Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women


 * 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   no consensus. The argument that it passes WP:N are hard to overcome. NOTNEWS is much trickier - how can one evaluate the long-term significance of a event that happened a week ago? I can't see the case that it's "routine news reporting" the way baseball games, horroscopes, or traffic reports are - one would need to make a compelling case, which isn't done here. There is, I think, a sufficient consensus that the phrase and subsequent meme should be mentioned either in an article, or in an article about the second debate (which appears to be merged into an article about all the debates at the moment). I can't tell which from this discussion, because both positions rely strongly on guessing what may come, partisan assertions. The argument that it's POV to merely have an article on the topic would need a compelling argument, not just a straightforward assertion, given that the sources come from across the political spectrum. If it was only far left sources repeating it, I would be inclined to give that position serious weight - not so much when it's the Globe & Mail. As with every article, merger remains an editorial possibility if a local consensus agrees to it (since people often ask this be stated explicitly). I wasn't able to detect a trend that way in the discussion - but it's tricky, because the sources kept appearing as the discussion continued, which may have changed the calculus is a way that a discussion like this, with much heat but little light, didn't illuminate. Wily D 07:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Binders full of women

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is nothing more than Silly season garbage that is highly unlikely to last any longer than the lame Big Bird issue from a few days prior. This is an attempt by the left to attack Mitt Romney and push the continued fictional "War on Womnen". As such, the use of WP to push political memes is highly inappropriate, however if for some crazy reason this becomes something huge it can be added at a later time. At a very maximum this should be covered in the presidential debate article as it is not worthy of its own page. Arzel (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge / redirect to Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012. The article has coverage in reliable sources, so mention of this meme can belong on Wikipedia, but I don't think there's enough content to stand on its own article. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   13:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what content should be merged? The phrase is already mentioned in that article. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, as the subject isn't my area of expertise, but since AfD is not cleanup, that doesn't matter. If information is verifiable by reliable sources, it can potentially have a place on Wikipedia. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   09:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

merge into an appropriate article. If there's a separate article on the debate, that'd be a good destination, otherwise, the article on the 2012 Presidential Race. Its obvious based on NOTNEWS that a separate article isn't warranted. But given that its received mainstream media coverage (NBCNews.com had an article, I assume its already in this article), so its reasonable to have a paragraph or so somewhere, and to have the phrase not be a red-link. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Redirect and merge verifiable content to Second_U.S._presidential_debate_of_2012. Not independently notable, long-lasting impact is very questionable at this time. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012, United States presidential election, 2012, Mitt Romney are existing articles on the subject providing the topics against which "Binders full of women" is measured at AfD. The topic "Binders full of women" is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of existing articles and those editors working on the other existing articles can decide whether the source information from Binders full of women belongs in those articles. If the Binders full of women there after reaches enough content, editors can create Summary style spin-off. As it stands, now, the topic also falls under WP:NOT since there is no enduring importance/significance of this events in the context of (1) Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012, (2) Mitt Romney, (3) United States presidential election, 2012, or (4) the indiscriminate collection of commentators generating content on this topic. As for (4) the indiscriminate collection of commentators generating content on this topic, reliable sources originating commentary on the topic need to have been covered in reliable sources themselves to add the material to the "Binders full of women" article. Redirect if desired/needed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk)
 * Delete As nominator. Arzel (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012. The phrase is already covered appropriately in other articles; if it becomes more notable on its own, well, then the article can always be recreated. (I'll also note that This is an attempt by the left to attack Mitt Romney and push the continued fictional "War on Womnen" in the AfD request is not a valid rationale for deletion; partisan opinions in either direction are not relevant to the deletion process.) Edit: Changed to Keep, see below. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 14:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Inconsequential malapropism, not noticed immediately after by any of the serious media; no person with room-temp IQ failed to understand what he meant, womens' resumes. Definitely an awkward phrase, but no hidden meaning or substantial significance. Online barrage of Bill Clinton jokes afterward amusing, not exactly historic. WP editors' spin to conflate this and link to "Gender studies"?? "Misogyny"???? and "Feminism" just ridiculous (and it isn't a "Controversy"). Text at Debate article too long and WP:UNDUE, considering major substantial issues discussed and actual newsworthy disputes. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * delete While I absolutely don't agree that this article is "attempt by the left to attack Mitt Romney", as the first post puts it, it's a fine example of the power of the Internet to make something out of practically nothing, an attempt for a fleeting bit of notoriety. The phrase will be gone in a matter of days, and the navel-gazing articles shortly thereafter.  