Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You didn't build that

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. Opinions here are more or less split with good faith arguments on both sides, and from reading our policies I see nothing that mandates either inclusion or deletion. Muboshgu did lay out his case in a good and comprehensive manner in the nomination statement, but Binksternet's arguments for keeping based on sources that made analyses on the phrase also carry weight. I looked into what our policies say, but policies can be interpreted in different ways by reasonable people. Some notes:

  • WP:NOT#NEWS says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.", and WP:EVENT says "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." The problem (if it's a problem) with this phrase is that it doesn't provide a bright line on when the coverage is considered "enduring". Some may think that it is "enduring" already since the Romney campaign picked up on the line throughout their campaign. Others think that "enduring" should be something that will be remembered and referred to years down the line. The policy does not really give any more guidance on how long it must endure (nor do I think we could expect the policy to do that). Determining whether there is a "lasting effect" at this point is also an educated guess at best.
  • The debate contains a "Note to closing administrator", a phrase I have seen a few times before. I ask that people refrain from using that phrase because everything in the debate is a note to the closing administrator, and adding it makes the note seem very important. It continues "Content from this article has been merged to the campaign articles. The edit history must be kept as required by WP:MAD. Therefore all Delete votes are invalid.". This note is (to use Politifact's term): Mostly False. It is correct that we usually do not close as "merge and delete" due to the attribution requirements, but we can work around it by moving the history to a different title, and we can also merge histories. We can also remove the merged content from the articles where it was added. A policy that allowed people to veto an outright deletion by performing a merge during the AFD discussion would be antithetical to a consensus model.
  • "They kept it once, you have to keep it now" is not policy either, since consensus can change (and consensus may arise where there was no consensus previously).

But although some of the reasons given for keeping are nonsensical, there is no majority, let alone consensus, for deletion and with no policy clearly mandating deletion I cannot call this a delete. Now, there is no majority, let alone a consensus for an outright keep either. Some people have suggested to merge the article with the one on the Mitt Romney campaign, but there isn't really any consensus for that either. The default for no consensus is that the article stays for the time being, and so that is the result here too. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't build that

edit
AfDs for this article:
You didn't build that (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)

Okay, here we go. In a nutshell, this should be deleted because of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, with any worthy content merged to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 and 2012 Republican National Convention. I will now detail why I believe this long and heavily sourced article does not belong on Wikipedia.

As many of us know, as part of the United States presidential election, 2012, Barack Obama gave a campaign speech in the swing state of Virginia in July. The reason this particular speech got an article is that in the speech, Obama made a comment about the need for government infrastructure as a prerequisite for the success of private business. The four word phrase "you didn't build that", which Obama uttered in his remarks, was then taken out of context by Republicans, including the Romney campaign, to suggest that Obama derides small business.

Now. we all know that political season is silly season. Republicans tried to make this phrase a theme to take Obama down. Democrats ridiculed Republicans, noting that what Obama said was right, especially as many of the businessmen who derided the comment had taken stimulus money, or had otherwise been supported by the federal government through other contracts. The Republicans used this phrase throughout their convention, even making it the central theme for a full day. This article was nominated for deletion in August, but as the phrase was widely used at the time, and we didn't know about its long term impact, and the article was kept.

Then, everyone seemed to realize that this political attack had no legs. Using the phrase gave no advantage to Republicans in polls. By September, you stopped hearing Republicans referring to this speech entirely. The campaign moved on to the next items of business. You can see from this article that there is a lot of content in terms of the immediate reactions, but then nothing about this for the last few months. That's because there was nothing else happening with this allegedly notable subject. I haven't seen a single political pundit even mention this speech in the wake of Romney's defeat on Tuesday.

