge POV issue in my opinion. please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think I (or anyone else) was advocating removing all critical comments? Indeed, why are you bringing up the notion at all? Deleting the article would certainly get rid of all comments, critical and not, and merging would presumably involve a huge trim to all viewpoints to avoid UNDUE. Sounds about right to me. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep "You didn't build that" passes WP:GNG easily. This AFD smacks of trying to "end an editing dispute through deletion". AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. CallawayRox (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  The above is why the Article Rescue Squad should have been vanquished ages ago, their new members pick up the "keep everything" rhetoric ball an carry it just as readily as the old members did. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  Don't drag the ARS down to your level. The article has lots of references so I didn't use the rescue list. CallawayRox (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  The ARS is well beneath me, I'm afraid. Your knee-jerk inclusionism of a clear WP:POVFORK is ample evidence that you do not actually read what you are voting on, and merely keep for the sake of keeping. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  Great way to WP:AGF. A separate article is the best way to maintain WP:NPOV by including all WP:RS viewpoints. It's WP:SS and WP:SPINOFF not WP:POVFORK. CallawayRox (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  On a similar topic, we should redirect WP:YOUDIDNTBUILDTHAT to WP:OWN. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete why are we now going to keep bho-related controversy items? coatrack,notanewspaper, etc. any wp-reason will do. get it outta here.Cramyourspam (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Readers cf. [2] and [3]. Wookian (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

cf cf. and so? Cramyourspam (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as a ridiculously obvious POV fork. Passing GNG is not a valid argument if mention of it also exists in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. It has become an accepted practice to turn every burp a US presidential candidate makes into a negative campaign ad. That's fine and all, but we don't need to make articles about it. Trusilver 18:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Although it can be said that this is going to be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument, the reaction to the speech is as notable as the Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy with as much EFFECT created from the event. The topic is still heavily discussed a whole month after it occurred.

Additionally, that subject only had 171 news articles, and 434K general Google hits and that article is considered notable, yet for some reason there is an argument here that the HUGE coverage regarding this speech is not notable?

Please see my response of the COATRACK & NOTNEWSPAPER arguements; IMHO they don't hold water.

Additionally, as for the arguement that this should not be kept because it is a controversial topic as it relates to the present POTUS, please see WP:NOTCENSORED. To delete it because one doesn't want to see critical responses to what the present POTUS says falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To paraphrase Representative Pelosi, Dissent is Patriotic.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, the primary reason for an AfD is to determine the notability of a topic, are we to say that because one doesn't agree with the subject that that view overrides notability?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall at any point saying I give the slightest crap about what is critical to the president of the United States, or what I do or don't agree with aside from the fact that your problems getting this information into the parent article is not a sufficient reason to create a new one. That is the very definition of a POV fork. Trusilver 20:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. I love these fucking idiotic elections. Carrite (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue I have with merging, is that there are editors there who are blanking the topic from existing due to WP:UNDUE arguments, even though the content is verified by reliable sources. There are even arguments that the reliable sources are not reliable as they publish views that are not shard by the editor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

These are editing matters, perhaps best solved by an administrator with a ban-hammer. Carrite (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well now, this is enlightening. If editors are removing the material from the article, then that is an editorial decision made on that page. You citing that as the reason to create a standalone article based on deleted material is about as crystal-clear a violation of WP:POVFORK that one cna possibly have. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is appears to be a majority, not a consensus, of editors in the article that may want to suppress any content regarding the speech. Seeing as how I am of the opinion that the subject is notable in and of itself, even if related to other subjects, it therefore warrants its own article. I have always been of this opinion. Not that it is a POVFORK of the main Obama 2012 campaign article, but that it is related, but independently notable in and of itself.

Come to think about it the article is just as relevant to the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, even though (as I stated above) it is itself independently notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, let us look at WP:DEL-REASON. The article does not meet any speedy deletion reasoning, the article does not have any copyright violations, the article is not vandalism, advertising, or spam.

As for content forks, the subject although can be seen as part of the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, is notable in and of itself. It can be said that the Obama speech in Tuscon is part of the 2011 Tucson shooting, and that should be merged & redirected, however since it is notable in and of itself, it remains a separate article.

The article can be attributed to reliable sources and therefore can be verified, it clearly passes notability guidelines, if considered a sub-article of the Barack Obama BLP it meets BLP policies, it is not a template, a category, and it is suitable for an encyclopedia (as with other notable speeches).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the analogy. The Tucson shooting was a highly notable event, and Obama's speech was a notable reaction to it. The size of both articles makes a full merge impractical, but if you really think Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech gives undue weight to the reaction, feel free to propose deletion or merging. Obama's Roanoke speech is nowhere near as notable as the Tucson shooting, and probably not as notable as his reaction to the shooting either. Above all, be careful what you wish for—if this article is kept, someone is likely to make 2011 Iowa State Fair Romney campaign speech coatracked full of reactions to "Corporations are people, my friend." (And FWIW, that phrase only redirects to Political positions of Mitt Romney) Wikipedia hasn't looked very kindly on articles about individual gaffes; I urge you to consider the implications of a keep outcome beyond this article. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT (whether I do, or do not is for me to know) does not effect whether a subject is independently notable per the relevant notability guidelines, primarily WP:GNG, and secondarily WP:EFFECT.

