Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basket of deplorables

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 delete. I'm exceptionally closing this AfD early because (a) it has already far more comments than most AfDs, (b) the consensus is so clear to not cover this as an article that it is not conceivable that more opinions could realistically change the outcome, and (c) there is a parallel RfC to decide whether to cover this material in the campaign article. There is no consensus here about whether to redirect this topic to the campaign article, and no clear consensus is likely to emerge through more discussion. I recommend waiting on whether consensus emerges from the RfC before having the redirect discussion. But if anybody does want to have that discussion now, they can create the redirect and anybody else can take it to RfD. Sandstein 20:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basket of deplorables

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

An egregious WP:NOT, an obvious misuse of Wikipedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep News sources I have been watching, including the PBS Newshour, already report this as a very important event in the 2016 presidential election.Borock (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that something exists and is being covered may mean that we mention it in an article. It doesn't mean that we are required to give it a stand-alone article as opposed to covering it in another article. --Jayron 32 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. I just checked out 47 percent (which this is being compared to) and it is merged to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 Borock (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Not enough "there" to support a stand-alone article. The event can be mentioned in a paragraph in that article; there's no reason for this to be a stand-alone article, per WP:UNDUE. --Jayron 32 15:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Developing issue. Mr. Trump has used this in counterattack. There is an ongoing development. In any event, no compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect Absolute WP:POVFORK, a page meant to be a Hillary Clinton controversy. This material can and will be included on Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 once we have consensus on how to include it. There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 that this article's creator, E.M.Gregory, has been involved in, so this user knows that this is an inappropriate end around due to the slow moving discussion. A trout slap could be in order. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Campaign issue. Redirect. We are not the news. Given the ridiculous amounts of coverage every single fart generates--for a day or two--we can write a million articles. There's my African-American. 27 dollars (redirect). Beat the crap out of him. Little Marco. Lying Ted. Crooked Hillary. Many people are saying. They're rapists. If we start copying the news cycle, calling "notable" what talking heads think is notable, we are a long way away from writing an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ^^ Would a proposal along these lines have a snowball's chance in hell of making it into a guideline: As Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a political tool, articles about national elections should be limited to the elections themselves, candidates, candidacies, positions, [and other main topics]. Once the election is over, spinoffs can be evaluated." In other words, there's no reason this stuff can't just be covered in the main articles and then "lasting significance" assessed afterwards. Otherwise we have stuff like this that has to sit there inflating the significance of this subject (and all the others) for 7+ days while a messy AfD transpires. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 article. It's silly season for politics obviously, and every little thing said seems to draw an immense amount of attention. That being said, it doesn't make this notable on it's own. Side note: Can it be 2017 now, please? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, passing phrase of no real significance. No more appropriate than Trump's egregious crooked Hillary talking point. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Merging is not necessary since the content may or may not be integrated based on the results of the RfC on Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. TimothyJosephWood 16:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. What Timothyjosephwood said. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now without prejudice and deal with this at Talk:Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016#RfC. ~Kvng (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 and mention it therein with RS cites. Kierzek (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, per Jayron32 and Kierzek. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Hillary doesnt like being called out on it, she shouldnt say it. Riveted Fox (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is completely irrelevant. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - How so? It was reported widely. Thats what "notability" means, isnt it? Or do you just not like it when someone yanks wikipedia's liberal chain? Riveted Fox (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep its amazing how transparent the political bias is here. It passes GNG. There is tons of precedent which amazingly has not been given this level of scrutiny Delete your account Binders full of women etc ResultingConstant (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Binders was AfD'ed three times, and nominated for a merge twice more. That it was kept is because we have too many editors who are nearsighted, not because of some supposed bias. And if you're really suggesting that we are so biased we would delete this to clean up Hillary's reputation, then I think I'll build you a wall and make someone else pay for it. In the meantime, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delete your account, and thanks for the tip. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing. If we are so transparently biased, why do we have Category:Hillary Clinton controversies, but not Category:Donald Trump controversies? Drmies (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It may become notable in the future if it is proven it has had some long term effect of notability but until then, it's just speculation on a random quote which we can't have here at the moment per WP:RECENT. The C of E God Save the Queen!