Clearly, this argument had no bearing on the results of the election, seriously questioning any notability it had. Some of Obama's speeches are notable (see Category:Speeches by Barack Obama), but this was one of many campaign speeches that only gained notice for four words, which are now mostly forgotten. The article was created, expanded, and kept in August at AfD due to recentism. However, it is merely a political attack, which is a dime a dozen in this world, and not deserving of its own article. Now that the election is over, and Obama has won, with no talk about who built what for months, I hope we can close the door on this travesty of an article. Again, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and any POV-related guidelines you can find apply to this article. Any relevant content can be retained in the appropriate campaign articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of rebuttal points directed specifically at the above. First, the issue of what Obama MEANT to say, or the full context of the speech is not relevant. He did denigrate the contribution of individual effort to the success of businesses, it just wasn't the principal point he was trying to make. Politicians do not extract from other politicians' speeches to make their opponent look good. While they could have used "well, there are lots of smart people", or some other such, but "you didn't build it" best illustrated the preexisting criticism of Obama. Yes, it is the only thing people remember from that speech, but that is just an argument that the speech itself was not notable, not that the phrase isn't. The back and forth over whether the antipathy to business (the underlying theme) or the phrase itself was appropriate is in fact an argument for notablility, not lack thereof. The question of how effective it was is a valid one to bring up over any political theme, but I would dispute that it was not a principal theme of the campaign. Further, unlike attacks on Romney, which will dissipate now that he isn't in power and isn't running, substantive criticism of the attitudes of the President have legs for at least four more years. With regard to the tone of the Romney campaign in the last month, there was a general abandonment of attacks on Obama, a strategy of consolidating gains and playing it safe, and thus looking more Presidential, that has been much criticized; your explanation of why is WP:OR, and not generally supported. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like a narrative discussion of the event itself falls cleanly within WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I don't see lasting impact demonstrating notability under WP:EVENTS. I haven't seen any reliable sources opining that the "you didn't build it" speech is going to have any sort of lasting impact on Obama's presidency. That's just what you think which doesn't belong here. If reliable sources did so opine, and this article was focused on those comments, it would deserve to stay. AgnosticAphid talk 21:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhhh.... this isn't an article about an obscure speech, but about the political meme that came out of it; no longer an event.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It's not that simple. It's an article about a campaign theme that is solely based on Obama's remarks at a particular event. The article is overwhelmingly focused on the particular comments Obama made and how they were interpreted by whom. It's not really so much about "here's all the different ways that Romney used 'you can't build it' in his campaign." It's a lot more "here's what the president said and here's what everyone thought about it." To me, that makes it seem like the article is about the event more than about a meme or campaign theme. AgnosticAphid talk 18:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even if it is a meme, does that actually make it notable? I feel like "Romnesia" definitely wouldn't be an appropriate article, but I'm not exactly sure why or how it could be inappropriate while this article (insofar as it's about a campaign theme) is. AgnosticAphid talk 19:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not lost after being gained; it merely turns into historical notability. The term was "parsed" by the Chicago Tribune and commented on by many other very highly placed reliable sources. It does not go away after the election. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point isn't that notability was "lost", it's that it was never notable in the first place, as covered by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(events), I see no "significant lasting effect", and this isn't being "re-analyzed afterwards".– Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOTNEWS doesn't help us here. It is about routine news items such as putting up the annual Xmas tree in front of City Hall. It has no bearing on a political term that was widely discussed for weeks across the nation, spilling over into the UK media.
      • Wikipedia:Notability (events) doesn't help us here because it deals with events. The "You didn't build that" phrase is not an event.
      • Wikipedia:Recentism is an essay, not policy. It is ambivalent about deletion, supplying reasons for deletion and also reasons for keeping. An article that was initially developed by fast-unfolding news reports is later re-edited to emphasize a longer view for historical value. I consider this article to be of historical value.