The primary opposition is that the subject is a content fork. However, I have come to realize that it is related to a number of notable topics including both the Obama & Romney campaigns, modern liberalism in the United States philosophy, conservatism in the United States philosophy, and is also independently notable in and of itself.

Just because something is related to another notable subject, and itself is a notable subject, doesn't mean it should be merged into one of those related notable subjects.

If there are objects to how the subject is presented, then we can discuss it on the article's talk page, however that is no reason to delete the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Upmerge as content fork: Doesn't need a whole article. There are only a few sentences of worthwhile content, which can be moved to other articles. Being notable doesn't mean it still isn't a content fork pbp 21:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or merge per Carrite and Purplebackpack89. Notable it is, but it is also a shameless content fork. FWIW, I also felt the same recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India and state sponsored terrorism, which ended up being deleted, so that should be a precedent. Now, if, and only if, it becomes a major issue in the campaign, then, it could be re-created later. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as content fork: This is an obvious content fork and Coatrack. One can look at the discussions on the Obama 2012 Presidential campaign Talk page(as well as the article in question) and see this is an obvious attempt to deceive and use Wikipedia. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: Per Dave Dial; this is clearly an inappropriate content fork. There doesn't seem to be much support for including the speech at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 (see talk page). When the discussion there goes against you, you can't make an end-run by creating a standalone article - but that's what appears to have happened here. Delete this inappropriate content fork, trout-slap the people who created it, and direct them back to the presidential campaign article. MastCell ^Talk 23:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The numerous reliable sources which have covered this topic establish that it clearly satisfies WP:GNG. If editors are using this article as a WP:Coatrack (and I'm not saying that they are), WP:Coatrack is just an essay, and even if it's legitimate concern, this can be addressed through normal editing of the article. I see no policy-based reason to delete the article. Indeed, the nomination makes no policy-based reason for deletion. Instead, the nomination argues that the article should be deleted not because it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, but because "Republicans are trying to use as an attack". Since when do we care whether a particular political party likes (or dislikes) an article? Again, this nomination has no bearing in Wikipedia policy as far as I can see. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 per many arguments above as a POV fork and coverage of a single, minor event that was only covered immediately following the event. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A current Google News Search (not archive) turns up 386 hits on "You didn't build that". If nearly four hundred articles aren't enough to establish notablity, can you please indicate all the other Wikipedia articles that would need to be deleted as the result of this new standard? I cannot recall 300+ hits not being enough. Clearly, such a major departion from Wikipedia policies needs approval by the community at large. Can you please open an RfC to discuss such a major change? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So you've been around the Wikipedia for 3+ years and still don't know that "google hits" and "but other stuff" are fallacious AfD arguments? Tsk... Tarc (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

His argument is that we don't determine notability, news media does. This is the same reason that a lack of sources on someone or something that should be notable results in a deletion at AfD. Ryan Vesey 02:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Google hits don't determine 'notability'. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. We can use Google News to see that a search(not archive) for 'Obama Broccoli' turns up 938 hits currently, perhaps you should start an article titled "Obama Broccoli". Or since a Google News search(not archive) of 'Romney Mormon magic hat' produces 1,950 results, we should start an article with that title. Tarc is correct, it's a fallacious AfD argument. Dave Dial (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What Dave said. Or, to quote directly from policy: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This is the sort of "article" that Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) used to specialize in, reaching its apotheosis in Michelle Obama's arms (hey, they got lots of Google hits! And lots of news coverage! So we need a standalone article!) MastCell ^Talk 02:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that these really short statements lend themselves to straw man rebuttals. The fact is, nobody is able to write a dissertation in two or three sentences. I don't think anybody is holding up the wide media coverage alone as the only reason to keep the article. As many editorial sources have described, it's also notable for the light it's shed on both campaigns, pushing them both into explaining further their philosophies of government reliance or individual reliance, respectively. Wookian (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The primary "keep" rationales seem to boil down to WP:GHITS and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to make the case that this speech has a notable effect on the election, then you need to keep WP:RECENTISM in mind - is this really something that people are going to care about 5 or 10 years from now? MastCell ^Talk 03:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(undent) I think there are two truly legitimate keep rationales that I've seen. The first is on the basis that past practice allows for retaining this article. I actually looked up and read all the articles on Obama speeches we have. I will admit that I expected to find pretty much every single speech that President Obama ever uttered to have an article. I was pleasantly surprised to find that only a select few with wide-reaching effects have articles. That makes the first rationale baseless. The second rationale is the WP:EFFECT argument... which to be honest, I feel is a very legitimate one. However... aside from being shunted into a negative campaign ad, I'm just not seeing the potential for a lasting effect. I would be happy to reverse my opinion on that if we find months down the road that this speech has had serious effects on Barack Obama's re-election bid. But for right now, I just don't see it. Trusilver 05:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@Tarc: So you've been around Wikipedia for how long and you don't know the difference between a Google search and a Google News search? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no difference at all when determining notability. Care to try again after strikes one and two, Casey? Tarc (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there is. Google indexes all web sites whereas Google News indexes a much smaller subset many of which count as WP:RS. BTW, pretending to have an argument and not having one at all are pretty much the same thing. You can't have a strike when you haven't even thrown a pitch. Looks like two balks to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't. You're still just bean-counting, which is not a determiner of notability. Hit the showers, Mighty Casey. As for your attempted point below, no, it is pretty much the same as we're dealing with here; your inability to look past source-counting. There are many topics that have received coverage in reliable sources, yet they are deleted anyways, such as those that run afoul of WP:BLP1E. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there is. Are you saying you honestly don't understand the difference between a general Google search and a Google News search, or the difference between an unreliable source and a reliable one? Please, if you can't even come up with an argument for deletion, there is no point in continuing to try to reason with you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@Trusilver: Actually, there's only one legitimate argument for keeping the article: that this topic has received significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Not only is it the only argument that is legitimate, it's the only one that matters. Most of the arguments in this discussion are incredibly off-topic. See WP:GNG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No... I'm afraid you are mistaken. A lot of editors seem to conveniently forget the fifth bullet point in the GNG which reads ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Just because something is verifiable, doesn't make it automatically encyclopedic. Trusilver 16:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@Trusilver: Sure, and if you're able to reach concensus to delete the article, then the article can be deleted. But obviously, there is no concensus for deletion, so the result is to keep. 16:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