This one should be first to go.  If it's worth anything at all in the long run (questionable), it should be mentioned in an article about the debate.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dead on accurate description of the overnight phenom., and what the pop-culture references in newspapers were all about. Some pretty funny stuff, too, of no consequence, and probably already over. Once reported on, though, you have had several extreme nasty and humorless attempt to turn this into something else, and the WP article as written is an example. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * However silly the use of Romney's poor phrasing is, it's still an event that received large amounts of media coverage. Suggesting that it's of no consequence and probably already over is WP:CRYSTALBALLing; indeed, it's still prominently on the front pages of MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, two days after the debate. Maybe it'll die out in a few days. Maybe it'll get more traction like the equally overblown "You didn't build that". I don't see why we wouldn't cover it in the appropriate articles. (But still agree that it's undue for it to have its own page at this time.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 15:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * delete with option for recreation in a year or so A textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS, there's a pretty good chance that in a few months nobody will care. Even then it's likely to end up as a couple of sentences in the debate article. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic, Election 2012 fooliganism. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: In terms of notability, that's established by all the references. Beyond the notability, the statement is significant because Romney's claim that he sought names of qualified women has been disputed (those who dispute claim is that the names were provided unsolicited). I don't think we have to wait a year before determining notability. This is similar to the You didn't build that article, which survived an AFD. Sometimes simple expressions become notable, and the threshold for notability does not have to rise to the level of the notability of Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So now that is part of the "controversy" as well? Only a conservative could be criticised by the left for trying to be inclusive of women .  Arzel (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The controversy is that he claimed to have sought out women, when in reality the list he received was unsolicited. He is basically taking credit for something he didn't do. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Romney did not just solicit help from MASSGap, and the MASSGap effort expanded once Romney signalled he wanted their help. Their previous chief organizers acknowledged this but asserted that it was their idea first, just that Romney ran with it as Governor-elect, which he did.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know he didn't also seek out women? Tell me when you get to the top of the mountain.  Arzel (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I vote to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.252 (talk • contribs)
 * Please note that this is not a vote. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - This topic is likely short-term in nature and does not belong in the encyclopedia. If it lasts beyond this week I'd be surprised.  Bring it back only if it has a lasting impact, but not now.  BTW, most of the things I've seen actually seem to be a poke at Bill Clinton on the left rather than Romney. 72Dino (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Questions about the truth of his statement, and discussion in media of this being similar to affirmative action even though his party doesn't normally support it, both notable. 69.243.159.96 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Questions are marginal; dispute over percent credit for what every involved party agrees was a collaborative effort, enthusiastically adopted by Romney. Not like affirmative action, as he merely made a huge effort to make sure women got a fair hearing, and that produced results. There were no quotas, no set-asides.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Several editors are conflating or confusing two different things. The overnight outbreak of humorous postings and jokes about the awkward phrase, while nowhere on the evening of the debate, WAS reported the next morning (and by some News sources that missed it because of deadline, the next evening or morning). THAT is distinct from leftist attack groups buying domains (the ultra-left Soros PAC), and trying to now use and divert that humorous blip to make up connections. The former got general attention, was fun and short and is over. The latter exists in a nasty partisan bubble, is crude and nasty, was not a serious part of the discussion, and only still happens due to Democratic campaign push. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not even a topic. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not even a topic. -- Can you elaborate on that? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "Keep" If in the next month or so it ceases to be relevant, then sure, delete it, but it does has the potential to be a significant moment in the election, so it deserves to be kept.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.162.241 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Clearly notable; high probability of having staying power way beyond the election. This is not just about the memes and FB posts, but (for example) has even extended to Binder reviews on Amazon. IN just one day this thing started living "a live of its own".Not to score a WP:POINT, but this article is very comparable to You didn't build that. W\&#124;/haledad (Talk to me)  19:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No relation to You didn't build that, which crystallized a major long-term criticism of Obama, and caught on precisely because it so neatly summarized in his own words a perceived antipathy to American business. Romney's malaprop about going above and beyond to recruit women means..... what????--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and please do not merge. Coverage at Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 is plenty sufficient of this ephemeral soundbite (Memorable line from the debate? Check. Meme? Check. Done.). --BDD (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets the notability requirements; arguments for deletion appear to mostly be that they don't like it. