Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. The direction of this discussion changed significantly after the first couple of days. What looked like a clear "delete" has become a fairly clear "keep". The run of delete/redirect !votes in this discussion largely happened before (a) the article was expanded, and (b) it became clear that the speech and the process by which it was written was receiving a considerable amount of coverage and dissection by commentators and historians. After those developments (eg if a line is drawn in the discussion at about 17 January, when the developments happened), the consensus started trending quite firmly to keep. So while the numbers in the debate as a whole are pretty much even, the consensus now is to keep. Merges have also been proposed. However, I'm unable to discern any consensus to merge, particularly as, again, the large part of the merge !vote came early in the discussion. Also, real questions have been raised whether the merge proposals would be viable given the size of the target articles. Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not every speech Obama makes deserves its own page. This isn't his speech on race, or his speech to the Arab world. If he had spoken more extensively about the political environment, we'd have something to document. This speech was really just a simple memorial speech, which has gotten some positive analysis from people on all sides of the political spectrum, and can be covered in 2011 Tucson shooting in a couple of sentences. Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with Reactions: Giffords assassination attempt or the reaction section to the shooting article. Not a notable speech.  Not a "ask not what your country can do for you" kind of speech. Madrid 2020 (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your rationale, but we can't merge this to a page that doesn't exist. There is ongoing discussion about creating that page, but it hasn't reached any consensus. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One problem is the constant edit warring. There are people who are opposed to having such article and then cut out huge parts of the reactions section so they can say "see, it's not too big".  Madrid 2020 (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Acather96 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  -- Acather96 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- Acather96 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, deserves about a paragraph in the shooting article, if that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * :Vote withdrawn. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2011 Tucson shooting. 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. WaltonOne 19:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to whatever article is most appropriate. It can always be split off again if the speech proves to have enduring historical significance. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Wait, we actually have a bunch of articles on presidential speeches - it looks like the bar for this to be a separate article is pretty low. I'll check back in a few days and will change my vote if the article is improved. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per SoV. Not s speech that will be long remembered; perhaps worth a graf in the shooting article or one of the Obama articles. PhGustaf (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. My thinking on this is that we should now have a separate article on the Tuscons memorial, of which Obama's speech would be a part. The memorial was a notable gathering, not just for Obama's speech, but for remarks by other public figures (the governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of Homeland Security), and the separate criticism raised by some regarding the 'rally-like' atmosphere of the event. bd2412  T 20:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote changed to keep per development of the article. bd2412  T 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly at the moment -- what would the purpose of that article be? What would the contents be, short of a list of speakers? Unless I'm very wrong, that's a WP:MEMORIAL, not an encyclopedia article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be no more of a WP:MEMORIAL that the 2008 Democratic National Convention. It would be an article on a notable event and reports relating to that event. bd2412  T 20:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge. 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.  SDY (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge, 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per above, not enough long term merit and coverage for its own article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge the verifiable information per the above; the weasel wording and unsourced bits about "attacks" from critics needs to go. I would not object to including this in a stand-alone article about "Reactions" or "Aftermath" if or when consensus is that it should be forked. Location (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Already mostly covered within primary article. Arzel (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete a speech like this by the President is going to get news coverage. That does not mean it's suitable for an encyclopedia article. -Atmoz (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - For the reasons listed above.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  00:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. 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. PhGustaf (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The end result of a merge, rather than a straight deletion, would be that this title would redirect to the corresponding section in the shooting article. bd2412  T 01:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is already covered adequately at the shooting article, and doesn't need its own article. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete 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. Mandsford 02:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. 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.  Jll (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. filceolaire (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. Jll (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed with many of the above; 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. --DannyDaWriter (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge/redirect 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. / ƒETCH 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)
 * Comment The article continues to improve in quality and the speech may have contributed to Obama's recent increase in popularity. There are many, many articles more worthy of deletion.  Why the rush to delete it, anyway?  Give it some time.  --Kenatipo (talk) 17:49, 21 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)
 * The unprecedented positive reaction from the eminent is important, but the speech is notable also for its philosophy of transcendence. Recentism is about the flimsy and the controversial per its page.This is the opposite.Perhaps a section in the article citing the reactions of Philosophers  would help--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 04:55, 20 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)
 * Nothing to do with WP:NOT -it is about dead relatives and pals-this is about a notable philosophical speech--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 04:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. 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)
 * Comment I ask any editor who wants to make a recommendation to please review the general notability guideline, then take a look at what the reliable sources have to say about this specific topic, and then make your recommendation based on policy rather than personal opinion. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment 8 merges/11 deletes (one editor bolded delete twice)/ 9 keeps/ I delete-merge-redirect, making 29 recommendations have been made so far. but who is counting?--— Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 10:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * merge/delete doesnt warrant its own article and can easily be paraphrased into the reactions article as a subsection where the reactions tho the pspeech can be noted and a text of the speech can be ref'd or EL'd(Lihaas (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC));