How is it "obvious" there is no consensus for deletion? This isn't a vote. I see some solid pro-delete arguments, beyond mine. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment As regards the WP:PERSISTENCE objection, it's clear that the Romney campaign is making "you didn't build that" a continuing rallying point of their campaign. For example, see "you did build that" in Paul Ryan's speech as newly-minted VP candidate. For better or worse, this incident's legacy is sticking around. Wookian (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • We don't know whether the speech will have any persistence or not. It's one of many lines of attack that will be floated by both campaigns in the next few months. Obviously, the Romney campaign is trying to make it stick, but we shouldn't write an article about it unless it does stick, and materially affects the election in a way people will care about 5 or 10 years from now. MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Peggy Noonan at the WSJ says they are the most famous words Barack Obama has said in his presidency. On one hand I'm skeptical of that assertion, but on the other hand would suggest that the gaffe (or whatever you want to call it) is clearly a big deal in terms of staying in mainstream focus. Wookian (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I don't believe WP:COATRACK applies in this case. If editors are saying the article is biased, the obvious solution is to fix the bias. If the case is that the article is mostly about the reactions to the speech rather than the speech content itself, that's pretty common; look at Reagan's Neshoba County Fair "states' rights" speech (where almost the entire article is about the reception to the speech - and correctly so IMHO) as an example. Speeches are measured by their impact. If the speech didn't have much of a reaction, then it wouldn't be notable. Whether the reaction is negative or positive is not relevant when judging notability. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly notable, distinct subject. There's more than enough sourcing to maintain a neutral, encyclopedic, informative article. Whatever its flaws may be this article has plenty of useful material, and can be brought up to standards. It should probably be retitled, as the "You didn't build that!" statement is the nexus of notability - as a political expression, the subject of attack ads, a cultural phenomenon, and a snowclone / meme (you didn't nominate that!) - not the fact that Obama made a particular speech. If it turns out that this event has no legs, as they say, we could consider merging it later. My hunch (and not my keep rationale, just my hunch) is that it will be something worth reading about fifty years from now, though, for people sincerely interested in the mechanics of early 21st century American politics. My keep rationale is that it's a notable event in its own right, and not suitable for shoehorning into any specific article beyond a brief mention. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. At this point, it is not known whether this will prove to be a case of recentism or if it will be of lasting significance beyond this campaign. What we do know is that the incident has received considerable coverage in the short term and is a notable event within the 2012 Obama campaign. So for now let's limit it to the campaign article and see how it plays out long term. The article can be recreated if persistent coverage over time proves it notable beyond WP:1E.--JayJasper (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If this article is kept, it should be renamed something to the effect of 2012 Barack Obama campaign speech in Roanoke, Virginia. The current title implies that it is about a speech given by someone named "Roanoke Obama".--JayJasper (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion. Maybe drop the "Barack" until there's another famous, campaigning Obama. Wookian (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, The article is certainly notable and qualifies for a page. Naapple (Talk) 06:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Has this debate been included in the list of Liberal-related deletion discussions? Or any other WP location that would broaden the Liberal response rather than skew the results? ```Buster Seven Talk 17:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That page doesn't seem to exist. Did it exist when you asked your question? Weird... Wookian (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't exist and as far as I know it never has existed. See Red herring. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that if that was the only notification of this AfD you made, that is a clear case of canvassing. To me, that is an unbelievable violation. Dave Dial (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not much of a violation. This DELSORT has never been promoted or advertised, and this appears to be the first time it has ever been used. Actually, I had forgotten it even existed, and it isn't even on my watchlist. And I am the creator, founder and Grand Poobah (easy on the poo, please) of WikiProject Conservatism, aka "The Greatest WikiProject on Earth", aka "The Happiest Place on Earth", aka--well you get the picture. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 03:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@User:Lionelt - This entire discussion is being replicated in its entirety in 3 seperate locations; Virginia---list of Virginia-related deletion discussions, Politics---list of Politics-related deletion discussions, and Conservatism---As mentioned just above. That is 3 times the level of promotion and advertising than I have ever seen at a request for article deletion. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you know anything about how WP:DELSORT works? No WP:CANVAS here. CallawayRox (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Soften your tone, User:Callaway. I don't spend much time in the Deletion Zone so I am little aware of the mechanics. Do you know how a conversation works? Questions inferring ignorance of the other party are disrespectful of a fellow collaborator. No need to bite at my heals. Thanks for showing me the way to WP:DELSORT. I feel a little smarter thanks to you. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant to say "Deletion sorting involves transclusion, so debates are automatically reproduced in the appropriate section after being sorted. Deletion sorting is a regular part of the AfD process and rarely, if ever, constitutes canvassing; note that anyone may sort an AfD debate, not just a nominator or a page creator. You can too! Furthermore, three delsort categories is not at all unusual. The norm is between one and three, depending on the complexity of the topic." Right?--BDD (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Rename or delete this is not in the same league as the Checkers speech or Obama's response to the Wright controversy. If it's notable at all it's for the "you didn't build that" line. I'm not convinced it is; not every alleged "gaffe" or campaign dustup is deserving of an article of its own. Making campaign stump speeches, and saying things that your opponent sees as attack ad fodder, are generally the sort of routine election events that fail WP:NOTNEWS and can be covered adequately in the campaign articles. 169.231.53.116 (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep I think we are past the short term really. The level of coverage this has attracted is massive and enduring. Gigs (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep For the reasons given by RightCow, Sir Lionel, Peggy Noonan and Gigs. Merging it just makes it easier for POV pushers to minimize its importance. It really is "a big effing deal". --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - If we are going to have one article per speech, we will end up in a mess. Just summarize salient points on the campaing article. Cwobeel (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think the closer of this AfD should consider the downstream precedent of making each partisan political attack theme worthy of a standalone article. For example, based on the "keep" rationales given here, we should also create and maintain articles on Romney Hood (26 million Google hits, 49,000 Google News hits, ongoing coverage as campaign theme), Romney didn't pay any taxes (186 million Google hits, 110,000 Google News hits, ongoing coverage as campaign theme), and corporations are people, my friend (currently a redirect; but with 56 million Google hits, 20,000 Google News hits, and ongoing status as a central campaign theme, it's got a better claim to a standalone article than this one).