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - passing news item not worthy of an encyclopedia. Pure POV and partisan. In depth studies don't exist. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep If you asked me on the eve of the debate, I might have said simply Merge. Looking at the flood of sources over the past 24 hours, and it looks like a candidate for its own article.  It has generated a whole national discussion on the veracity of Romney's statements, after the source of the "binders" chimed in.Sally Season (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Romney did not go out of his way to solicit women's resumes from just ONE source. The idea was out there, Romney ran with it. There is an argument over how much credit belongs to who, but not that Romney did not make women a priority. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 per WP:NOTNEWS. We didn't allow for a Paul Ryan water gulping or Joe Biden condescending laugh article... Go   Phightins  !  01:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Joe Biden's creepy laughs and behavior got MUCH more serious press, and directly related to the influence of the debate on the electorate, which this did not. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I initially said merge...but random meme stuff keeps piling up; now we have amusing Amazon reviews of random binders, amongst other stuff! (TIME article.) The "Binders Full of Women" group on Facebook has over 345k "likes" now, and seems to be actively growing. So even without the political aspects, it seems notable; Wikipedia has plenty of articles about Internet phenomena that are famous just because of the number of YouTube views, or whatnot. The non-meme political aspects are also important of course; people are definitely discussing Romney's comments in general under the "binders full of women" label. Obama's used it at a campaign rally. So I don't think it cleanly fits into the presidential debate page, since it's a weird mix of Internet meme and political discussion with plenty of coverage, thus keep. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 02:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to second presidential debate article per Ritchie. Good lord, why on earth does anyone think we need an independent article on this? A shortened version of this material would do just fine in the article on the debate itself.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per other delete recommendations, or as a second choice rename to Misunderstanding of metonymy by Mitt Romney's opponents. Perhaps if Wikipedia had existed during the time of Mark Antony and he had actually spoken the words Shakespeare attributed to him, we would have an article titled Mark Antony's request for people to cut off their ears and give them to him temporarily. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per the You forgot Poland precedent, which is similar. Talk:You forgot Poland Calwatch (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (but link to the original article if merged) 71.52.199.48 (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP Keep; or merge. Seems this has picked up enough steam to stick around. --216.81.81.82 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep If all news/mentions peter out next year, revisit deleting, but probably an image that many people will refer to for many years and thus worthy of an article. Should be named like any other phrase which becomes a popular catch phrase like "Where's the beef?" or "War on Terror" or (Add your favorite example), i.e., just use the phrase. CarolMooreDC 16:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012. Kaldari (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep keep for now. revisit deletion later. Spgilbert (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Obvious propaganda contrary to WP:SOAP. Warden (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep So this is how it works on wikipedia? I make a few edits to add content, essentially quotes, from mainstream media that put this in perspective, and an editor named Anonymous209 immediately deletes them.  And then I come over to see the argument for deletion of the article and he is aggressively pushing to delete it.  The name should be changed to 409 because this is an obvious effort to sanitize wikipedia of this information.  I didn't even get a chance to go into how  shows the media storm this article has.  Yes, that's current.  We can't know whether this incident will be a memorable, long term issue that affects the presidential election, something to be discussed and learned from; or if it will be something that dies away.  We can discuss that later, IF it fades away.  At the moment, its big and significant.  Well documented, well sourced.  At this time there is zero rationale to delete it.  It would be further documented and explained had my edits been allowed to stay. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Above I mentioned the name of Anonymous209, who I feel abused his authority by deleting sourced content I had added. To show you what a POV pushing, lowlife this Anonymous209 is, he further went into my other contributions, few as they are documented (after I registered), he removed a bunch more of my contributions.  I would equate that to stalking.  Certainly he's lost all credibility and journalistic integrity.  We should discount all of his aggressive negative commentary here and elsewhere.  I would guess you have a system to ban people like this.  If he persists, I'll have to learn how that works. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you remove your personal attacks and read up on WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Arzel (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up on civility. Arzel, you and your Anonymous cohort are both deliberately deleting additions to the article while advocating for its deletion.  You call it "silly season garbage" but when an explanation for why this is actually significant is (re) posted by multiple editors, you edit war and delete it.  Perhaps you feel this weakening of the article supports your claim to delete the article.  Actually what this activity does is weaken your position; that you have to artificially (attempt to) hide content in order to reduce the significance of the ariticle.  This reveals both of your POV, while at the same time is quite improper. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article has plenty of valid references to reliable sources. Most of the arguments for delete appear to be partisan; some of them actually require translation from wing-nut into English. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you suppose you could re-phrase your comment without the personal attacks on commentors in general? Arzel (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the pot calling the kettle black. See |your personal attack of me, accusing me making of making a mountain out of a molehill. Victor Victoria (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a serious violation of both WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Automatic  Strikeout  23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as everything that comes out of the mouth of a politician does not need a Wikipedia article. Automatic  Strikeout  23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion on words that "come out of the mouth of a politician" is not a good argument for deletion. There are plenty of words that "come out of the mouth of a politician" that do get a Wikipedia article. See Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy, You didn't build that, Tear down this wall!, Read my lips: no new taxes. Victor Victoria (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep the article. Just because some quotes deserve an article does not mean that this one does. Automatic  Strikeout  20:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * VV: Thanks for your research. CarolMooreDC 05:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per goethean  NYSM  talk page  23:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a rather strange meme, but it's achieved such notoriety (start typing Binders into the Google search bar and you'll see what I mean).  There are countless reliable sources describing this thing; I am uncomfortable with political statements in deletion nominations, such as contentious "fictional War on Women" comments.  Whether it's fictional or not, that's not a debate for AfD.   dci  &#124;  TALK   01:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly WP:N as an internet meme. It may be note that it is of political in nature, but that doesn't change the fact that it is WP:N.Casprings (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy... Tear down this wall!, Read my lips: no new taxes" .. and to some extent "You didn't build that, " are all phrases that people who don't care about the absurd politics game have heard of. This rubbish is not. Wikipedia does not need to duplicate everything on wikiquote, or encyclopediadramatica.se. Nevard (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rubbish it may be, but it certainly doesn't lack reliable sources.  dci  &#124;  TALK   23:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - article fulfills WP:NEO which stipulates that "...to support an article about a particular term we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term, not books and papers that use the term" (emphasis mine). The countless scores of international reliable secondary sources that have written about "Binders full of women" do exactly that: the term "Binders full of women" is thoroughly explained in context, analyzed and interpreted (e.g. 1, 2 3, 4). The term is not just merely used. Thus this term has fulfilled Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for neologisms. Amsaim (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and revisit in a few months. Ongoing, widespread coverage of this in news outlets suggest that this meme is notable. Some of the deletion arguments seem to confuse the notability of the topic with personal feelings about the election. Gobōnobō  + c 00:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and revisit in a few months. Less and less coverage of this in news outlets suggest that this meme is non-notable. Some of the keep arguments seem to confuse the non-notability of the topic with personal feelings about the election. --Malerooster (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to the article about the second presidential debate. Contrary to what User:Amsaim said above, this is not a neologism.  A neologism has "not yet been accepted into mainstream language".  This is merely a phrase composed of well-accepted words combined in a well-accepted way.  "Binders full of women" is just a quote or sound byte, unsuitable as the title of an article about the second presidential debate.  Per WP:NOT, "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The meme itself is notable by RS and GNG (or at least overcovered online in the past week). Per WP:TIND, this article has WP:POTENTIAL and should stay up. This AfD share much in common with You didn't build that—in this moment, it's notable. If that changes, re-nominate for AfD then.  czar  &middot;   &middot;  00:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Czar, I think you're overlooking something important. The result of Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech was not to have two different articles on the same subject.  Rather, the result was to rename the article about the speech so the new title is "You didn't build that".  Here, it makes no sense to rename the article about the second presidential debate so that its new title is "Binders of women", and no one is suggesting that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that, and no one suggested renaming the debate article. YDBT was moved because the Roanoke speech had no notability otherwise—it was known for the sound bite. Here the debate has notability and, for now, the sound bite has independent, non-inherited notability as well. I related the two because they had similar WP:POTENTIAL going into their AfDs, but one has had more time to develop since. WP:ASSUMECLUE czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that such a recent and mild utterance is notable, but even if it were, WP:N says: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." Here, the "Binders full of women" phrase can be easily merged into the article about the 2012 debates (just as the article about the second debate has been merged into the article about the 2012 debates). Do you really think that the "Binders full of women" is more article-worthy than the entire debate in which it occurred?.