Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural matters related to Hillary Rodham Clinton

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 Gridlock. I see two consensi here: 1. This article should not stay as is, and where it is, and 2. It contains "salvageable" material which could be included elsewhere. Since I can't divine what is salvageable I'll put a merge tag up for now and revisit (and redirect) in a week. Everything else is editorial decision and should be discussed at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies. ~ trialsanderrors 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural matters related to Hillary Rodham Clinton

Reason The Sign of Four 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no place in Wikipedia.

Quotes about speculated cosmetic surgery and dress code belong in a gossip magazine, not an encyclopedia. A name is less popular than it was ten or twenty years ago? That is the rule, not an exception. A married woman keeps her surname? Honestly, I wonder who wrote this article.

Any real controversy should be posted to the main article and discussed there. It's my opinion that nothing in this article qualifies though.

Comment. The Sign of Four,as a procedural issue, could you please set forth the specific Wikipedia policy or policies that demonstrate why you believe this article should be deleted? Thank you. OfficeGirl 02:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. True, these are not heavyweight controversies; those are contained in Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies, which is referenced at the top of this article. But these are matters that have come up fairly often regarding HRC. The remark about cosmetic surgery came from her Republican opponent in the Senate race this year, not a gossip mag. The Tammy Wynette and baking cookies remarks were famous fiascos and got tons of media attention in 1992 and thereafter. The name changing bit is also clearly important, as it had political ramifications in Arkansas at the time and she made a big point of restoring the 'Rodham' officially in 1993. Like her or not, HRC has taken a unique path through American life and encountered or triggered various cultural rifts along the way; this article's purpose is to document those. Wasted Time R 02:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the so-called "cultural rifts" in the article are ephemeral and trivial. Bwithh 03:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such "ephemeral and trivial" rifts continue to be discussed to this day concerning the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for the US presidency. JChap2007 03:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies.--TBCΦtalk? 03:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gossipfluffpoliticocruft. Unencyclopedic trivia for the most part. Relevant policy would be WP:NOT (not an indiscriminate collection of information) plus overarching Wikipedia mission statement that it is primarily an encyclopedia. We're writing biographical articles, not detailed books with every minute detail of a person's career history. Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic value. A couple of the points might be okay as a merge to the controversies article, but should be cut down significantly. Bwithh 03:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (edit conflict) as distinguishing between major and minor controversies is entirely based on opinion and therefore, inherently POV and unverifiable. These controversies have all been covered in reliable sources numerous times and so are notable. JChap2007 03:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage by sources is necessary but not sufficient condition for encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 03:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, a number of sources used in the article are not reliable sources e.g. blogs. Some of these are not controversies - the hairstyle website and the "high voltage actress" (whatever that is) Sharon Stone supposed quote. This is a poorly put together article, besides the other issues Bwithh 03:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the items are supposed to be controversies; 'controversies' is not in the title of the article. Wasted Time R 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the poor quality (although this has never been a reason to delete). Some of the later entries should be sourced better or deleted as well. JChap2007 03:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added cites for the sections that were missing them. Wasted Time R 04:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is salvageable. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 03:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic gossip-column nonsense. The name-changing bit may be worth merging, as it was a fair amount of controversy despite belonging in the American politics version of WP:LAME (hmm, doesn't all politics go in there?) Opabinia regalis 04:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies as appropriate (i.e. cut back aggressively on detail, importance). Maybe into a section like Cultural criticism. As it is this reads like a trivia section or a light magazine feature, not an encyclopedic article, and despite NPOV language and rebuttal links, comes across as treating a politician differently because she is a woman. There's no comparable section in our articles for any male politician (that I know of). I do think there's something to be said about how HRC is such a major icon in the culture war -- at least, that's where most of the criticism and dislike of her intermingle. As an article, though, this is just unfocused and poorly scoped. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sections 2, 3 and 8 into controversies article, as they are all quite well sourced and documented. Rename what's left of the article into something like Aesthetic controversies of Hillary Rodham Clinton. I can't come up with a better name than that, it's not my fault the American media is interminably shallow and pretentious. Black-Velvet 06:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anything to do with Clinton's appearance, her name, her personal life, all goes into the Aesthetic article. Anything to do with controversies she's started by saying something inappropriate, regarding social issues that have immediate political consequences, are placed in the controversies article. Black-Velvet 06:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, appopriate content to Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies as some things in the article are quite controversial. Parts of the article are sourced with reliable sources. The remaining content is POV and unverifiable, and does not belong anywhere on this encyclopedia. --Ter e nc e Ong _{(C | R)} 06:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything that is important from this article should already be in Hillary Rodham Clinton, and everything that is not important from this article does not need to be in this encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 08:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that moving material back into Hillary Rodham Clinton is impractical, as that article is already too long. Indeed this article and the controversies article are two of five HRC subarticles, the others being Hillary Rodham Clinton 2008 presidential speculation, List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Political views of Hillary Rodham Clinton, all of which were split out of the main article to reduce its size. Wasted Time R 12:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if there's anything that can be salvaged. ¿ςפקι Д Иτς! ☺ ☻ 18:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Appears some things are verified and can possibly be kept. P.B. Pilh e t / Talk 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. And by that I mean that it some of the more credible (if any) information should be merged into appropriate articles, and the rest should be deleted. Also, I think this should be done asap. I'd sooner have it deleted quickly with the remote risk of loosing some useful information than have the page hanging around. Just my thoughts :) --JE.at.UWO^U|_T 20:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not what wikipedia is for meshach 00:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced political gossip. Edison 01:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Political gossip. Westenra 03:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gossipy junk.Akanksha 05:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep these are cultural issues of the sort historians will be discussing for the next 100 years--as indeed we have been discussing similar issues re Eleanor Roosevelt in scholarly books and journals. It should remain a separate article (the main bio is already too long--and will be much longer in 2 years). Rjensen 17:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Everybody knows that the Wikipedia is fast becoming an easy way for people to clandestinely further their political agendas. This article refines the technique and should be required reading for all who want to make Wikipedia a sub-rosa means for furthering hidden agendas. Bravo to the authors. BTW, can someone please write a "Cultural matters related to Monica Lewinski" article? --Me
Strong Delete per nom and the ridiculousness of all the Keep votes such as the one above. Danny Lilithborne 00:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Everybody knows that the Wikipedia is fast ..." vote was from an anon and should be disregarded whatever it says. Wasted Time R 01:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep informative but reduce instances of PoV. - Patman2648 01:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ugh. Some of this is worth keeping but could be merged into the main article. Definitely delete this as a disorganized collection of tidbits, some of it true, some of it unsupported, all of it without an organizing principle. --Richard 05:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is embarrassing. It's hard to think of anything less unencyclopedic that unsourced gossip that adds nothing to the general knowledge. This makes WP a laughingstock.Francisx 22:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we reading the same article? There's nothing in here that's unsourced, and little that is gossip. Wasted Time R 23:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep or Merge These articles belong on Wikipedia in order to fully understand the cultural issues of our time and the opinions of our elected members on them.
Merge the NPOV points appropriately, delete the rest. WMMartin 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Ludicrous listing of gossipy, extremely non-notable "information", some of which is sourced solely to blogs. I don't think any amount of editing would make this article worth keeping.-Hal Raglan 13:44, 16 November 2006 (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.