Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women (2nd nomination)


 * 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. There does not seem to be a big consensus -- this article is likely to remain controversial -- but it's enough. User:Carolmoredc made especially good arguments. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Binders full of women
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The information could be merged into the article on the second presidential debate. It doesn't seem to meet WP:N currently as lasting effect was not there. Casprings (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 26.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  02:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The first AfD "discussion" was a pointless bickerfest of "Must-make-Romney-look-bad" vs. "Must-keep-Romney-from-looking-bad"; far more heat than light. Yes, the use of the term in various contexts was intended to make Romney look bad. Yes, there are reasonable arguments that Romney's use of the phrase was a meaningless verbal hiccup. So what? None of that has any bearing on whether or not the concept was/is notable independent of the debate. The only concern related to that foolishness is whether or not the article is biased (an irrelevant question here). The article is well-sourced, demonstrating a wide-spread use of the phrase which, in many cases, had no direct connection to the debates. Merging to the combined debates article presents an awkward or highly abbreviated side track to widespread use of the phrase that -- as I've said -- has little to no connection to the one debate it sprang from. This went through AfD, a merge discussion, a merge contrary to the discussion and here we are. Yeah, the memes and such were out of proportion to the phrase, harping on trivial details amid substantial disagreements. It's time to get over it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Current GNews search shows plenty of recent usages, suggesting the phrase has some lasting significance; I don't think a merger would be particularly helpful here. In addition, since we are talking keep vs. merge, and not about deletion, I am not sure this belongs at AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is clearly non-encyclopedic.  Try United States presidential election debates, 2012 where this phrase is already mentioned, and in sufficient detail.  AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States presidential election debates, 2012. I have given my rationale on the talk page. Simply put, while it does get "recent usage", it is largely in a one-off "this is kind of like that thing that one guy said that one time" and then nothing. Doubtful that usage will last very long either, since someone else will eventually say something that allows for similarly apt comparisons. This was a somewhat noteworthy moment in the debate, but there is no reason to believe it is noteworthy enough to support an article separate from the one on the debates.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A preponderance of reliable sources both old and new, plus an enduring meme in popular culture are in disagreement with your assessment. Insomesia (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are numerous, prominent sources with which to establish notability and the article has substantive content. There are several books that discuss the phrase, for example here, here and here. I also found 30 newspaper articles that have mentioned the phrase just this year (in the past 8 weeks), in the US, Europe and Asia. It seems that there is at least somewhat of a lasting effect. - MrX 05:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Those three book references are completely trivial. Quality over quantity is what counts. Being able to find minor mentions a few months later is not indicative of significant lasting notability independent of the debate/election/campaign.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 05:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. The gaffe was trivial too, but what makes it notable is the person who said it and the political climate at the time it was said (see War on women). It was an absolutely a foot-in-mouth moment and the media took notice, and is still taking notice. We can't reasonably expect volumes of scholarly analysis on those four hysterically unfortunate words. The fact that several books, newspapers, magazines, broadcast news organizations, blogs and social networks are still repeating it, more than establishes notability for our purposes. - MrX 05:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Trivial coverage of a trivial thing means it is of trivial worth and importance. In other words, not something that needs its own article in an encyclopedia. We aren't talking about a comment akin to "a series of tubes" as this was mostly just a comment during something that was actually important that people saw as a tad silly, like "you forgot Poland" or any of a host of mockworthy statements made by politicians, including actual gaffes such as the "57 states" slip-up.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your point and I respect your view on the matter. I just don't think our inclusion policies are nearly as strict as we both might wish. This might be a better encyclopedia if we didn't have trivia, memes, neologisms, boy bands, and "in popular culture" content, but the established norm is that this type of content can be included, and it seems that this subject is significant enough to merit a separate article. - MrX 19:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per SummerPhD's reasoning. It is a bit silly, but nevertheless was a notable meme from this past election. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 06:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep CNN or Fox referred to it as one of the two most widely publicized reasons Romney looked bad and lost. I'm sure it will be around for a while. CarolMooreDC 16:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * How about you find that source and provide it here? Vague allusions to something you recall from a source doesn't help. The sources I have seen talking about why Romney lost focus on actual meaningful shit, and make only passing references to a collection of comments, of which this comment is often just a footnote if it is mentioned at all.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * While I don't have a transcript of which pundit said that where, a post-election search brought up the below; note all the ones just from last two weeks. Smells like WP:PERSISTENCE to me:
