Talk:War on Whites

Is this notable?

Here we have an article about a single series of statements by a single United States Congressman, created the same day as those statements. Is there any conceivable justification for this as an article? This seems to be about as newsy as a thing can get. Dyrnych (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think so. The coverage is multiple days, it has caused a reaction in the society (internet meme), and there is a history of racial tensions in the United States that points to why this is notable.Casprings (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that more a justification for including it in the congressman's article rather than in its own (stub-length) article? What is there to the "war on whites" independent of Brooks? If the answer is "barely anything" or "nothing," why should it not be merged with Mo Brooks? Dyrnych (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If you look at a google search before the comments (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22War+on+Whites%22&biw=1362&bih=578&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A8%2F3%2F2014&tbm= ), the term certainly has a history of use in the US. Perhaps the article should be expanded to include more then Brooks and one mention of the terms history?Casprings (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

If you sort those results by date, you'll note that most of them (despite the date restriction on the search) still involve Brooks' comments. Apart from those, there seem to be at most sporadic mentions on white nationalist/supremacist and conservative sites. I don't think that that demonstrates notability outside of Brooks' comments, and I can't see how any expansion of the article would be productive. Dyrnych (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

How is it not similar to Binders full of women, which was judged notable enough to keep?Casprings (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not convinced of the reasoning behind keeping Binders full of women, I think that the main distinction between the two is the amount of overlap. I believe that the proposal in that case was to merge Binders full of women with United States presidential election debates, 2012. The consensus seems to have been that the amount of extraneous material referencing the quote renders it "inappropriate to merge the current and ongoing usage of this phrase to that page about an historical event." Those concerns aren't present here. I'd compare it more to Steve King's comments about illegal immigrants with "calves the size of cantaloupes": significant media attention, controversy, and widespread condemnation, but unworthy of its own separate page despite numerous subsequent cultural references (including one today. Dyrnych (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thats a different discussion. The delection discussion can be found here Casprings (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The anti-merge argument is much more apposite, as my argument is and has been that this should be merged with Mo Brooks' article. Again, compare to Steve King's comment. I don't see that this is any different, else we'd have separate pages every time a politician makes a controversial statement that's widely reported upon and criticized. Dyrnych (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that cuts to the issue. We don't have an article for every comment but we do have it for some. The question that separates some from others is the WP:N and significance of the the comment. I would argue that this comment is significant enough. You would argue it isn't.Casprings (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

And the distinguishing feature, in my mind, is whether inclusion of a comment in a particular article would cause the comment to dominate over the subject matter of the article itself. In this case, that's clearly not an issue, especially because the substance of this article can be reduced to a paragraph of "Brooks said X and was criticized" with no actual loss. Dyrnych (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because given the coverage, the uniqueness, and the historical context, I think it is important.--Casprings (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy deletion tag. Whatever the article's faults, A7 does not apply to it for a couple of reasons. First, by its terms the criterion "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." There is a credible claim of significance here. Second, the article is not precisely about a "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event." It's about a controversy related to a real person's comments. Although I think that it should be merged with Mo Brooks, the article is not about Mo Brooks himself. Per A7, the criterion applies "only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves" (emphasis added). Thus, speedy deletion is inappropriate per A7. If the editor who tagged the article wants to propose that the article be deleted, I suggest that he or she find a different rationale or follow the normal deletion path. Dyrnych (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Prehaps it is time to take it to WP:Afd?Casprings (talk) 02:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll likely propose a merger between this and Mo Brooks at some point in the future. No real rush, though. Dyrnych (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I was bold and did the merge. --Marjaliisa (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)