      • Finally, WP:GNG takes care of whether this article should be kept or deleted. The topic very firmly answers the requirements shown: significant and reliable coverage independent of the source. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that WP:EVENTS is on point because this article is about the event of Barack Obama saying what he did. It's not about the phrase "you didn't build that" as a novel turn of phrase or lexical oddity or anything like that. If there was a showing that this event had a lasting political impact, I think this article would be appropriate. I can't say I see that at the moment but I've not been very involved here. AgnosticAphid talk 19:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand how you come away with the impression that the Article is about a speech on a single day. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still think its premature to delete on the grounds of the nomination. It was one of the "moments that defined the campaign"[1]. Ultimately dumb talking points like this likely cost Romney the election. By all means this should be covered in shorter form in the campaign history articles, but I don't see the problem with an article dedicated to this event. Its quite more significant than silliness like the Dean Scream.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing parallels to Dean Scream, it should be merged like Dean Scream has been. What do you think people will say when they look back at this article in 10 years time? Probably something similar to what you have said about Dean Scream. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But it doesn't hurt to have a separate article dissecting this campaign event, in my view. Binders full of women, that's more like the Dean Scream.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsuccessful campaign strategy and agree with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Maybe the real issue here is candidates focusing on the little things like this or "legitimate rape" instead of the major issues at hand, but that's probably best left to a different thread. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't build it is ALL about substantial anti-business policies.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with that is that You didn't build it and War on Women were both used by multiple campaigns. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to accuse another editor and an admin of edit warring, please have the courtesy to notify them so they are able to defend themselves. I feel I already know why you didn't report this "edit warring" at ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Way to find a flimsy excuse to WP:CANVAS some delete votes. [9][10] CallawayRox (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You would know Scjessey gave a half-assed excuse if you bothered to read the last AFD. I'm not going to waste my time again. Also the reverts happened during August-September when I took a break from political articles. CallawayRox (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick of this bullshit. It was obvious you stuck the link in there to help promote the article's existence and try to inflate the importance of the event. And at the time, the article reflected a non-notable speech instead of the very-slightly-more-notable faux meme created by the Romney campaign after the fact. And IRWolfie is absolutely right about informing me, especially since bringing up such matters in AfD is totally inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice WP:AGF failure. {{main}} is right there in Wikipedia:SS#Basic_technique. CallawayRox (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've known you too long to waste time assuming good faith with you. And there's nowhere near enough material to make summary style an issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of 4 months since the last AFD?? You're the notorious POV warrior who was topic banned, admonished and restricted by Arbcom for edit-warring on Obama articles. Your WP:GAME is obvious. Step 1: Delete content from Obama campaign article. Step 2: Claim "there's nowhere near enough material to make summary style an issue." CallawayRox (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge any relative material to the appropriate campaign article. This should have been deleted and merged the first time, but it should be glaringly obvious by now that this is not a notable event and was just a partisan attack based on a simple mis-speak while giving a speech. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The appropriate comparison is with War on Women, as each were overarching themes of their respective campaigns, both were rolled out when convenient, rolled back when not; the only difference is that while the theme of Obama's antipathy to business and free enterprise was long-standing, the catch phrase turned up late, whereas the Democrat's campaign meme came out early, and events or criticisms were fitted INTO the meme later. Neither was just a blip in the history of their respective campaigns, unlike the short-term gaffes whose articles have been deleted (or should be). Further, while neither was coined to enlighten and expand the debate, each has substantive issues which it refers to. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge anything useful into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, where it should've been in the first place. The Wikipedia community needs to have a serious discussion about what to do in the case of exploitative, agenda-driven articles such as this one. Whenever there is an election of some sort, garbage like this is created by partisans intent on using Wikipedia to push their agenda, and it needs to stop. The existence of other just-as-crappy articles is no excuse. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the spamming of WP with every talking point or gaffe is detrimental, and there needs to be a discussion; Political Articles are very often terrible. On the other hand, at SOME point, Political Memes DO become notable; question is when, and I would tend to argue that if a major party COMMITS to one, such as devoting their Conventions to them, that makes the grade. (both Your didn't build it and War on Women make it, the rest mostly don't)--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "at SOME point, Political Memes DO become notable" - they might become notable. But they might not and we should not be one of the conduits through which "notability" is established. In addition, important political memes might well (and fequently probably should) be appropriately covered within a larger parent article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As was said pretty clearly, the Scj seemed to be making a general comment about political memes, and the comment in response was that while spamming had been a problem, THIS meme met the hurdle, and why. WP:CRYSTAL is utterly unrelated; it is already WP:N, MAY become moreso, but does not need to.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has become a lasting meme. The subject is not inherently POV and indeed has been the subject of serious commentary beyond the question of how the Romney campaign used it. Note, for example, this Los Angeles Times column about common themes behind "you didn't built that" and Hilary Clinton's "it takes a village" [11] and this Washington Post piece about polls indicating that a majority of Americans may have ended up agreeing with Obama's point.[12] This is well worth keeping. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The nominator is entirely correct about many points, especially that this is clearly non-notable as it had no lasting impact and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which applies to more than its few examples given there. While it was a major topic at the RNC, notability is not inherited from the RNC/Romney campaign/the election as a whole, and therefore the article was never notable and WP:NTEMP does not apply. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Doesn't seem reasonable that we should have separate Wikipedia articles for every controversial thing that is said during elections.Keihatsu (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the subject of this AfD is not GENERALLY if Political memes make good articles; most do not, and most should be deleted ASAP (possible usually means once the campaigns stop and the partisan spammers let up). The question is, since memes are SOMETIMES worthy of note, does THIS Article meet those criteria. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the question that needs to be asked is this: Did this matter turn out, as expected, to be nothing more than a Romney campaign tactic based on taking Obama's words out of context? The answer is yes, since outside of the Romney campaign it lacks notability; therefore, it belongs in the Romney campaign article and it does not deserve its own article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was noticed by Brits and discussed in the Guardian. It was discussed very widely in US media, and parsed by the Chicago Tribune. It meets WP:GNG handily. Merging to the Romney campaign is not indicated nor necessary. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm British. The Guardian only "noticed" it in the context of it being a Romney campaign tactic, not a thing in itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was uncertain at first, but it's simply too notable. It is even still discussed after the election, so it's not just a blip in the news, and there is indeed a significant lasting effect -nullifying NOTNEWS and recentism concerns. Other deletion rationales don't look like covered by policy. --Cyclopiatalk 14:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that that particular article really supports the proposition that this event has a lasting effect. It notes that the media took a long time to cover this, states republicans focused on it a lot in their convention, and then says "In the end, instead of turning on Obama, some voters reacted to the remarks by saying the words in context made them feel more positive about the president." In my opinion, that's not a lasting effect. AgnosticAphid talk 17:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a post-election commentary showing that it was a focus of the republican campaign and that it backfired influencing the result of a US presidential election is not "lasting effect", I don't know what it is. However YMMV. --Cyclopiatalk 17:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, being a focus of the campaign itself isn't 'really' a lasting effect, is it? This sort of argument would expand the scope of Wikipedia to include every campaign theme of every arguably important election. I do agree with your second point -- we have an article about Willie Horton, after all -- but I haven't seen any reliable sources that say that this affected anything one way or the other (your source just says "some voters" "fe[lt] more positive about" Obama). As you said, everyone's mileage might vary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnosticaphid (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was just too much coverage in reliable sources to deny notability. As others have noted, notability is not temporary. The article is fairly good shape and has been stable for some time. There's especially no reason to delete now that the elections are over and there are no BLP issues. FurrySings (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, although this article has had issues AFD is about whether a subject is notable or not. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG and its notability is far greater than that normally prescribed to WP:NOTNEWS as the coverage of the subject went far beyond the standard X went to Y, or the weather is Z at A on day B.