 * Daily Mail calls it one of the best quotes of the year; 12/9/12
 * Mirror pointing out as one of top 5 gaffes that lost him the election; 11/7/12
 * Jezebel] magazine (also reprinted at CounterPunch):This War on Women awakened a sleeping giant. Ladies were paying attention, as the 2012 election proved. Romney and his "binders full of women" was sent packing, and the 113th Congress now has 20 female Senators, the most it's had in all of U.S. history.  2/14/13
 * Jeopardy Hosts Binders full of women category (plus 3 other stories) 2/26/13
 * The Guardian: Does President Obama need some 'binders full of women'? 2/12//13
 * Rubio's water drink was tonight's "binders full of women" PolicyMic (WP:RS?) 2/12/13
 * Denver Post blog item, 2/21/13
 * RJI research team finds where Twitter, politics intersect, report on University of Missouri Journalism Institute studying showing While nationwide, the most tweeted about moment of the second presidential debate was a comment Mitt Romney made about "binders full of women,"  2/26/13
 * Added above to talk page of article. Give me a few days and will add to article if no one else does. CarolMooreDC 19:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Internet meme was based on this and a multitude of news stories about this phrase from a historical presidential debate. Hmlarson (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect per The Devil's Advocate. The topic does not have any relevance outside the second debate and can be more than adequately covered in that article. aprock (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect per The Devil's Advocate.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect No relevance outside of the debate. It is noteworthy, but only within discussion of the debate. AniMate 23:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect per UHFAMFyadayaddaydadda. No context outside of the debate.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 23:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, it was discussed just this afternoon on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, mentioning its recent use on Jeopardy as a category. Also reported here. - MrX 23:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to United States presidential election debates, 2012; the question I believe here is WP:PERSISTENCE, more specifically has the subject received significant coverage from reliable sources which shows that the events notability is persistent. As have been showed by others, the subject is mentioned (often briefly or as a passing mention) recently, however it is my opinion that the subject has received little significant coverage since. As such, a summarization, merger, and redirected to the United States presidential election debates, 2012 article maybe in the best interest.
 * I am not doubting that the subject initially received significant coverage, my opinion is based on whether it continues to receive significant coverage.
 * One thing though that I am curious about is whether the subject has survived, and therefore remains notable, as a meme.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2013 (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) 00:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect per TDA. Arzel (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect as TDA said, WP:PERSISTENCE. This was a flash-in-the-pan phrase.— Zujine |talk 10:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * " Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event..." I think little green has some links for you (above). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually LGR supported redirect. The question is are those sources continued [[WP:SIGCOV|

significant coverage]]? A mention in a question by Jeopardy does not make continued significant coverage, nor does brief mention in reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability clearly established by sources. Everyking (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources establish notability.  Tazerdadog (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and well-sourced. Dimadick (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable, well-sourced.  It's taken on a life of its own, just like Bush Derangement Syndrome.  Gamaliel (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect. More than is due is already in United States presidential election debates, 2012.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The phrase became an event in its own right during the Presidential election. The article is also well-sourced. Kabirat (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the references currently on the article show plainly enough that it's notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Appears to pass GNG to me, and can continue to evolve into a better article - so if you're concerned about UNDUE, #sofixit ;) SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Administrative comment: This discussion was closed as "keep" by a non-administrator, . Per WP:NACD, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. ... Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." I am undoing this closure because the outcome is not obvious.  Sandstein   12:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps No Consensus is a better close than keep.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the arguments, both for and against, I would assess this discussion as a consensus to keep. As such, I would have to disagree with you RCLC. Many of the delete/redirect arguments were based on false premises such as "the topic does not have any relevance outside the second debate" and "no last effect" both of which are demonstrably false based on the broad, continuing coverage and the use of the phase outside of the debate (for example, Jeopardy, and other the examples concretely referenced above). I think an uninvolved admin will need to determine if there is actually a consensus to keep, but obviously there is not a consensus to delete or redirect. - MrX 19:44, 6 March 2013 (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.