Talk:When a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word

"old joke"?
The article does not write what exactly was the old joke. - Altenmann >talk 22:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Altenmann: I've added some more information analyzing the joke, but, as is often the case when writing about comedy, it seems that all sources have seen it as unnecessary to explain the joke. So, as alluded to in my edit summary, Floyd isn't referencing any one particular joke. He's referencing the trope that women will try to get the last word, and I guess also the trope that, if the woman's beautiful a man will let her. It's so painfully "locker-room humor" that it may well not register as a joke to a lot of people, but that's how he intended it. If there's a way to explain that in the article without resorting to OR, I'm all for it. But as stands I think this does a pretty good job. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 23:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Articleworthiness?
I feel unsure as to whether this is worthy of being an article. Parts of this article feel like a COATRACK for Roe v. Wade (or at least its oral argument section), given that it spends a lot of time talking about the case and its participants, not the joke. In addition, the content, if merged, does not seem like it'd be so long that it'd overwhelm the Roe article (or at least not any more than it already is). I'm worried that this is something like Lewis (baseball) or Wisp (Sonic), in that the sources are not mainly about the subject and in many cases, are about the subject tangentially (see also User:Red Phoenix/Due weight as a measure of appropriate coverage). I appreciate the work put into this, though, and I do not intend to start an AfD for this article (a merge proposal is more palatable to me, but I don't think I'll do that either). -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Before writing this I thought about whether it would pass WP:NOPAGE, and I concluded that it does, because there's a fair amount of detail that would in fact overwhelm the Roe article. That article allocates only a paragraph to the first oral argument, and could make room for at most one paragraph more, in an article that needs to cover a lot of ground. This article, on the other hand, does allocate two paragraphs to the before and after of Roe, but otherwise breaks new ground that wouldn't fit in. The details of the courtroom setting and Floyd's subsequent stumbles might or might not fit. Weddington and Scalia & Garner's analyses of Floyd's motives; Delfs and Colker's feminist critiques; and DiCioccio & Little, Gavenko, and Rappaport's philosophical analyses of why the joke was so remarkably bad, on the other hand, all definitely wouldn't. And those last three, especially, bear emphasis alongside Scalia & Garner as scholarly works thave have treated Floyd's joke as a notable case study. Nor would the Roe article be able to fit discussion of the enduring notoriety of "When a man..." and its usage in popular culture.To me, the question of "how much well-sourced content would have to get cut in a merge?" is the best measure of an article's suitability to stand alone. That's the logic I applied at a previous brief-mention-to-article split, End Poem, which was kept in a merge request, so I've used that as my rubric ever since. At times it's led me to not make articles that I thought would have been interesting but would have failed it. Here, though, it led me to create one. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 04:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do see where you're coming from, though looking at End Poem, I do see the sources and the article actually being about the End Poem, without having to use multiple paragraphs to explain Minecraft or its final fight. A good number of the sources seem to mention the joke in the broader context of humor in oral arguments, which is perhaps a reasonable subject for an article. As its own thing, though, this is really light on sources with truly significant coverage. But what do I know? (I found another case study at Talk:List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters/Archive 4.) -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking of doing Humor at the United States Supreme Court (I think theleekycauldron had expressed interest too), and whether this would pass NOPAGE with respect to that is something we wouldn't know till it's written. For now, though, this has multiple high-quality academic sources that spent one or more paragraphs on it, in addition to significant pop-culture coverage, and so I think it stands well enough. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe) 23:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)