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I never suggested that. BFoW is a spinout of the debate: separate articles. Whether you or I think it's notable doesn't matter—by policy, BFoW has RS (ergo notable by GNG) and doesn't conflict with other policy (including WP:NEO or WP:CRYSTAL's text). It can exist on its own. Elevate the argument to WP:COMMON and we can go back and forth: my position was and is only that this event is at least currently very notable (as evidenced by its great number of RS refs) with great WP:POTENTIAL for expansion, and since there is no rush, we can afford to wait a bit to see if it loses that moment's notability before striking it down. czar   &middot;   &middot;  00:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I feel we should not delete this because it is a popular internet meme. Many people who have heard it will want to see what it is and iwikipedia would obviously be a helpful site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.72.36 (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to second debate article. As it is, it fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NEO, but the phrase is a reasonable search term that can be covered on the second debate article. If the phrase stays around post-election, maybe we can talk about undoing the redirect, but at the present time, this is what should happen. --M ASEM  (t) 08:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect, per Masem and Calwatch. I think the You forgot Poland precedent is worth following here. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a classic example of WP:NOT. Exciting as this presidential election is to some people this is hardly encyclopedic. Quotes have their own wiki. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

AfDs full of breaks

 * Redirect per Masem, Calwatch, and MZMcBride. I think this is definitely a viable search term, but I don't believe it has standalone significance and beliefs that it has lasting significance is textbook WP:CRYSTAL.  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I have binders and binders full of historical women who need Wikipedia articles, if anyone feels like helping. ;) SarahStierch (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge. I don't see why this cannot be discussed in a section in the presidential debate article. A redirect should be kept, of course. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment since this AFD started, the article Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 was turned into a redirect, so a decision to merge means its merged to the now sole article on the debates. interesting that the redirect was done with no discussion either before, or after, as if it had never existed.(mercurywoodrose)99.35.51.50 (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes this will be quite the interesting decision if the article for the 2nd debate is effectively deleted/merged, yet the almmost nothing political attack on Romney is allowed to remain as a page. WP at it's best.  Arzel (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect per You forgot Poland precedent. Legoktm (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep And someone pls go get those binders and upload them to Wikisource! Jane (talk) 14:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to second presidential debate. Plausible search term, but not enough content for a standalone article. FurrySings (talk) 16:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect either to Romney's article or the election itself. While there are definitely notable-ish sources for this, it only has meaning in the context of the debate/election (or Romney as a whole) and this article is just a definition and a section saying that the internet found it funny (which we did). Gundato (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you haven't noticed the edit war being carried on by Arzel and Annonymous, you are playing right into their efforts to remove content from the article. It looks like an incomplete article about a meme because they keep trying to hide the substance behind it.  Its a joke because of the history and attitude of the person who said it.  It would be meaningless if anybody else had made the statement. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect per "You forgot Poland" precedent cited above by Legoktm. Just because something passes the notability threshold doesn't mean we have to have a separate article about it. This phrase is better understood in context; we serve the reader better with a redirect placing it in context. -Pete (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obviously a bad-faith nomination. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Bad faith?!? Really?  I suppose you think there should be a Horses and Bayonets article as well.  Arzel (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. But when your reason for deletion is an extreme right-wing political rant, then it automatically qualifies as bad-faith, and your nomination should be trashed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is fair to simply ignore you in the future because you cannot look past the bias clouding your own vision. Arzel (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Spoken like the typical Romney teabagger. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Arzel, could you please strike out your opinion about the so-called "war on women". That kind of stuff is inappropriate in a nomination.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with Bugs -- the wording of the nomination is silly and unhelpful. But still, I don't think there's much call for a separate article of this title. -Pete (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - What this is is sheer political idiocy, the usurpation of an encyclopedia for a political campaign. These are candidates for the highest office of the country; everything they do, say, eat, joke about, slip up over is going to be printed and reprinted hundreds of time over by the end of the day. There needs to be some critical thinking here about what is routine coverage of a politician in an election years and what is truly in the spirit of the project's notability guidelines. This is just a throwaway line from one debate. Funny Memes of the Day do not get Wikipedia articles. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability indicated by press coverage. Everyking (talk) 16:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete obvious attack page. William Jockusch (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is of course not an attack, it’s releant, well referenced, and neutral. Some do not like it, but that’s not a reason to delete it. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] @ 24 October, 2012; 19:49
 * Point of Order. Important to remind editors that BfoW is in fact not ONE thing but two, awkwardly and artificially shoehorned together. Fortunately, BOTH lead not just to Delete, but to speedy delete.
