This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
War on Whites redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
War on Whites redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)