Now as for this being an event, it appears that since my last visit to the article (which I said I would not longer edit) it stopped being about an event and its effect but about a meme. As a meme, and its origin, the article has a significant about of reliable sources to indicate that the subject received more than routine coverage, and that it is clearly notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see this as a meme at all, despite what the page said when I nominated it. It's a phrase that got some play until it didn't. I don't see the impact on culture that a notable meme would have. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not want the page to devolve into an article about a meme either, but I said I would steer clear of editing it, and I have kept to my word. The article was originally about an event, as an event it received significant coverage from multiple independent sources, and clearly passed the WP:EFFECT criteria. A significant reason why in the original failed AfD of this article was arguements revolved around such things as WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:CFORK. Now there was clear consensus there that it was not either, and was notable. Now, is it related to other notable subjects? Yes. Is it independently notable as well? Yes. Can it be summarized, merged, and redirected? Yes. Do I see that as the best solution? No.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, notable once is notable forever, except this was never encyclopedically notable, it was just news; its notability came from the election and the article was made out of recentism. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article was "made out of recentism"? What does that even mean? Just because something is recent doesn't mean it isn't notable. What constitutes your definition of "encyclopedic notability", and how much of the encyclopedia are we going to have to delete to accommodate it? Everyking (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is yet another invalid argument for deletion discussions, and "how much of the encyclopedia are we going to have to delete" basically falls under its scope. Not to mention that I am not trying to own the encyclopedia, as you seem to think, but rather improve it. You should know that I do not like being accused of such things as attempted owning. Meanwhile, encyclopedic notability refers to the general notability guideline, as long as the subject is not an example of what Wikipedia is not. This is something that Wikipedia is not. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete The notability of this topic (despite all protestations) is nil. Reviewing the relevant guideline, WP:EVENT, the third bullet: "Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event." and the fourth bullet "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." apply here. Looking at the sources in the article, none of them satisfy WP:PERSISTENCE, and none of them satisfy WP:INDEPTH. This is precisely the "water cooler" type event that does not merit it's own article. Including the content in the relevant campaign article is what makes sense here. aprock (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Do we have to create an article every time a politician says something stupid?!? (or something the opposing party says is stupid). Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy just got deleted and Todd Akin rape and pregnancy comment controversy is nominated for deletion. The argument that it's meme status makes it newsworthy is ridiculous. Today's meme-happy culture will make literally anything a meme; that no one will even remember in a year. Put the comments on the politicians' pages, but don't create new articles. #dangerousprecedent Light-jet pilot (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'"Do we have to create an article every time a politician says something stupid?"' - Nope. Only when it's deemed notable by reliable sources, like in this case. --Cyclopiatalk 17:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Partialy correct -- It was deemed notable in the context of the 2012 campaign. Not for a stand-alone article. Light-jet pilot (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is based on a single news event, and is not notable as a whole to be an encyclopedia article. Keeping the article is subscribing to WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia is not a news site, nor does it function as a repository or forum for WP:NEWSEVENTs. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this is about an event, not a meme, for the reasons I mentioned above – it's mostly narrative and not as much about, for instance, all the different ways this comment was used in the campaign or how there was some popular you-didn't-build-that tumblr or something. I don't think this is an event with a lasting impact per WP:EVENTS. Insofar as this actually is about a campaign strategy/theme or meme, it seems to belong more in the 2012 presidential election article than it warrants its own article here. I don't think that Wikipedia should have separate articles on all the different campaign themes of US elections unless the themes are particularly notable or influential, which I don't think this is. AgnosticAphid talk 20:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not significant enough for its own article; very likely not significant for a mention in most possible target articles. Notnews, not significant, not encyclopedic. Might be worth a teensy mention in the election article, but not in my opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Per nomination, Wikipedia is not news and is not a newspaper. Subject is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Fails WP:Event as well as there is no claim or evidence to lasting significance. Holyfield1998 (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)— Holyfield1998 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: (to answer them in one place) I'd like to notice that the !votes above by M0rphzone, AgnosticAphid, KillerChihuahua and Holyfield1998 are not based in any real policy or guideline, despite their linking