  I believe that this is a serious encyclopedia and, as such, we should not develop standalone articles on every political gambit deployed by the Presidential campaigns. It's a recipe for disaster; it makes us look silly; and it brings out the worst in a lot of editors. (And let's face it - despite all the passionate rhetoric on this page, no one will look at, edit, or care about these articles after Election Day. It's not about the encyclopedia - it's about increasing the visibility of a partisan talking point before the election). But if there's consensus to the contrary, that these are notable encyclopedic topics, then I'm willing to abide by it. MastCell ^Talk 04:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's political articles on Obama and Romney are already skewed to the left. There are standlone articles on the Mitt Romney dog incident (which is just stupid, but notable for political reasons) and Mitt Romney's tax returns (even though the only scandalous thing about the latter is that nobody knows what's in them, which is not really a scandal). Quite frankly, reading the Obama and Romney articles one could get an impression that Romney is plagued by scandal and controversy, whereas Obama is an august statesman largely without any critics. Seriously, take an open-minded browse around both personal articles and both 2012 campaign articles and see if you agree. So I have no worries that including this content will result in skewing Wikipedia drastically to the right. Especially with fact check quotes, context, etc. Wookian (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney dog incident is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and should be deleted. Mitt Romney's tax returns is very likely to be deleted (since you mentioned it, I went and added my !vote there). I actually think both Romney's and Obama's articles are largely positive or neutral - in both cases there are "controversies" which are just too silly to warrant inclusion in the biographies, even though they've been covered by reliable sources. Part of that is because I think the overall quality of editing (and quality of editor) is higher on the biographical articles - a lot of the real partisan catfighting and ideologically driven editing gets spun off into exactly these sorts of sub-articles. MastCell ^Talk 08:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Seamus was kept three times. CallawayRox (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We just keep learning more and more about the motivations of some of the article supporters. First the article creator readily admits the creation is because consensus was against including the material in the main article at all, so there was a clear WP:POVFORK admission. Now we have Wookian right above rolling out the "Wikipedia is liberal, so we must balance it with right-leaning articles", a pretty naked end-around of WP:NPOV with a touch of battleground mentality. Once this is wrapped up, IMo some editors need to be removed from the topic area. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Similar comments on this sort of problem were made in a thread on WP:ANI (see this permanent link), but were met with a generally negative reaction. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Tarc, if you are advocating administrative action against me, it seems like bad form for you to use quotation marks around something I am alleged to have said, which you just made up out of your head. I didn't say that "Wikipedia is liberal". My meaning was that the Obama related articles currently have a dearth of material from mainstream sources critical of Obama, whereas the Romney articles are very well stocked in that regard. Neither the Barack Obama article nor the 2012 campaign article have anything critical of Obama at all that I can see, which is odd in the USA. We have a two party system here, and each side generally does a good job of holding the other's feet to the fire. Many conservative journalists characterize the Obama presidency as a failed presidency due to various major scandals, and other negative events and circumstances -- but reading these two articles, you'd never even guess such criticism existed. They could have been written by his campaign, and would probably read similarly (well, that's probably a slight exaggeration). Fundamentally, I am simply advocating against hagiographies and against an unfortunate attitude of hagiographicalcensorship I've encountered in articles touching Obama. I think my attitude is in the best interests of Wikipedia. So evaluate the message and agree or disagree with it -- don't shoot the messenger. Wookian (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't "hear" Editor:Tarc threatening administrative action. Let us all maintain a social equillibrium as we enter this election season. We are all going to be bumping into each other all over the Wikipedia political article landscape. We may all edit at different times and for different reasons, but WE (Wikipedia Editors) are all in this together for the good of our reader not for the benfit of our candidate. Lets all give what we say a third or fourth look---and remove any venom--- before we hit SAVE. The elections will be over mid-November, but WE will still be Wikipedia collaborators.```Buster Seven Talk 14:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Tarc also says (characterizing RightCow?) "the creation is because consensus was against including the material in the main article at all" -- however, just FYI, I think that is incorrect. I think consensus is actually nominally in favor[4][5] of including it. There's a bit of debate still going on, admittedly. Wookian (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's academic. At the time this article was created, the consensus was against inclusion. Tarc's statement is factually accurate. Since then, a consensus has begun to evolve around including the section, providing it includes the Factcheck material that you have exhaustively argued against. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There was not a consensus against inclusion, there removal of the verified content was removed unilaterally, see the link above or better yet please see the diff here (as well).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Exhaustively is a good choice of words; if anybody has problems with insomnia, I recommend reading the discussion in full. :) I see what you are saying here. The intent of my comment was not merely academic, but also to give an FYI as to the current state of the campaign article, which I think is useful info for the deletion arbiter. Wookian (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And the same stunts that were tried on the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 article are being used in this POV Fork. After editors try to update this article to conform to what independent, fact checking organizations have found about the so-called issue, it is removed repeatedly by the article creator(1,2) and another editor(1,2). Claiming the findings of these organizations "irrelevant". It's an obvious attempt to bypass Talk page consensus. Dave Dial (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is this so-called consensus? I only see WP:OWN with failure to WP:AGF on top. CallawayRox (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:LEAD, as cited in the change. Summarization of the article is what the lead should be. Introducing a whole paragraph regarding to reliable sources state when all other RSs are not specified in lead but in total summarized (as both sides of the commentators were prior to the large paragraph in the lead) introduced undue weight into the lead. Please see WP:NPOV.

