- A More Perfect Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
This was speedily kept per WP:SNOW. However only a few hours was allowed for debate and, in particular, this excluded Europeans like me who would have been asleep. I would have voted for deletion on several grounds such as WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE. My impression is that this is a parochial item of news relating to long campaign in which many such incidents will arise. Given that there may be some partisanship in this matter, a hasty close seems improper. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing as how this wasn't deleted and the article can be re-listed on another day I think this is a waste of time. As closer of the AfD, I'm sticking to my rationale. I would also like to point out that I wasn't intending to be time-zone biased. I have no opinion either way. I see consensus where it exists. I won't complain if another AfD takes place, since I know it will be kept as well. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I think I overlooked the comment of partisanship. I'm not sure if you were referring to me when you (Colonel Warden) said that, as its unclear (i'm just now trying to get to bed, i think/thought). For the record though, if you were referring to me, I'm an anarchist. This is posted on my userpage, and has been for some time now.
- Nothing personal. My point is that we can expect partisan responses to this and so a flurry of snow may be due to that rather than an overall consensus which would come in more slowly. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I knew this was coming the moment I saw that it had been closed so quickly. Normally, I don't even go into deletion reviews; however, I think it extremely, extremely important that this stay, as most of the arguments against something notable and verifiable are WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Personally I don't believe in mainstream partisan politics and myself am actually a member of something smaller; I have no love for the person who gave the speech. Relevant controversies that the speech was actually meant to address, here in America it kind of took on new meaning. Saying that it is WP:SOAP is going a little far. As a politician, he has better ways to try and convince people of the merits of his arguments other than going onto a website that does it's best to strive for a NPOV and summarizing what other people have already said about his speech. Judging by the article, I don't really think it has that effect anyway. In any case, if that's a problem, this is wikipedia and therefore editable. Be bold and fix anything you think is a problem. Also, As WP:UNDUE is a NPOV thing and not really grounds for deletion unless the subject itself is inherently weighted, the only argument that really exists here is !news. As a political speech, even in one day, this has surpassed what it was intended to do and has become sort of a meta-speech, and, in the days of a rapidly-declining economy has managed to garner quite a bit of coverage as an inspirational piece. It is, and will only become more so, notable. Celarnor Talk to me 09:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- The topic here is to review the close, not to recapitulate the AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm just saying, there's nothing new to bring up, and resurrecting it would be without point. Celarnor Talk to me 09:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- In Europe some newpapers already comment this is probably the next "I have a dream" speech, so it is relevant and should stay. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 10:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I looked for this in my morning newspaper (the Metro which is read by millions of Londoners). It appeared in the article with the headline Hillary dealt blow as new poll rejected. Buried in that article was Yesterday, Mr Obama was forced to once again condemn comments made by his pastor.... It was just routine campaign coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's currently linked from the front page of BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7303987.stm - I think we can say that Europeans are "aware" of the speech. Onesecondglance (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would have to say that this is a notable speech, even if it isn't spoken about years from now, notability is timeless. If it is notable now, it's always notable per Wikipedia standards. There was substantial coverage of this one simple speech. KV(Talk) 12:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
If a new AFD is wanted so as to give more people the opportunity to chime in, I see no problem with that. However, in all honesty, the amount of third-party non-trivial coverage this speech has received makes it not only notable, but more notable than half this encyclopedia. Joshdboz (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- This article should absolutely be kept, as it concerns a speech that will be in the history books, and studied and quoted for many years (even centuries, assuming race remains a persistent issue in America) to come. It is absolutely inexplicable how this article could fit under any of the normal deletion critera, such as for (1) poor writing, (2) pages needing expert attention, (3) articles written in a foreign language, (4) bias, (5) a short article, (6)lack of verifiability, or (7) a small article which could be merged into a larger one. This article is not going to be a small article. It is likely to grow in length as the tens, perhaps hundreds, of commentaries about the speech accumulate over the coming weeks. I suspect some of the comments above are from people who have not read the speech from beginning to end (be honest). Seeing a few snippets on cable entertainment/news does not fulfill the responsibility of a Wikipedia contributor on this subject. --Tkhorse (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it was an unfortunate idea closing this as long as there was strong deletion arguments made by more than one person and an ongoing discussion about whether to keep it. Finding consensus whether this is just WP:NOT#NEWS and whether most keep votes are just WP:ILIKEIT was the point of the AfD, by preventing discussion about it, now it all was just wasted time. But at this point, I think it is best to wait a few months with a new AfD, then things might be easier to decide. So while not endorsing the AfD closure, also not saying the outcome should be changed or the AfD re-opened right now. --Minimaki (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It seems worthwhile to actually review the close rationale which said, Rationale. There is no real reason to delete. Article violates no policy, and is well sourced. Proper title so no merge. Stand alone so no redirect. Consensus has been reached thus far. No reason to prolong. Also, so this is 100% clear, and no one feels its necessary to provoke argument over this close, I will cite, albeit, and essay. Snowball clause closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible. It still seems to me that most of this is quite wrong. Hyperbole like 100% clear and absolutely obvious seems quite wide of the mark. And there was clearly a policy issue since the article obviously violates WP:NOT#NEWS which is policy. The speech is not even 24 hours old yet and such rushed coverage seems quite inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Isn't this stuff what WikiNews is for? The close seems to misrepresent the facts of the matter and does not present a strong enough case to ignore the normal 5-day rule. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- You seem to be misreading the above text. "100% clear" is in reference to the clarity of what the user was doing, not why he was doing it. And I'm sure someone has linked to it already, but the NY Times lead editorial is on the topic of the speech today, which frankly ought to be enough to exempt pretty much anything from deletion on notability grounds. MMZach (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- No. Pointing to fresh news coverage in a daily newspaper is prima facie evidence that something is news rather than the contrary. The notability guideline explains this: It must also be borne in mind, however, that Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews is appropriate for topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage.
- (ec) Overturn and relist per WP:SK: "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of 'keep' can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a 'speedy keep' instead." Non-admin closing a good-faith, potentially contentious AfD after less than five hours seems an egregious rejection of process. Nothing would have been lost by letting this run longer. Deor (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Probably best to wait a few days before relisting. I'm not sure that enough time was given for the AfD, but I know that for now at least we can't say that it violates NOT#NEWS; it might turn out to be notable in a few days, and then we'd have wasted some good work. It needs time, both to determine lasting notability and to make sure that everyone who'd want to comment on an AfD gets time to read the article first. I figure it doesn't matter whether or not we overturn the thing, unless we want to make a point of slapping the closer on the wrist, and I'm not very fond of that idea. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Relist. This was a premature close. Sometimes the apparent consensus of the first few hours changes, whether due to time zone differences or other time lags for people to learn of the discussion. I would have likely voted delete for WP:NOT#NEWS too. It seems premature to me to label a speech as historic within a day (not everything that gets editorialized by the media is "instant history"). While it is quite possible that the speech will turn out to be historic after all, it is not our job to guess. --Itub (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
|