of WP:NOTNEWS and the like. NOTNEWS makes sense in the context of very routine news coverage, but the fallout of this remark went well beyond that. It is still being cited. It Also, arguments like "not encyclopedic" are known to be fallacious. --Cyclopiatalk 16:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well, wp:events is a notability guideline, and wp:notnewspaper is a policy. I explained why I think this article doesn't meet those two. You may disagree, but you haven't really explained why except for "it's kind of a big deal." That article you linked is really not about "you didn't build that," it's just mentioned in passing. The marginal nature of the references you keep providing leads me to think there really aren't any post-election articles or studies about this supposed "meme" qua meme which IMO is what it would need to stay.AgnosticAphid talk 16:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't really "explain", you just stated stuff like "I don't think this is an event with a lasting impact" -not much of an explanation. The references mention it in passing, but mentioning is all what is needed to see that the episode lasted beyond the initial burst of news. The point is not that I disagree with the policies -it's that you (plural) are quoting them without explaining objectively and/or convincingly why and how would they apply, apart from circular reasonings "I don't think it's notable, therefore it isn't". --Cyclopiatalk 16:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my reasoning would be clear to those who read the guideline, but I guess I was mistaken. wp:events says that events are notable if they have lasting historical significance or a significant or lasting effect. There doesn't seem to be evidence of that. WP:events also says that events are notable if they have "widespread impact" "especially if also re-analyzed afterward." Although its only an essay, I also liked the "criteria" part of Wikipedia:News articles. This article is not a critical analysis of either Obama's remarks or their subsequent use. I just don't think there really is much such analysis out there.AgnosticAphid talk 17:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTNEWS is not really used as a meaningful policy argument—hardly anyone who cites it ever uses it correctly. Normally, it is used to avoid the bother of constructing a coherent argument. Everyking (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This topic (I mean, the speech) did not solely affect either campaign. Romney lost by electoral votes, but lost to Obama by just ONE PERCENT popular vote. Shows that this speech has nothing to do with the election and its results. --George Ho (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not an expert on either deletion discussions or the technical aspects of merging, but my read of the essay you linked is that even if this article is deleted if the (deleted) article had a redirect to the campaign article(s) then the edit history would be preserved. AgnosticAphid talk 21:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes GNG, plus WP:NTEMP. Instaurare (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, but rename. Having stood on the floor of the Republican National Convention while they played video after video about this comment (I missed the song about it unfortunately), I can't see how the fact that it was blown way out of proportion makes it somehow non-notable. Yes, this was made notable by a partisan media machine, but that doesn't somehow erase the fact that it was made notable. My one objection is the name: It's a violation of WP:POVTITLE as the quote, in and of itself, has a partisan connotation. Let's change it to something like "'You didn't build that' remark meaning controversy," "Barack Obama 'You didn't build that' remark meaning controversy" or even "Dispute over Barack Obama's usage of the phrase 'You didn't build that'" or something really clunky with that - the tendency with political topics is to choose long, boring names over more accessible, familiar ones. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And for one simple reason. I am writing an article. I need a nutshell analysis of "you didn't build that" to explain a quotation in the article that doesn't make a lot of sense without this context. So I searched, and found this article. It will work perfectly to explain with a simple link-in, as Wikipedia articles so often do. Why delete something that is so useful? Richard Myers (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:ITSUSEFUL, that's an argument to avoid here by itself. Perhaps if you explained what you're writing about it might be easier for us to figure out why it's so useful?AgnosticAphid talk 07:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a bit different because you can say the Jack Kennedy comment had a lasting impact since people have been talking about it for 25 years. Plus, there wouldn't have been a wikipedia article so soon after the event given the date. Maybe that just means this AfD is premature. It is true that in neither case did the event apparently have a decisive political impact, and it does seem like nobody has questioned the notability of that event. AgnosticAphid talk 07:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Same article, new name. They kept it once, you have to keep it now. We know that this became popular because of its different usages (meme, attack ad, video that feature it just for fun). It's one of the campaign remarks that makes it want to be kept in the museum (WP), not deleted from the cyberspace. PitsConferGuests 11:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. As with similar US political memes, the fact that something got a lot of media coverage means that it may have an article, not that it must. Covering political campaigns at this minute level of detail is the job of newspapers, not (per WP:NOTNEWS) the job of an encyclopedia. Appropriately condensed coverage in the articles about the election, the campaign or the candidate suffices entirely.  Sandstein  18:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/You_didn%27t_build_that&oldid=1136106822"