As others have written, although there is NPOV as a pillar of wikipedia, there is an effort to remove critical material (which can be argued per BLP) for certain biographical articles, and include significant weight of critical material towards others.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - definitely noteworthy and encyclopedic, though I would retitle the article as "You didn't build that" to bring it in line with similar articles such as "Death panel", "Two Americas", and "Evil empire". Kelly ^hi! 18:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - As per Scjessey comments, can't this at least be determined a few months after? We should be looking at this article in terms of the long term picture.Lefthooksmash (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Rename to "You didn't build that" per Kelly above. I would also add to her list: "Drill, baby, drill", "Giant sucking sound", "Read my lips: no new taxes" and "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy".--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, there has been a recent thread of discussion that support deletion stating it should be deleted because of the editors who support the keeping, and/or renaming of this article. The notability of this article is not related to who created this article, or who edits it, see WP:ADHOM.

If there is an issue about recentism, let the article stand until the end of the year, if it is still notable after the end of the election, it can remain a stand alone article, if it is determined at that time to not be notable per WP:EFFECT then it can be merged and redirected that that time.

Additionally, there are those who argue that it is a CONTENTFORK, and again let me reiterate that given the HUGE amount of significant coverage regarding the article it is notable as its own subject, even though it is also notable wtihin the context of other notable subjects. For instance the USS Kentucky and USS Illinois are notable within the subject of the Iowa Class Battleships, however at the same time they are themselves independently notable. It can also be said (using the CONTENTFORK line of arguement) that all ship class articles of the same type of ship are content forks of that ship type; however that is not the case, same as how it is not the case here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong keep - Major speech from an incumbent president. Is very noteworthy for its own article. —stay (sic)! 09:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Based on what? It wasn't a major speech, and not every speech he gives is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Is it me, or are the majority of "keep" votes here are straight out of "arguments to avoid": Google-hit counting, "keep because it's notable", "other speeches have articles", etc. MastCell ^Talk 21:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Conversely, most of the delete arguments are variants of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The only issue here is whether this topic has received signficant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The article already has 40(!) references, most of which are to major news organizations such as the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Tampa Bay Times, Vanity Fair, etc. The list goes on and on. You can see the full list here.[6] This is a 'no brainer' keep. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
        • "Significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." (If that sounds familiar, it's because it's a direct quote from the notability guidelines). So no, whether the topic has been covered by reliable sources is not "the only issue". And the "delete" rationales include the obvious WP:RECENTISM, the fact that nobody will remember or care about this the day after the election, much less in 10 years, and the fact that every political attack ad doesn't deserve a standalone article. MastCell ^Talk 03:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
          • First of all, WP:RECENTISM is only an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Second, it is only your opinion of what the world will care about 10 years from now. You might be right; you might be wrong. But, if I had to venture, it is highly unlikely that the world will not care about the 2012 United States Presidential campaign. Third, WP:GNG establishes a "presumption, not a guarantee" of inclusion. Therefore, the burden of proof for achieving WP:CONCENSUS lies with those wishing to overturn this presumption. Tell me, have you reached consensus for deletion? If so, how many of the people who !voted for keeping the article have changed their minds? This article clearly meets WP:GNG. I have nearly 2 thousand articles on my watchlist and this is one of the most ridiculous discussions I'm currently watching. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
            • That sort of strawman argument is really beneath you. Of course the world will care about the 2012 election ten years from now, but they're highly unlikely to care about this particular speech (or, more accurately, the attempt to turn this speech into a political attack ad). I can guarantee you that most of this article's creators and defenders won't have any use for this article even one day after the election, much less 10 years from now. It's up to the closing admin to determine consensus. It's my opinion that many of the "keep" arguments should be discounted as standard variations on "arguments to avoid" - and I say that as someone who's reviewed and closed quite a few AfD's - but it's not my decision to make here. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
