Talk:Chicago-style politics (meme)

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2015. The result of the discussion was merge to Chicago-style politics.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chicago-style politics (meme) redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page was proposed for deletion by Springee (talk · contribs) on 2 September 2015.
It was contested by Mr. Guye (talk · contribs) on 3 September 2015 with the comment:
The references seem to pass WP:RS

Notable?[edit]

Is this topic actually notable enough to exist? Shouldn't this be part of a larger topic talking about political attacks on Obama? Perhaps part of the 2008 and/or 2012 election pages? Springee (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of this article is in question. Keeping it as a stand alone article is highly questionable. Barring other suggestions, on or around Sept 10th I will post it to WP:AFD. Springee (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently questionable edits have been made by HughD to other articles in what appears to be an attempt to make other articles cite this one. That sort of questionable editing does not address the WP:NOTE issues associated with this article. It is not at all clear that there is any reason to have a stand alone article on one of the many statements made about the Obama campaign and presidency. These questions should be discussed on the talk page. Springee (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to focus on content and depersonalize your comments concerning article content on article talk pages. The appropriate forum for concerns regarding article content is the talk page of the article of concern. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you can start by justifying why this topic is notable. Recently Ricky81682 mentioned your edits to the talk page of Chicago-style_politics as not helpful. I was hoping we could have a better conversation here since you moved the questionable meme topic here. So let's hit on the issues, why should this topic exist at all? Why if it's notable, and I'm not sure it is, shouldn't it be part of some other topic. You are the prime editor of the topic. I would hope you would be willing to engage on the talk of the article.

So with that said, please justify why this topic is notable and should be stand alone. For that mater is "meme" even a correct description in this case? Springee (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Please see WP:GNG. Hugh (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, that is at best only one of the requirements to be notable. Second, it has not received significant coverage. It actually has received very little. The articles aren't about the meme, the are about campaign statements and claims and the like. Third, why do you think 'meme' is the correct term vs say 'phrase', 'rhetoric' or something else. Fourth, why shouldn't this just be part of a wider topic on the campaign rhetoric? Springee (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't this article link to the original Chicago-style politics article to explain the origin of the phrase?Springee (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging. Yea I had previously been active here (on Chicago-style politics, not meme page). But one user has assumed control of this page. I really dont care to deal with him again. Yes, he is Coatracking it to make it an attack page against the GOP. When others disagree he strafes the page with "citation needed" or "failed verification" tags and asks dissenting opinions to "please explain". He will call in RfCs, take it to ANI, etc.

I agree this page should not exists since it is not notable and is being used to Coatrack. But it is astounding that no real disciplinary actions have been taken against this user other than continual warnings. I really dont care to get involved with his behavior again and have him insult me with an accusatory tone and drag me through noticeboard after noticeboard until he gets his way. Good luck dealing with him! DaltonCastle (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on content and relevant policies and guidelines here on this article talk page WP:FOC. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

By making this article only about GOP usage of the phrase "Chicago-style politics" without talking about it's historic origins the WP:NPOV of the article is very questionable. Please justify the neutrality of the article. Springee (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I do support deletion or merging. The "meme" article is not notable, without even considering its failed NPOV. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest this article is redirected to the older article since a merging of the content has already occurred.[edit]

Fyddlestix has taken the initiative to merge the content of this article with the older Chicago-style_politics article. With that merger of content complete I would propose redirecting this article to the older article. Links to this article which are specific to the 2008 and 2012 elections should direct to the related subsection of the old article. More general references to the general article. Springee (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]