User:Cullen328/Sandbox/Refute

The AfD nominator, Muboshgu, comments that "Not every speech Obama makes deserves its own page" and concludes that coverage of the speech can be done "in a couple of sentences." While the nominator is certainly correct that not every single presidential speech deserves its own page, that raises the question of which speeches deserve their own coverage, and which don't? I submit that our general notability guideline should determine that. Here's the relevant quote: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." At the time of this writing, the article has 21 RS|reliable sources worldwide that discuss this specific topic in depth, including discussion by five historians, four of whom are presidential biographers, and two of whom have won the Pulitzer Prize. In my humble opinion, this coverage by reliable sources clearly fulfills the general notability guideline for this topic.

Madrid 2020recommends merging with Reactions: Giffords assassination attempt or the reaction section to the shooting article, and concludes that it is "not a notable speech. Not a 'ask not what your country can do for you" kind of speech." This user can be forgiven for drawing this conclusion before so many reliable sources have been added to the article, many of which were not yet published when the user first expressed this opinion

Muboshgu points out that "we can't merge this to a page that doesn't exist." A similar page has been created, though it too is going through the AfD process.

SarekOfVulcan recommends deleting the article, commenting that it "deserves about a paragraph in the shooting article, if that." The user fails to mention any policies of guidelines in support of this position.

Walton recommends merging into 2011 Tucson shooting, commenting "I don't deny that some individual speeches merit separate articles, where the speech itself has become a widely-recognized cultural reference (along the lines of "I have a dream" or "Ask not what your country can do for you..."), but this speech, while high-profile, doesn't have anywhere near that kind of emblematic cultural status. The speech is certainly important, and should certainly be covered in the article on the shooting, but I'm not convinced it's notable enough to merit its own article." I invite this user to re-read the article and the accompanying references based on the continuing coverage of the speech, and our notability guidelines.

Roscelese initially recommended merging "to whatever article is most appropriate, but later reconsidered and promised to "change my vote if the article is improved." The artile has been significantly improved since this comment.

PhGustafrecommends deleting "per SoV. Not a speech that will be long remembered; perhaps worth a graf in the shooting article or one of the Obama articles." This user offers no reference to any policies, guidelines, or discussion in reliable sources, but relies on the user's own assessment that the speech will be soon forgotten. [User:BD2412| bd2412 ]] recommends that "we should now have a separate article on the Tucson memorial, of which Obama's speech would be a part." SarekOfVulcan disagreed, stating that such an article would be "a WP:MEMORIAL, not an encyclopedia article."

bd2412 then changed to "keep" based on "development of the article.", and commented that a separate article about the event "would be no more of a WP:MEMORIAL that the 2008 Democratic National Convention."

SDY recommended merging, commenting, "maybe this will be taken as an example of great American rhetoric at some future point, but unless and until then it's just a set of remarks which are part of the shooting event and not notable in and of themselves." This user made no comment on what the reliable sources have said about the speech, but subsituted the user's own opinion of the notability of the speech.

AndyTheGrump recommened merging, "for the reasons already stated. I'm as yet unconvinced we need a 'Reactions' article, but if one is created, it should go there. Otherwise, it belongs in the 'Shootings' article." This user also did not coment about what reliable sources have said about the speech.

♦Ian Ma c M♦  recommeneded mergeing, "per above, not enough long term merit and coverage for its own article." Many references from reliable sources have been added to the article since this comment was made.

(talk to me)' 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Location also recommended merging "the verifiable information per the above; the weasel wording and unsourced bits about 'attacks' from critics needs to go." Since this comment, the "weasel words" and unsouced material have been removed from the article. Arzel recommended deleting, commeting "already mostly covered within primary article." At this time, the primary article has brief coverage of this speech, and links to this article for fuller coverage. Atmoz recommends deleting, commenting that "a speech like this by the President is going to get news coverage. That does not mean it's suitable for an encyclopedia article." This user fails to refer to any policies backing the user's opinion that an article about this speech is unsuitable.

 Toa  recommends deleting "For the reasons listed above." With all due respect, this user seems to bring nothing substantive to the debate.

PhGustaf comments that "editors suggesting 'merge' should be aware that the main shooting article already covers this matter, with arguably adequate detail and weight. Much of the material in this article was rejected there." This user asserts that the detail and weight is "adequate" but does not exaplain the basis for this judgment.

