Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women (3rd 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. (non-admin closure) czar   &middot;   &middot;  15:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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

First AFD was no consensus. Second was "keep" but largely had everyone parroting "it's notable" to each other. The term was only used once, and got only a brief flurry of coverage over a one-week period. After that, it was completely forgotten, leaving no impact. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEO. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, it does sound like a one-day wonder. NEO, NOTNEWS etc. Best to do such AfD's on a quiet holiday week in August, however... if you want it buried quietly! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Surely the best time is to CSD something at about 3am Christmas Day? Anyway, Redirect to Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 as before - it's a valid search term (come on, if you see something on a T-shirt, odds are someone will type it into Wikipedia) but the coverage was fleeting and not sustainable for a full article. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   15:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. Not only is the subject not sufficiently notable for an article, but the current text has no place on Wikipedia, even in archives.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012 . On reconsideration, Keep. This phrase has more staying power than I thought at first. In addition to February's Jeopardy usage referenced in the article, in June a Washington Post correspondent likened a less-than-impressive Miss America contestant's response to Gov. Romney's: "'The income inequality question is difficult enough on its own,' writes Post opinion columnist Alexandra Petri. “When it was posed to Mitt Romney back during the debates, he wound up coming up with Binders Full of Women. And ever since it hit the public consciousness, that 40 percent figure has been inspiring people to insert their feet into their mouths and wiggle them around.'" Miss Utah’s Scatterbrained Answer to the Pay Gap. A number of books about the campaign have also deemed the binders episode significant:, , . 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Jeopardy episode and others show that the phrase is still known by the general public. Additionally, this phrase affected the campaign significantly, by making women's rights a prominent issue. C.f. You Didn't Build That. --Crazyfirex (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Still notable and important. As this books.google search shows there are already 8 books on the 2012 election and they all mention it and I'm sure have a page or two at least. It's got good references; I don't know if any of the ones I added at the talk page were added to the article. But these should have been:
 * 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
 * The Guardian: Does President Obama need some 'binders full of women'? 2/12//13
 * Other 2013 references include: Washington Post, June 2013 (several on the same topic), NBC June 2013, Sam Houston State University newspaper June 2013. The phrase will be hanging around long after the following ones which have articles are forgotten (in fact, I've never heard of any of them):  And I don't care what it is, Mayberry Machiavelli, Don't Just Vote, Get Active, Series of tubes, etc. If you are looking for something to delete, these look like a good place to start. This 3rd AfD seems like a persistent case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ''CarolMooreDC - talk to me &#x1f5fd;  02:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - First of all, I have some reflections on this nomination. I think representing the keep comments from the previous AfD as "parroting" is unfair and inaccurate. If anything, the four "Redirect per TDA" comments might have actually been parroting (or parodying?). The phrase "Binders full of women" was used only once by Mr. Romney, but was used hundreds if not thousands of more times by other people, even recently. It was not completely forgotten after one week.


 * 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, here, here,here, here, here, and here. I also found 49 newspaper articles that have mentioned the phrase just this year, in the US, Europe, Australia and Asia. Here's one from less than a week ago. I found mentions in 747 newspaper articles from last year. Finally, I found 31 newspaper articles that use the phrase "Binders Full of Women" in their headlines. It was even discussed on 26 February 2013 on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, mentioning its use on Jeopardy as a category. Also reported here.


 * Binders full of women has been a topic of discussion on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, BBC and NPR. It's been discussed by Jim Leher, Charlie Rose, Don Imus, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper, Savannah Guthrie, Al Sharpton, Norah O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Brian Williams and Barack Obama to name but a few. It's also an internet meme.


 * It seems that there is a lasting effect. People are still talking about it. What made 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 16:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't know what I could add to the thorough arguments made above, and the article itself which is well sourced. Comments like, "Best to do such AfD's on a quiet holiday week in August, however... if you want it buried quietly!" and "Surely the best time is to CSD something at about 3am Christmas Day?" imply that a regular consensus would be against deletion. The rest of the arguments to delete, like "no impact" are so obviously untrue. heather walls (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ongoing coverage in reliable sources make this pass both WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE. Retrospective analyses and 'what went wrong'-type write ups will continue to make reference to this incident (we'll see more of these in the run-up to the 2016 elections). Gobōnobō  + c 23:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I remember when this came in and it was really funny at the time. I love the t-shirt picture. I still feel as I did then, that someone should go discover some of the women in those "binders" and then link articles back to this one. I would love to know what he meant, because he said it with such conviction. There's no question this term is part of the historical record now, but Wikipedia is the right place to pick it apart and dissect it into what the term represented when it was said. My gut feeling is that there IS a binder somewhere, and I would love to know who is in it, and who compiled it, and why. Jane (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've explained my position in two prior AfDs, two and a half merge proposals and repeated dramafests on the talk page. I have not changed my opinion. There is plenty of shit on Wikipedia for people to not like. If we delete it all, we'll be left with one very short article with one bland sentence that water might be wet, though some reject the objectivist bias inherent in the statement. This is not about Romney. If those who hated Romney were to pick a topic to have an article to demonstrate why they hate him, this wouldn't be it. The number of people who decided to vote against him based on this topic is probably smaller than the number of people who voted for him based on the shape of his nose. There is more than enough coverage to show that this phrase was notable. There is more than enough to show that it is notable. There can never be enough coverage for anyone to like it. Sorry. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and trout nominator for misrepresenting badly arguments of the previous AfD and ignoring what was discussed actually there. Here is what User:Carolmooredc found in February 2013, in the previous AfD:


 * Plus the others found above by the same editor, etc. Hardly a "brief flurry". -- Cycl o pia talk  14:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and a second serving of trout. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment We don't have a clear speedy keep reason in play. Please explain your reason for !voting "keep". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The overabundance of reliable sources makes this an obvious keep. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm going to remind people of WP:NTEMP, This has certainly proven to have a long lasting usage, which to the uninformed, WP should be here to explain.  But in WP terms, that is not necessary.  This was the driving beat of news and internet activity following the statement.  Its a partisan thing that the Romney side wishes and wishes would go away--would have gone away before the election,  Thus I suggest the act of trying to remove this element of history from WP is WP:POV.  So I throw another Trout at the nominator and the partisans who repeatedly attack this article. Trackinfo (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, nothing to add. Ijon (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * After seeing the variety of reliable sources appearing some time after the event, I'm convinced enough to change to Keep as well. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Hammer is usually on point.  However, as I wrote only back in March of this year, "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."  Consensus does not change so fast in four months.  Snow keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * binders full of keep? *rimshot* -- Cycl o pia  talk  07:00, 3 July 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.