Talk:Binders full of women

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SummerPhD (talk | contribs) at 23:19, 4 June 2013 (→Propose this be a redirect: c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search


Wikipedia Trash Article for Deletion

This is a non-notable silly article. We Americans sometimes act like fools around election time. Everyone else must be laughing at us. You do not see these kind of ads masquerading as an article by our non-American friends. Snap out of it. Would someone please put it up for deletion and put it out of its misery?

If you are hoping to delete this article, two things to be aware of:
1) As it says towards the top of this page "This page was nominated for deletion on 18 October 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus." (The "Merge" discussion, above, is from those who wanted it to be deleted, weren't happy it failed and seem to figure this is another means to the same end.
2) Articles for deletion discussions do not take place on article talk pages. Please see WP:AFD for details on how those discussions are handled. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is supposed to be introduced on the Talk page. I really do not give a damn about this article, just gave my comment. It is not worth my time arguing about. Look at its readability score. Mugginsx (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose this be a redirect

I have already added what little meaningful content there is in this article to the one on the presidential debates. Since the election has ended this term has only come up as a trivial footnote of the election: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. That a politician said something that people cracked jokes about is not a legitimate basis for an article. He said it in the debate and that makes it a noteworthy thing that came out of the debate, but nothing more. Even the mentions above will likely dissipate in time after some other politician says something that people can mockingly point to as another example of politicians saying silly things.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support However, there was a clear consensus not to earlier. I would suggest the article go back to WP:AfD. Casprings (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Once notable, always notable. If you'd like to delete the article, try another AfD. As for merging, there are four basic reasons for a merge, none of which apply here:
1) This is not a duplicate.
2) There is not significant overlap. The well-sourced content here is only tangentially related to the debates as a whole.
3) The article is not very short.
4) There is not much in the way of context from the debate as a whole that is needed to understand this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying a comment made in one of the debates is only "tangentially related" to the debates.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are not understanding me correctly. Much of the usage of the phrase after the debate makes no mention of Romney, the debates or the election. If you dive into the threads that the reliable sources discuss, many of the images give no indication they have anything to do with anything even remotely political. If they were somehow shown to a well-informed American voter before the debate, they would have had no clue whether the postings were about the presidential debates/election, Dirty Dancing, 18th century pimps, office supplies as Halloween costumes or inexplicable product reviews. There was no direct connection: Though they used a phrase from the debate, they were not in any way about Romney or the debates. At the same time, the phrase sparked discussion of the "role of women" in politics, Romney's record, the accuracy of his recollection of the event, etc. "Boldly" boiling that down to three sentences in the target article is not "merging", it's deletion by another name. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:41 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not a tangential connection and you know it, despite how much you may try to twist the facts to your liking. That people telling jokes don't explain their jokes is not evidence regarding what the joke is about. As for the typical battlegrounding "merging is deletion" argument, I only left so little because the section itself is small. Were there a dedicated article discussing all the noteworthy aspects of the debate, we could add more.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I believe the connection was completely lost in many of the jokes. Your mileage may vary, but there is no need to accuse me of twisting facts, denying what you feel I "know", etc.
In this particular case, merging was deletion of most of the article. You "merged" all of three sentences when the established consensus was to A) keep the article and 2) not merge it. In any case, it's at AfD now. I would like to believe that will settle it. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic."
Thus the notability is fine, but this clearly belongs in the larger article. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a redirect is proposed, then in this case what would happen to the content? Is a sufficient amount already included elsewhere (and is it/would it be undue?), and should a merge proposal be made? -- Trevj (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, the key information and refs are moved into a new section of the parent article. Yes, a merge and redirect proposal should be made. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, such a proposal has already been made, decided, made again, decided again, made a third time, decided a third time, made a fourth time and decided a fourth time. This article was kept as "no consensus" in October 2012, [merged in October 2012], [in March 2013] and this discussion, which you are trying to resurrect, went stale in April 2013 after undoing a unilateral redirect. As this is currently formatted as part of that last discussion, my keep !vote is still here. If, however, you meant to start a fifth discussion in eight months, let me know and I'll !vote again.
If you've been listening, the consensus is to keep the article. Yes, consensus can change, but you're seriously testing the limits here. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources to add

Since article up for deletion. Added bunch at end just doing regular news search, as opposed to archive:

Feel free to add any others below. Somebody get busy beefing up article. CarolMooreDC 19:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Binders_full_of_women&oldid=558361461"