 * Keep This speech is clearly notable, given the amount of independent coverage by reliable sources. It is an important political event in its own right, and arguably is of greater importance, both in the short and long terms, than many State of the Union addresses. The Celestial City (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * State of the Union addresses allow the President to create a narrative and direct Congress towards certain legislative goals. This speech accomplished... what exactly? --Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A distinct cooling of partisan tensions, for starters. The speech may not have been given in such a formal context, but that does not make it any less significant. The Celestial City (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not know how to respond here on one hand each president has 4 to 8 years in office and this is a highlight. On the other hand, notability is not inherited and just because the event is notable the same may not be said about the speech. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge, for reasons stated above. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge This can easily be covered in the main article, and most of what is in this article is not notable anyway. Do we really need an entire section on writing the speech? Its not the Gettysburg Address. It doesn't need to be broken down, piece by piece, so I say trim oiut the fat and move it to the main article.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You want to merge this back into an article that is almost 100KB long? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I was asked to reconsider my earlier delete vote based on changes to the article. The end of the lead says "The speech was notable for the unusual praise that it received from many conservatives and Republicans."  Essentially, we are saying that a non-controversial speech is notable for inclusion because nobody criticized it?  I understand the political system here is toxic, but really?  There is now information on how Obama wrote the speech, but I doubt that information is notable now, let alone how it will be considered in the future. I appreciate the additions of the speech itself, which were totally absent when I AfD'd this article in the first place, but the changes don't resolve my concerns with the existence of this article.  I reaffirm my earlier delete vote, despite the improvements. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge I vote to merget the article with the main 2011 Tuscon Shootings page. I saw the speech live on television and agree that it was one of his best.  But with no disrespect to the families or the victims, this was not Kennedy's inaugural or Reagan's "tear down this wall" speech where it will have historical and long lasting effects.  It was a moving speech that helped us get through this awful event.  It is definitely noteworthy and should be noted in the body of the main event. Hobbamock (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge If someone tried starting this article in 2011, 3/4ths of the people here wouldn't participate in this discussion. We don't need this per WP:RECENT and what is salvageable here can be merged into the reactions article. Any article where we have to explicitly state why a subject satisfies WP:Notability by stating in the lead "It is notable because..." has got a ton of problems, most likely with notability. Should merging prove impossible for some reason, by all means delete. AniMate  20:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Response regarding recentism A careful reading of the essay WP:RECENT does not justify deleting this article. Here are a few sentences from that essay:
 * "Collaborative editing on Wikipedia has resulted in a massive encyclopedia of comprehensive and well-balanced articles on the many current events of the mid-to-late 2000s. This record will be valuable to those in the future who seek to understand the history of this time period. In other words: "If we don't make sense of it today, someone else will struggle to make sense of it tomorrow."
 * One of Wikipedia's strengths is the collation and sifting through of vast amounts of reporting on current events, producing encyclopedia-quality articles in real time about ongoing events or developing stories: natural disasters, political campaigns and elections, wars, product releases, assassinations.
 * Finally, Wikipedia articles are often developed via on-line references, which may be temporary in nature. But by documenting timely material with reliable sources at the outset, more permanent sources can be found more easily later."
 * That reads like an argument in favor of keeping this article, not a reason to delete it. After reading WP:RECENT, please continue on to read WP:GNG, our general notability guideline, which says that "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 . . ."  This topic complies fully with that most important of all guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It isn't clear what we would merge this into: there is way too much information to actually include it all in 2011 Tucson shootings, and it would likewise swamp Reactions to the 2011 Tucson shooting. Also, right now, there's evidence (documented in the article) that beyond being a mere reaction to the shootings, the speech had a discernable political effect that went beyond the shootings themselves. Obama has experienced a polling bounce, and the speech was universally and strongly praised. It will be long-remembered, almost certainly more so than his 2009 State of the Union stand-in, which has its own article. The Tucson speech may actualy be looked back on as a turning point in Obama's presidency, and there's no reason to pre-judge this out of a concern about recentism. There is no deadline, after all.-- AndySimpson talk? 03:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Given the choice to merge this I am fully against it that leaves delete or keep, and seeing that the article is decent, and that major events define a presidency I choose to keep this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect into 2011 Tucson shooting, which adaquately covers the president's role in the event such that sufficient content has already been "merged" and the only thing left to do is redirect. Count me as merge in the consensus. Everything the US president does generates Wikipedia Notable topics. That's why we have What Wikipedia is not. In the context of President Obama, Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial generated routine news reporting of President Obama's actions/event. See WP:NOTNEWS. Relative to other articles on Obsama, there is nothing yet to establish enduring notability of the Barack Obama speech at Tucson memorial event. Britney Spears generates plenty of reliable source coverage on all sorts of events. Wikipedia should not have an article on each Britney Spears event, either. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect I do not understand why some users argue that because Republicans applauded the speech that it means keeping it. I highly doubt you are going to see any mainstream figures of the rival political party criticized a speech that honored shooting victims. Again, an approval rating bounce should be no surprise give the circumstances, but we should not assume that is permanent. They could go up or down again three months from now based on his performance. It is too early to determine how significant this is. You can add as much wikipuffery as you want in the article, but this should not have an article on it. Truthsort (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep international coverage makes it notable. Comte0 (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable enough and covered enough for its own article. Definitely not delete. It's getting large enough to fill too much at the Tucson shooting article, but should be a section there, which can use the lead here as its content. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Coverage and notability enough to say it is needed for a separate article.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.