Muboshgu comments that "This is why I think this should be decided as delete rather than merge; all the necessary data is already at the main article. The rest is extraneous." This user does not explain which criteria should be used to determine how much information about a given presidential speech is "adequate" and how more than that is "extraneous".

Gavia immer recommends deleting, commenting, "This is already covered adequately at the shooting article, and doesn't need its own article." Shouldn't we rely on application of the general notability guideline, rather than the personal preferences of various users, in determining whether an article should be deleted?

Mandsford recommends deleting, commenting "Of course, this speech may prove to have been the turning point in American history, where Democrats and Republicans, inspired by President Obama, forever put all their differences aside and vowed ever after to work together to build a new era of peace and prosperity....naaaah." Rather than relying on our notability guidelines, this user seems to be implying that notability depends on whether the speech succeeds in bringing humanity to the promised land. Thats not what the notability guidelines stae about this or any other topic.

Jll recommends deleting, commenting that, "It's a memorial speech, one of tens of thousands made over the years by numerous national leaders and of no particular significance. If it becomes historically significant later then it can be recreated." The "memorial speech argument could be used to argue for teh deletion of the Gettysburg Address, and the emerging historical significance can be judged by what notable historians have already said about the speech, as referenced in the article.

filceolaire recommends a speedy keep, "at least for a couple of weeks or months. Let the editors work on this and figure out the best way to develop this page - whether it should be renamed and expanded or merged or whatever. An AFD discussion is not an appropriate way to make those decisions and is in fact deeply unhelpful to the process of improving the article. AFD is not a conflict resolution process. The fact that other speeches don't have articles is not a reason for deletion. This has the potential to contribute to a quality article so it should not be deleted." Since this user made that comment, the article has been expanded. I agree completely that the lack of articles about other notable speeches is not an argument for deleting this article. Instead, it is an argument for creating those other potential articles.

Jll responds that "the purpose of this AfD discussion is to figure out whether the article should be on Wikipedia at all. If not then improving the article is pointless because it won't change that." This user seems to believe that improving an article in the midst of an AfD debate will not affect the outcome of that debate. I know from experience taht this is not true, and that is why I have worked to improve this article.

DannyDaWriter recommends deleting, commenting that "this is a memorial speech given by a political figurehead that bears little to no importance in the context of policy. It's not notable enough to warrant its own article." This user advances the bizarre theory that a president of the United States is a figurehead, and that the speech is "not nontable" failing to comment in any way on the reliable sources discussing the topic mentioned in the article.

ƒETCH recommends Delete/merge/redirect, commenting "Not a notable enough speech that it must be split from the main shooting article. A more general "response to the 2011 Tucson shooting" article might be appropriate, though." Like so many others, this user fails to mention the general notability guideline, or to evaluate any of the reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth.