              • I apologize if I was unclear. Let me be more explicit. It is highly unlikely that the world will not care about the 2012 United States Presidential campaign, and the political discourse that was involved. If I recall correctly, when Thomas Jefferson ran for President, his detractors accused him of worshipping the devil because he was a Deist, not a Christian. Scholars still study this two hundred years later. We don't delete articles simply because they are controversial or that the accusation may be incorrect. I understand that this topic has become politicized, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. POV disputes should be addressed through normal editing of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, but Rename to "You didn't build that" per several others above. In or out of context, this speech and these words will be what people remember many years from now about this campaign. Tom Danson (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • What indication is there that this will be "remembered"? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If Romney wins the election, I guarantee that it will be remembered, because it will be seen as a factor influencing the outcome. Paul Ryan just capitalized on this in another stump speech, praising his mom for creating a small business and saying "Mom, you did build that". On the other hand, if Obama wins the election, it is possible that it won't be remembered as much. Ignoring polls, let's say there's a 50% chance that Romney will win. Not knowing the future, that sounds like reasonable odds to me that it will be significant. But all that is academic -- we don't really need to do any guessing about this. It wouldn't be continually rehashed in Romney and Ryan's stump speeches if it were merely a past blip on the radar. Wookian (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Keep but rename to You didn't build that. That sentence is the only reason this article exists at all. Otherwise this would have been just another (yawn) political campaign speech. This sentence has become highly notable and has massive news and opinion coverage in respected and reliable sources. I can hardly go a single day without reading some allusion to this speech in my newspaper. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to "You didn't build that". This is a notable and defining moment in the campaign and deserves an article. Belchfire-TALK 21:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah... this is a "notable and defining moment in the campaign". But Mitt Romney's tax returns... that's just - how did you put it? - a "clear WP:POVFORK... not sufficiently notable for standalone article." I'm sure there's an explanation besides partisanship for the disparate way you've approached these two political attacks, but I haven't been able to come up with it yet. MastCell ^Talk 03:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete If this is just a small misspoken word or the defining momement in the campaign can only be seen after the election is over. Wikipedia is not a newsorganisation and should not be so. If it turns out to be important (I dought any gafs, Romneys or Obamas, will be important) it should be a part of the presidentiel election articles, it can not stand alone as an article itself, it can only be seen in context. All this seems like editors campaigning for their candidate and that is beneath Wikipedia to do so. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that one can not say that the article does not meet WP:EFFECT if taken as an event, the impact of the speech has well passed a month, with it still being an active subject in news sources (there have been 4K news stories about the subject in the past week). If we want to bring this up later to see if it passes WP:NOTTEMPORARY after the beginning of the new year (2013) or in a years time, I think we can do that. But given the HUGE amount of reliable sources that have discusses the subject of this article I believe that DELETE is ill-advised.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename to "You Didn't Build That" This obviously meets criteria for inclusion due to the massive media coverage and cultural response to it. On the other hand, the only reason this speech is notable is due to the "You Didn't Build That" gaffe, and the article title should reflect it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would not object to renaming, if there is a consensus for the renaming even if it is my opinion that the entire speech and the effect of that speech is notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't the speech that is notable, it's the Republican perversion of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If the speech is an event, than the effect of the speech clearly makes the event notable.

"Perversion" is a matter of opinion, however it is not our place to insert our own opinion into articles, but to create articles about notable subjects, improve existing articles about notable subjects by using reliable sources to verify and expand content, to edit civilly, and to ensure that subjects are presented neutrally.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have done my best to remain civil, all (if not, than almost all) of the content is verified using reliable sources, opinions are properly attributed, and no source is given undue weight (there is actually a slight majority (1,000 characters or so if one includes the Romney 2002 quote) of the commentator content is actually critical of the Romney Campaign and those who have a critical opinion of the content of the speech).

