Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/And you are lynching Negroes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And you are lynching Negroes

And you are lynching Negroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Patent Nonsense Animesouth 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This article is also totally unsourced. -Animesouth 01:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete the references sourced do not even have this precise phrase. --JianLi 01:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Not nonsense at all, but an article about an actual phrase. And there are sources. Yes, there could be more, but the article itself is fairly sound. janejellyroll 01:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is absolutely not patent nonsense; it's a well-known historical expression, and probably one of the classic examples of an adhominem argument. Probably needs some more sourcing, though. For instance, here's a citation for the use of it in propaganda:
  • Keep. One of my favorite articles on WP; well-known, not made up. Admittedly, some sourcing problems. Abeg92contribs 01:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • deleteGman124 01:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article's a bit of a mess but it does appear to be a historically important expression. There's already one source; more could certainly be found. Krimpet (talk/review) 01:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup.--ZayZayEM 02:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean. Seems to be a notable expression that actually existed. --Evan Seeds (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep an cleanup. I'm assuming that this is a notable phrase. Sr13 (T|C) 03:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Loved it, would read again! --ArrEmmDee 06:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: People keep assuming that this is a notable phrase. I have never seen this phrase used verbatim. The source listed in this article does not even use anything like this phrase. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Animesouth (talk • contribs) 06:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete on several grounds, first, there is no citation for the actual phrase--in any previous AfD discussion of this sort, that alone has always been fatal. second, the article implies a POV about Soviet criticism of the US. third, the article relies upon induction, known around here as OR. Most comments amount to ILIKEIT.DGG 08:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The problem is that a lot of the phrases are, naturally, in Russian. I don't speak Russian, but the literal (Russian) phrase in the articles gets some 8000 odd GHits outside of Wiki mirrors. Google's poor Russian machine translation gives a feel for some of these:
  • Here's [1] an article which uses the phrase, referring to Putin's autocracy.
  • Here's [2] another one which uses the phrase in context.
  • And another [3]
  • Here's a letter to the editor referencing it [4]
This is just on the first couple of pages. I can't translate any of the other languages, but a couple of them get a few hundred hits for the literal phrase as well. This phrase is notable, and is definitely not nonsense - the article just needs better sourcing. --Haemo 08:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I gladly accept your sourcing as relevant, & have deleted that point, but I still urge consideration of the others.DGG 22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Haemo; adequate sourcing and notable expression. Sandstein 09:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, just a phrase that might be mentioned in an article about U.S.-Soviet relations, nothing more. Piccadilly 11:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per DGG JBEvans 14:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Haemo's first citation which says "Don't you know that they're lynching Negroes in America? " More than a random phrase, this article shows a propaganda tactic used by the Soviet Union during the cold war. Please add this and other references. Edison 14:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as this was a rather infamous phrase/saying once upon a time and has a historical relevance to US-USSR Cold War relations. It is far from "patent nonsense". Tarc 15:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Haemo. We should be looking at getting more of that sourcing, into the article. This nom should have been better researched; an attempt to bring information about a term in another language needs to be checked in the other language, not deleted because 'I can't cite this foreign phrase in English.' That's sort of the point. Thespian 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Haemo. The phrase is apparently an old notable one in Russian. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but expand and rename. If the phrase has been translated multiple ways, the article should probably have a different name. "Soviet Propoganda"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lankybugger (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Weak keep. Currently listed "reference" doesn't have the phrase and DGG's point about original research is well-taken. However, Haemo's research seems to indicate that the sources do exist that would solve these problems. Shouldn't even be that difficult to whip the article into shape if someone who is particularly familiar with Russian were to take a crack at it. Mwelch 22:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Rename, after reading name I automatically thought to myself "delete." After reading the article, it does have some meaning to it. A good clean up and referencing should do the trick. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 22:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep changed to Strong Delete and tag it for lack of sources. Did not realize there are only 7 sites on Google Search that include this phrase. This is simply not notable.--FateClub 02:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And 8000 in Russian, and another odd 1000 in other languages. --Haemo 06:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A classic example of the misuse of the Google test -- this phrase had pretty much passed into history before the Internet began. JamesMLane t c 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If it was part of history wouldn't it be recorded somewhere? More than 7 sites perhaps? --FateClub 23:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"Recorded somewhere" doesn't necessarily mean "recorded somewhere online in English". JamesMLane t c 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
English-language publications discussed historic and recent events from any place in the world. From Ancient Rome and the Byzantine Empire to Vanuatu and Fiji. There are many institution teaching Russian history and culture and many researchers specialized in the area, and this was even more important during the Cold War, but it is apparent that THEY ALL missed this event or did not bother to write about it. There are excerpts and even entire publications posted in websites and capable of being found by Google. --FateClub 16:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't usually comment on these - but this seems to me to be a pretty egregious misuse of wikipedia. You write an article on progpaganda, then get narrower and write about particular method or source, maybe about particular writers. But an article on a specific phrase (or paraphrase) that might or might not be notable in the context of a larger subject? Come on! We can have great articles about every conceivable aspect of HUAC without having an ENTIRE ARTICLE just for the phrase "Are you now or have you ever been a Communist". Do we need separate articles for Uncle Sam and for the phrase "I Want You"? I could think of numerous other examples. This AfD has been a good example of a couple of good editors pointing out that the article is not nonsense and giving some context, followed by a flood of people essentially arguing "it exists, keep it." -67.85.183.103 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not all about propaganda - it's about the cultural impact, and use, of a given phrase which has transcended its propaganda usage. --Haemo 06:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep although we should make sure that there isn't a better-known translation of the phrase into English. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, but strongly urge that better sources be provided and if not forthcoming, re-consider for deletion. I was a functioning, politically aware adult during the last 20 or so years of the Soviet Union's reign, and I never have come across this phrase. That's not a good enough reason to delete - any more than people assuming it is legit is reason to keep- so sources seem to be in order.Tvoz |talk 03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, and go and write "Are you now or have you ever been a Communist" if you want. --Lukobe 05:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I think your proposed title should redirect to "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party", but, either way, I agree with you that an article on this phrase would be justified. It should be linked to from our existing article Are You Now or Have You Ever Been (about an episode of Angel (TV series)). JamesMLane t c 15:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I cleaned it, sourced, and expanded a bit. `'mikka 16:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: the phrase is known among Czechs and was used in the satirical sense in the past. Pavel Vozenilek 00:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: maybe the phrase warrants an article (it would probably be better off merged somewhere), but I was appalled to read "The image of America lynching Negroes was part of a stereotype propagated by the Soviet propaganda." Admittedly, the article immediately follows this with "The claim had validity in the 1960s when it originated, as there were human rights abuses including lynchings of African Americans going on in some U.S. Southern states. There were also many public and televised conflicts between the black population and police during that period." Well, yes. Everyking 05:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important topic. —Zacheus Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 11:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
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.