/ COMMS /  20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I know that I am going against what seems to be a developing consensus here, but today I have been reading what reliable sources are saying about this speech four days after it was delivered, and I believe that this speech is notable and will be long remembered. The striking thing is the number of Republican politicians and pundits who praised the speech, which sets it apart from any other speech that Obama has ever given.  The speech is also being discussed as a precursor of sorts to the State of the Union address this coming Tuesday.  It was also delivered a few days before the halfway point of Obama's term, and has extra symbolic importance as analysts look at the next two years.  I'll search out the best sources, add them to the article, userfy it if it is deleted, and return to it later. Cullen328 (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added 11 solid references to the article which I think show the notability of the speech. I respectfully ask that those who have supported deleting or merging the article will take a look at these sources and reconsider based on new information. Cullen328 (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to begrudge your contributions, but still Delete. It now reads like a glorification of Obama's speach.  While it is a good speech, I don't think we need an article that is basically a list of people saying how good the speech was.  The article doesn't talk at all about what the speech said, or what it's impact is.  It is still quite early to determine what historical impact the speech will have.  The title could just as well be.  Praise for Obama's Tucson Speech Arzel (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Arzel has raised a pivotal point-it is greatly the unusual near unanimity of positive response which marks the subject as notable. Some of Arzel's omissions have already begun to be addressed. Analysis will follow.
 * Keep.  The article, thanks to Cullen328, is much improved.  The speech may very well be a turning point for Obama.  It's also historic because its the only time Obama and Palin agreed on anything.  (You know there are thousands of articles more worthy of deletion  --  delete them first!)  --Kenatipo (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with the main article: Speeches of this sort are hardly special as presidents have done this throughout history following major tragedies. The Tucson shooting article could at best have a summary of the speech, reactions by the press, and the fact that the speech was nationally televised during primetime by the major TV networks. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd say the amount of coverage this speech has received, and in particular the positive assessments of it, make it notable enough for a separate article. Some of the media responses have said it was as significant as A More Perfect Union (speech), or even the best speech of Obama's career. I'd say it's at least as notable as the rest of the speeches in Category:Speeches by Barack Obama. Robofish (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep When the "leader of the free world" makes a speech that has people whooping at the funeral of a child,  when he speaks of the power of love over all other powers and achievements,and philosophizes at length, when even  his bitterest and most  foul mouthed opponents  praise him for it, that is a milestone and a keeper and worthy of separate note. Wikipedians seem to fall into two classes inclusionists and the sphincterically challenged. The article needs time to blossom before being stabbed to death. The analysis of the speech in the article will happen over the coming weeks--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 12:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:RECENT. There is no evidence of persistent coverage of this event.  The expectation is that it will last one news cycle.  Clinton's speech at the Oklahoma city bombing doesn't have an article, nor does Reagan's speech after the Challenger explosion, and both of those were very fine speeches that moved the nation.  Just because it's covered in the main article and not as a separate item doesn't mean we don't respect it.  SDY (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Less than notable. - Haymaker (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - A highly notable event -- especially for having Obama's most prominent critic Glenn Beck calling it "the best speech he's ever given." With the wide plethora of commentators and historians calling this Obama's greatest moment, it seems obvious to let this page be expanded.--The lorax (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am somewhat bewildered by the fact that the article currently contains a single line vaguely referencing the actual content of the speech, and no quotes from it, no discussion of its rhetorical devices, nor of the somewhat interesting fact that the entire "Gabby opened her eyes" comment was not in the distributed text at all, but was improvised in the moment, and probably drew the biggest reaction of the night. bd2412  T 03:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment response- I have tried to begin amending that lacuna BD2412 by at least providing  links to the pre and post ad lib transcripts. It is odd that with the polarized picture emerging on this page that the discussion page of the article was EMPTY until 30 minutes ago. I think the key to the article's retention may be seeing   the international recognition of  the significance of the speech. I hope all those who are voting 'Keep' are going to pitch in to make it a better article and maybe some erstwhile deleters too !--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional response I've added a summary of the content of the speech with many Obama quotes, added a section with comments on the notability of the speech by five historians, and tidied things up. The fact that we have no articles on such notable presidential speeches as Reagan's Challenger and Star Wars speeches, or Eisenhower's military-industrial complex speech, or Clinton's speech after the Oklahoma City bombing is not a reason to delete this article.  Instead, it is reminder that this encyclopedia is a work in progress.  We should create articles about those notable speeches, and also improve this article about this notable speech, as I am trying to do. Cullen328 (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Individual presidential speeches can be encyclopedic topics, and would make great articles. -- &oelig; &trade; 05:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * keep-I say keep it for now; everyone agreed the speech itself and the political context were all significant. If over time, this doesn't hold, then I suppose it should be removed. But for now it appears that the speech is going to be historically significant. Is there such a thing as probationary status for articles? 24.61.171.248 (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The burden is the other way; it shouldn't be kept until proven not to be notable, it should be deleted if not proven to be notable. This speech was added to Wikipedia due to WP:RECENTISM based on the remarks of pundits in the news cycle. If this speech goes on to end partisanship, then by all means reinstate it with the proper proof.  Until then, it's just the President giving a nice speech and getting applause, and that is not enough for notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete To give this an article in its own right would be a gross violation of WP:NOT. This is just another presidential speech, yes, hugely televised, but so is every day's news. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of going for merging into the reactions article, but then I noticed the long list of reactions it has gotten; I am tending towards keep for now as this might have some further notability in the long run. Nergaal (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just the "Response by historians" section alone convinced me that this should be kept. -- &oelig; &trade; 05:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)