As for WP:POVFORK, when I created the article, there was NO content regarding the subject in the suggested Merge & Redirect article target, see the the state of the article that was current (1944 12AUG12) when the article that is the subject of this AfD was created (2031 13AUG12). No other change was made to that article until the 18AUG. At that point there was an almost immediate (within 90 minutes) AfD of the article which we are now discussing, with the content fork claim. The guideline states the following:

A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject.

— WP:CFORK

In this case the subject of the target article, which at the time had no content relating to the subject of this article, and the subject of this article were not, and still are not, the same. The subject of that article is about the Obama campaign. The subject of this article is a speech, an event. Therefore, CFORK does not apply.

Others claim that this is a POVFORK. Let me quote that:

A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.

— WP:CFORK

This article does not seek to "avoid neutral point of view guidelines", as stated in the guideline; rather I believe I have shown that I am attempting to adhere to those NPOV guidelines to the utmost while writing about the subject, which is the subject of this AfD.

If anything, I am of the opinion that the lack of neutrality in other articles compared to this article is what is more worrisome to the project overall; but that's OK, for now, as wikipedia is always a work in progress.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as a clear POVFORK. This is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. This article can be re-visited after the election when there is more perspective about the importance of this speech. Letting partisans hijack our encyclopedia to promote their political feuds is certainly something we should stop right now. Yobol (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because a topic is something that a user doesn't like doesn't mean that the topic isn't notable. Additionally, although the subject is related to other notable topics, this subject itself is notable in and of itself given the HUGE amount of coverage it has received.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you prepared to support standalone articles on other partisan talking points which meet similar criteria for "notability"? For example, if the "keep" rationales here were applied equitably, we'd have standalone articles on Romney Hood, corporations are people, my friend, legitimate rape, Mitt Romney paid no taxes at all for ten years, and so forth.

When people say that this is a partisan embarrassment to Wikipedia, what they mean is that we shouldn't be devoting so much weight to these sorts of partisan election-year gambits. That's a valid deletion rationale.

And the concern about partisan hijacking is amply borne out by some of the hypocritical voting we've seen (e.g., Republican talking points are "notable and defining moments in the campaign", while Democratic talking points are "not sufficiently notable for standalone article"). I think it's obvious that for many editors, this AfD doesn't turn on broadly applicable notability criteria, but rather on narrow ideological grounds. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not control the actions of other editors, including editors who nominate other articles for deletion, see WP:ADHOM. Whether other articles exist does not determine whether this article's subject meets (or does not meet) notability requirements.

Whether those articles are notable are not is to be determined by looking to see if there are reliable sources that cover the subject of those articles with significant coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. So if there are plenty of reliable sources discussing those talking points - say, at least as many as on this topic - you'll support the creation and expansion of those articles? MastCell ^Talk 00:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made my opinion very clear here, and elsewhere on determining subjects based on relevant notability guidelines, and do not see the need to repeat myself again. Thanks for asking once again.

Normally, if a subject does not meet notability guideline, and the subject is directly related to a specific topic, I will suggest alternatives to save what content is verified in an appropriate redirect target.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment and advice for closing administrator - So far, this ridiculous AfD has seen two different types of comments. The first are from conservatively-minded editors desperate to use Wikipedia to further their political agenda, and the second are from progressively-minded editors who want to do the same; however, the second group is joined by a third group who also want to see the article deleted because it is a clear POV fork, thus falling foul of Wikipedia policy. There's simply no way this speech needs an article of its own. Like voter ID, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It must be deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't forget the fourth group of editors who think we should follow WP:GNG, that this topic has receieved significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • It's a fucking POV fork. You guys just kill me, you really do. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • No, it's a sub-topic. Saying that this is a POV fork is a bit like saying Watergate is POV fork of Richard Nixon. Granted, it's not as significant as Watergate, but it does easily meet WP:GNG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Which group is WP:TAGTEAM edit-warring [7][8][9] to remove a simple {{main}} link from the Obama campaign article? CallawayRox (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • It's an abuse of process. You've added a link to an article currently under AfD. Stupid, stupid, stupid move. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Wah wah abuse of process wah wah. Show me the WP:POLICY or shut the hell up. CallawayRox (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Scjessey says "Like voter ID, this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist." Doesn't it detract from your attempt to present a high level, neutral overview of the debate when you inject a highly partisan Democrat talking point as if it were recognized fact[10][11]? I am guessing humor was not your intent, but it is the result. Wookian (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think there's snippy tempers all-around that could do with a cup of tea and some general chillaxing. Everyone needs to keep in mind that this topic area has been the subject of Arbitration cases in the past, and it is always within the realm of possibility that something could flare up between now and November and head there again. Everything done, said, reverted, and re-reverted could be scrutinized and questioned; I found that out during the Muhammad Arbcom. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Need something stronger that can raise the IQs of these idiots. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears that an editor is not abiding by WP:AGF and the claiming of "conservative-minded editors" is clearly pointing to a conservative conspiracy. Odd giving the verified opinion that there is a liberal bias on Wikipedia.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me remind you. I have already accused you of creating the article 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech in bad faith, so there is no need for you to repeat your objection. It is absolutely clear you created the POV fork because you couldn't get your paragraph into the other article in the way that you wanted it. No way is that editing in good faith, so I'm just calling a spade a spade. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that another editor chooses to disregard one of the pillars of our editing community. I have not assumed bad faith because other editors have disagreed with my opinions in content, and have already showed (linked somewhere above) how that content was removed twice unilaterally by other editors, without there being a clear consensus for such removal. Other editors have claimed that there is a issue, in regards to WP:OWN, regarding the campaign article, and that is a matter of interpretation of it. Moreover, It is my opinion, that the content that has been added there does not give justice to the independent notability of the subject, and presents the subject in a manor that does not abide by WP:NEU, and does not give due weight to certain opinions regarding that subject.