 * Overnight bloom of stupid B or H Clinton/Heffner/Beyonce jokes. This is the "thing" that got press, notice, crept into popular consciousness. The press it got is not in doubt, just that, since it is clearly a bunch of stupid (but funny) Clinton jokes, it does not belong on WP, and should have been speedy deleted as per WP:CSD, an inconsequential report of and inconsequential web content bloom. There are editors who argue the whole Article should be deleted, as that is the only notable part of the article, and are consistent. Have noticed, though that editors who argue that the Article should remain often then argue either by word or action (deleting refs to the notable part as inconsequential) for deletion on the page. Either the stupid internet jokes need to be prominently displayed and discussed in the article as per WP:UNDUE, OR the notability arguments have to be dropped, since this was most of the mainstream coverage, by far.
 * Awkward attempt to shoehorn partisan attacks The press was about the former, the latter emerged once the stupid Clinton jokes got people's attention (and who doesn't like a stupid Clinton joke). The former is Notability without consequence/substance, the latter is an attempt to make up context/consequence, but with no notability. The effort does not really work and has not made it to mainstream consciousness, precisely for the reasons elaborated on Talk; they don't make much sense. Romney massively recruited women; hence, binders of resumes. The attempts to shoehorn something negative are artificial and contrived, and are unequivocally simply a groundless attack page, which also needs to be speedy deleted as per WP:CSD, WP:CSD--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOT political bullshit that does not deserve an article. Truthsort (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like scandal mongering contrary to WP:SOAP as it was publicized to attack his reputation. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as crap. Oh, and NPOV. And because this isn't a political game.  And because nobody cares.  And because neither Obama nor Romney would be particularly notable except as being poor choices and that one or both will end up having been president.  Whoopee.  -- No  unique  names  07:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Another poorly chosen phrase that has reached past the tipping point of notability. It has generated memes and parodies which if notable themselves could be included. Plenty of reliable sources dissecting how this reflects on Romney's stance on women issues in the election cycle. Insomesia (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - has the concept of notability degraded to the point where anything that generates any semblance of Internet discussion is inherently notable? Kansan (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is too soon to tell whether this phrase will be noteworthy. A week is a long time in an election, and same too with our collective memory of interesting tidbits from debates. If there's analysis after the election, demonstrating the staying power of this phrase in history, only then would I support it's inclusion, and only then as an element in the 2012 campaign page itself. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not too soon. The sources are there right now. Everyking (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but in the context of an election, notability must be viewed through the lens of hindsight. We won't know whether this was a turning point/notable event independently, absent analysis after the election. Lord Roem (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be a "turning point" to be notable, nor does it need to receive post-election analysis. Hindsight is not necessary; if notability is already established now, there is no sense in waiting for any further confirmation. Everyking (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are missing my main point: this is an event that took place in the course of an election. Context is important. Whether or not this is notable to secure its own article, rather than merge into the debates article or the election article can only be based on looking back and analyzing the event's effects. Otherwise, the standard would be: any statement that received coverage is notable, which doesn't make sense in terms of having independent articles. Why doesn't Obama's "arrows and horses" comment not deserve an article, or Romney's "corporations are people, my friend". We just don't know what the effects were until we can actually ask that question - which is after the election. Otherwise... this is nothing more than a news report. -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- has achieved widespread coverage in reliable sources, i.e., notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep fully sufficient coverage in its own right--quite apart from the political context & the great notability of the person who said it, the phrase is so inherently funny as being used in a serious context with such remarkably wrong connotations, that it will be not just notable but famous even after which candidate said it is long forgotten. This AfD isanother example of Wikipedians takingthemselves so seriously they don't know what is important.  DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 26 October 2012 (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.