(talk) 16:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that demonstration of long term impact is not required, merely, this is so for the excellent reasons that a great many very recent events are demonstrably notable. See: WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But why should an encyclopedia devote time and space to things that don't have any kind of impact? Someone mentioned that yesterday's weather is just as notable. In fact, I guarantee you that many more newspapers wrote about it. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (first choice) or redirect (second choice) - Per Drmies + WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEO. Is silly season done yet? Neutrality^talk 16:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not a single claim to notability given. Yes, there are sources that covered it, but that does not automatically make it notable; there are sources for yesterday's completely non-notable weather. If a spoken phrase actually does something to someone somewhere, then sure, that can lead to an article (if that something done is properly sourced). Here, there's nothing to say about the phrase, other than it's a phrase. There's zero substance for an article here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major incidents during a campaign, like all major incidents, can and regularly do pass WP:GNG soon after they happen. imho, this one already has already passed our notability tests at WP:GNG, which is why I started the article. I will be back as time permits to continue to expand and source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious, in fact outrageous, WP:POVFORK. Creating editor should be trouted to within an inch of their life. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er..., why? I have been entirely open. I notified editors working at Clinton 2016 campaign page. and Note that I have created several articles about incidents during this campaign season (America (advertisement); Balanced Rebellion; Act of Love (political statement and advertisement)). I created this because the incident is notable; it can and I confidently expect that it inevitably will eventually be linked to a short statement on Clinton 2016 campaign page; including more there would be WP:UNDUE. In addition, as I often argue on other pages, article are far more efficiently created as notable events unfold, because there are so many editors helping create an article at such a moment and because the sources are so easily accessed in the immediate aftermath of impactful events.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 and mention there only if supported by RS. It's much too soon to know if it will have lasting notability. Jonathunder (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 and consider adding a sentence about it, but probably nothing more. Pinguinn 🐧 18:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The same arguments would appear to apply to Binders full of women. Should we take another shot at an ASfD for that one as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 for now. If this statement becomes as notable after the election such as binders full of women, then it should become its own article. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with no strong position on a Redirect) - I'm surprised to see so many experienced users supporting keeping this. Maybe deserves a brief mention in the campaign/candidacy articles because it has received coverage, of course, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and every news cycle "controversy"-of-the-week doesn't need a stand-alone article (WP:NOPAGE/WP:POVFORK) when we have articles on the campaign, candidates, candidacies, elections, etc. Not opposed to recreation after the election, once lasting significance can be displayed, but it would really need a lot more to merit a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm. I don't see hardly any experienced users supporting keeping the article. I mean, I see the article creator, a brand-new account, and a glaringly obvious sockpuppet supporting keeping it. Everyone else seems to be pretty clearly favoring merge/redirect or delete. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Admittedly, I was drawing from my experience in other very similar campaign spinoff articles at AfD recently, but I see 3 editors with >7k edits !voting keep on this. Perhaps not "so many" but "too many". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An enormous amount of serious analysis & commentary still needs to be added to this article. I'll be back (and appreciate help with the task,) meanwhile, if anyone is in need of a good chuckle, I recommend this seriously funny Seth Meyers bit [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Obviously not sufficient for a standalone article, and this does smack of inappropriate content forking. In general, it would be helpful if, during election season, we could resist the urge to create standalone articles about every partisan talking point. I would be fine with deleting this article; after all, anyone searching for "basket of deplorables" already knows all about this particular controversy. But maybe a merge is better since the subject arguably deserves brief mention in the campaign article. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO. Merging or redirecting seems wholly unnecessary. Whether or not someone adds something along these lines in the Hillary article is up to a consensus there, and we probably shouldn't be deciding/forcing that for a such a controversial issue at this AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - one remark in a presidential campaign does not need a stand alone article about it.Smeat75 (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.