Presently the article contains 51 reliable sources to verify the content contained in its articlespace, and as I have linked above there are THOUSANDS of additional reliable in-depth sources which any editor can verify content with (in regards to the subject which is the focus of this AfD). Additionally, we are over 1 month out from the speech and its effect on at least two notable subjects (not just the Obama Campaign of 2012) has been widely documented in a manor that far exceeds routine coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment WP:SPINOFF "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to Neutral Point of View." The speech article covers all WP:RS viewpoints, satisfies WP:NPOV and is not a WP:POVFORK. If anything, the Obama campaign article has POV problems due to WP:OWN. CallawayRox (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The campaign article is not written in summary style, so that is another bullshit argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2012#.22You_didn.27t_build_that.22 isn't summary style??? Your argument is bullshit. CallawayRox (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep clearly meets WP:GNG per several thousand google news hits, as long as it meets that threshold, I see no reason to delete it. It is extremely well-sourced. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. It's notable; it's not a content fork that I can see; the political rationale for deletion is irrelevant to Wikipedia Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I do think that it is a fork, and it has great potential for POV (if it's neutral in its current state), which is the only potential it has, in my opinion. Passing the GNG is easy given the 24/7 "news" cycle and the ridiculously politicized nature of the American media and its political system: everything gets reported on, but that doesn't mean everything is of encyclopedic value. I have a problem with articles that can only be made neutral by adding everything about it, where practically "everything" has a side, a perspective. Will this be notable a month from now, or a year from now, to the point where more objective publications, less driven by current events, will study this speech which in itself is of no value at all? I don't know (well, I think not), but if it does we can always restore this. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful input into the discussion.

One of the primary determinations of whether to keep or delete an article usually falls primarily in the realm of notability, in this case it appears that the user above agrees that it passes GNG, but does not believe that it should be kept due to possible POV issues that may arise in the future, please see WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. Additionally, the article can continue to grow in length if necessary due to wikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia. As for the question of whether the topic will still be notable a month from now, or a year from now, I believe that it something that can be reviewed sometime after the beginning of 2013. If the event still passes effect at that point, then it can remain, if not it can be merged & redirected to an appropriate target (of which there are many (either campaign article, or elsewhere)).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. But I've been here and I think I know what the notability guidelines are. Please take this as a friendly suggestion: fight the urge to comment on every "delete" vote, and saying "it appears" suggests I was being vague; I hope I was not. I think you read my comments partially correctly. My contention is that this article should not grow at all, that it's very growth is unencyclopedic. That we're not made of paper doesn't mean we should regurgitate everything written about something. On a side note, I hope that when I hit "Save page" FOX 2 Interview With Todd Akin will still be a red link. It is no different from this. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Above it was was stated that the subject of this article has received passing significant coverage due to the news cycle, then I am reading this as believing that the above editor believes that the coverage is that of routine coverage for a speech during a campaign event. I would say this is not the case, there are many other speeches given at campaign events that.

For instance, let me point towards an event that happened not to far from where I live, where Romney attended a Memorial Day event at Balboa Park with Nick Popaditch, & John McCain. The event was covered significantly by multiple reliable sources (local, and major national sources, but this only created 300 some stories, that is something I can see as being routine, moreover the event does not appear to pass WP:EFFECT.

Now in regards to the subject of this articles, if we look at the coverage the event has received, and the impact of the event has had on both campaigns since 13 July (when the event occurred) it has created more coverage than what would be considered normal in a standard event news cycle.

Perhaps this speech may be as notable as the infamous 1988 George H.W. Bush RNC speech, however I cannot speculate per WP:CRYSTAL. What I can do is look at the coverage that has happened since the event occurred and render an opinion whether the subject of the article meets notability guidelines. I can understand that others may disagree with my opinion, however part of what AfD is a discussion of the subject as it pertains to WP:DEL-REASON, and attempting to come to a consensus as to what should occur to the article. Presently I don't believe that there is no consensus of active editors on this AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to second Drmies's request that you not respond to every delete !vote. Some poor admin is going to have to read through all of this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• "I am reading this as believing that the above editor believes that the coverage is that of routine coverage for a speech during a campaign event". I'm not sure how to negate "reading as believing", but I did not say that the coverage is routine (so where that belief comes from is not clear to me). Far from it. Routinely they don't get such coverage; the report makes it into the pool and is then forgotten. This did get coverage, because it was made into a nice political shit-storm. The media feed on the media, and all of it is forgettable. That's common but not routine: we are talking about coverage about coverage--about a political feeding frenzy and political ploys--not the coverage of the speech. Having said that, perhaps less "reading as believing" and more engagement with the argument (properly read) would literally be a better way going forward. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.