Talk:Binders full of women

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?

• delete non-notable Mugginsx (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Propose this be a redirect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was not merged. --SummerPhD (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose per WP:NTEMP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support The policy that seems to most apply is WP:NOPAGE

"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)

• 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)

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)

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. (The "bold" (I'd say ballsy) redirects by a mysterious IP earlier today were also reverted, but that doesn't count as "discussion" now does it.) 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)

Who is testing limits? I have never been to this article before. I read the discussion and have made my observations. If you disagree, you can share your thoughts. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

One additional thought I would share is that edits made during the "silly season" i.e. the height of a campaign are often too POV from all sides. It is only after things die down that articles improve. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You have been to this article before.[9]

As for the "height of a campaign", the second Afd was February - March 2013 and the merge discussion you are resurrecting was February - April 2013. The election was November 2012. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I most certainly have not been here before. That was not a diff for this article, or this talk page, or this article's previous merger discussion(s). You have added a diff for an article AfD debate page from October 2012. Additionally, if you will look at the top of this section you will notice that (contrary to your assertion) I did not resurrect the merge discussion. These are inappropriate methods of discussion. One should focus on the arguments not the editors. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. You said you had "never been to this article before". Yeah, you haven't edited this article previously. Unless you !voted to delete without looking at the article, you've been to the article before. The discussion you are(n't) trying to resurrect lay dormant for over two months. Discussion had ceased. This is a new request. This has been discussed, at the "height of the silly season" and after that. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you acknowledge that I did not start this discussion and had not edited this article. Your argument is that since merger has been discussed before by others, new editors shouldn't discuss it? Is that forever or is there a set time after which we can revisit the issues? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I said you had been here before, despite your claim to the contrary. And you have. I never said you edited this before.

Four separate discussions (and one unsupported redirect) in 6 months is a lot. You resurrecting this one makes it 5 or 6 in 8 months. You can start as many discussions as you feel you need. How many times do you need to get the same result in under a year before you expect doing the same thing over and over again will have a different result? Incidentally, AfDs always get a broader reading than these talk page discussions. I'd suggest you take it there for more eyes. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NTEMP. This is the fourth attempt to try to get rid of this article. Get over it. It is a permanent part of history. Trackinfo (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Umm, this is about merging, not deleting, hence not getting rid of anything. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As previously explained, the overwhelming majority of this article would have to "disappear" in order to merge into the debate article. Yes, a merge would "get rid of" most of this article. If you would still like to delete the article, please take it to AfD again. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Whether the GOP likes it or not, this phrase has become a permanent part of history and this article is an important historic landmark. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 17:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The episode and phrase have more staying power than I thought at first. In addition to February's Jeopardy usage referenced in the article, in June a Washington Post correspondent likened a less-than-impressive Miss America contestant's response to Gov. Romney's: "'The income inequality question is difficult enough on its own,' writes Post opinion columnist Alexandra Petri. “When it was posed to Mitt Romney back during the debates, he wound up coming up with Binders Full of Women. And ever since it hit the public consciousness, that 40 percent figure has been inspiring people to insert their feet into their mouths and wiggle them around.'" Miss Utah’s Scatterbrained Answer to the Pay Gap. Correspondents comparing new bad answers relating to women's employment to Gov. Romney's from earlier indicates that his answer has become a notable standard against which to judge bad answers. A number of books about the campaign have also deemed the binders episode significant: [10], [11], [12]. While it might be appropriate to merge the original utterance and response to the debate page (if space constraints did not lead to undue truncation), it would be inappropriate to merge the current and ongoing usage of this phrase to that page about an historical event.24.151.116.25 (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
• I think this merge discussion is dead (right now) in favor of the third deletion attempt, so please comment there. Keep watching here, though, as we can never have enough discussions about this. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

• In fact, I had already commented there when I discovered this was still open. Perhaps you would close it? Until it is closed, it seems prudent to object to both deletion and merging, if one is so opposed. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

}

Good sources to add

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

• Daily Mail calls it one of the best quotes of the year; 12/9/12
• Mirror pointing out as one of top 5 gaffes that lost him the election; 11/7/12
• Jezebel] magazine (also reprinted at CounterPunch):This War on Women awakened a sleeping giant. Ladies were paying attention, as the 2012 election proved. Romney and his "binders full of women" was sent packing, and the 113th Congress now has 20 female Senators, the most it's had in all of U.S. history. 2/14/13
• Jeopardy Hosts Binders full of women category (plus 3 other stories) 2/26/13
• The Guardian: Does President Obama need some 'binders full of women'? 2/12//13
• Rubio's water drink was tonight's "binders full of women" PolicyMic (WP:RS?) 2/12/13
• Denver Post blog item, 2/21/13
• RJI research team finds where Twitter, politics intersect, report on University of Missouri Journalism Institute studying showing While nationwide, the most tweeted about moment of the second presidential debate was a comment Mitt Romney made about "binders full of women," 2/26/13

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