Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago-style politics (meme)


 * 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 merge to Chicago-style politics. S warm  ♠  03:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Chicago-style politics (meme)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTE The use of the phrase "Chicago-style politics" as a rhetorical political attack by Republicans against Democrats since 2008 is not a notable topic. A page about the phrase "Chicago-style politics" already exists and has since 2011. Springee (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong keep Obviously Chicago-style politics (meme) is notable as per WP:GNG. Significant, prominent coverage in multiple reliable sources includes secondary and tertiary sources, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, International Business Times, the Los Angeles Times, and others. The political meme is more than adequately represented prominently in multiple reliable sources for its own, stand-alone article.

The nominating user has recently taken article Chicago-style politics in a new direction, a point of view fork of Political history of Chicago, while at the same time suggesting deletion of the article Chicago-style politics at Talk:Chicago-style politics; please see Talk:Chicago-style politics. Hugh (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Political rhetoric is a legitimate academic discipline and a political catchphrase is a legitimate object of study. A Wikipedia article dedicated to a political meme is far from unprecedented, in fact we have a with numerous national subcategories including ; member articles include Silent majority, Vast right-wing conspiracy, Binders full of women, and some 50 others. Hugh (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that this account is the author of the nominated article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove (see below) The article in question was created as a WP:CONTENTFORK when the original Chicago-style politics article was recently returned to it's original topic. This article appears to be nothing more than a WP:COATRACK used to discuss various political comments and attacks that happen to contain the phrase "Chicago-style politics". If the intent of the article is to discuss the phrase "Chicago-Style politics" then it should be merged back into the earlier article which at least had a history section. If the intent is to discuss political rhetoric it should be merged either into discussions of the various elections (2008 and 2012 presidential) or perhaps merged into a more general article on the subject. It seems highly questionable to devote an entire article to one of many political, rhetorical phrases. Yes, many examples of the phrase being used can be found and the editor of the article has done that. However, those articles largely discuss other maters, not the use of political rhetoric. Thus the large number of citations are really examples of WP:OVERCITE yet they fail to support the lead in showing that it is relevant to have an article about the phrase as a "meme". Thus the WP:NOTE of this article is in question.
 * background The original article[], which is also of questionable merit, was created in 2011 to discuss the phrase "Chicago-style politics". (Initial:[] March, 2014:[]) In April 2014 the subject of the article was unilaterally changed to one which talked about "Chicago-style politics" as a rhetorical statement used to attack president Obama and other democrats.[].  Previous content about the phrase was removed.  All changes were done without talk page discussion and the editor in question did not reply to an editor who questioned the shift (See []).  Additional editors questioned the WP:COATRACKing contained in the modified article and consensus was to move Chicago-style_politics back to its original subject.  This article was created shortly there after to cover the material that other editors found questionable in the original article, thus a POV fork.  Since the article was created the editor who created the article has added questionable (WP:UNDUE) links in other articles in attempt to prevent this one from being an orphan article.  These edits, done initially without talk page justifications, can be seen in the recent edits of the following articles [][][][].  It should be noted that the original article was filled with tags by the creator of this article when consensus clearly didn't support the "meme" direction.  Springee (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge into either older article as subsection or into Chicago politics article as subsection. In the latter case we would also merge the content of the original "Chicago-style politics" article.  The section talking about the phrase certainly can cover the more recent meme as HughD has called it.  However, it should also cover the origins of the phrase and earlier uses.  It should not be a WP:COATRACK as the new article has become and as HughD's associated edits to other articles have become.  Springee (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Chicago-style politics (meme) is not a coatrack; it is well-referenced, more neutral, and much better referenced than Chicago-style politics. Explain your application of WP:COATRACK to Chicago-style politics (meme) at Talk:Chicago-style politics (meme). Depersonalize your comments on content. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The correct forum for a reversion discussion is article talk. Your position of merging Chicago-style politics (meme) with some previous version of Chicago-style politics to be named later by you is beyond the scope of this Chicago-style politics (meme) article deletion discussion. Take your Chicago-style politics article content concerns up at Talk:Chicago-style politics. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * HughD, this is not the first time you have offered a rosy telling of your involvement with an article[]. The earlier Chicago-style article did need some referencing but you, against objections from others, totally changed the topic then worked to dump much of the content because you felt it was off topic.  The current version of the article is in poor shape in large part because you have worked hard to wreck it.  Yes, your current article is a coatrack (I'm not the only editor to say as much).  You scoped it to avoid talking about the historic origins of the rhetorical phrase and you started the history only with the election of Obama.  Either the topic is notable and thus we should include the dirty history of Chicago politics, especially the R Daily era, or the topic isn't in which case we need to dump the whole thing.  I added some intro sources, including ones sourced by several universities to help us discuss the origin of the phrase.  I'm not sure why you objected to their inclusion if your intent wasn't to coatrack.  You never did explain why you moved the original article away from it's original subject to the new subject... but you were vocal when others tried to move it back.  If you want to know why I think the article is a coatrack perhaps you should ask the others who said the same thing. Springee (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge (without an opinion of which article gets merged into which other article). There is good, sourced, notable content here and the article is indeed about a subject that meets GNG. However, the non-meme article itself is about a meme, and this one looks like a fork. Not necessarily a POV fork because I haven't really looked into a POV, just two articles that are or should be about the same thing. To the extent either article contains information about the conception of Chicago-style politics as a matter of public perception, a political slogan, etc., that is all essentially about a meme or neologism. Whether that article gets merged here, or this one there, it should concentrate on the origin and use of the phrase, concept, etc., not the history and current of Chicago Politics, which are the the subject of separate articles. And not about anti-Obama use of the phrase versus other uses of the phrase, it's still the same phrase despite varying applications. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. "two articles that are or should be about the same thing." That there is in fact a political meme Chicago-style politics (meme), most notable for its usage by Republicans during the campaigns and terms of our first black President and our first President from Chicago, is beyond contesting given the copious reliable sources. As an analogy, drawn from more recent political rhetoric, our article Anchor baby focuses on the use of the phrase as a pejorative, and provides background only as necessary to provide context, but does not re-iterate the history of emigration policy in the US. On the other hand, much less clear is that there is a more general topic "Chicago style politics" independent of the Political history of Chicago. It is impossible to imagine neutral, balanced, verifiable content that would be appropriate in an article Chicago-style politics that would not be more appropriately added to Political history of Chicago. By their own revised, sadly inadequate lede at Chicago-style politics, "Chicago politics is a cliches used for a set of characteristics associated with aspects of the political history of the American city of Chicago, Illinois, (i.e., corruption, patronage, nepotism, authoritarianism)" the intention there is clearly a point of view fork of Political history of Chicago focusing on negative aspects. The recently revised lede and the recently contributed content at Chicago-style politics demonstrate an editorial direction toward a pointed telling of Political history of Chicago, free of our usual constraints of balance.
 * In summary, our article Chicago-style politics (meme) is focused on a distinct, well-referenced topic, and our article Chicago-style politics is the obvious point of view fork. Chicago-style politics should be merged with Political history of Chicago, where the proposed content will be subject to community review in terms of balance with respect to our neutrality pillar, but that is a separate issue from this deletion nomination. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with that other article, but this sounds right — in which case, the other article should be merged into this one (and any content better suited to the political history of Chicago added to that article, if appropriate and not there already). - Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Merging is a good suggestion. This situation is complicated by Chicago-style politics and Political history of Chicago both being very poor articles. Chicago-style politics has just a handful of well-referenced relevant statements, and most of those are cut and paste from Political history of Chicago. The kindest thing we can do to Chicago-style politics is fold whatever few statements and references are not already in Political history of Chicago into Political history of Chicago, where they have a chance of balance. I've summarized Chicago-style politics (meme) with two paragraphs (usage and reaction) at Political history of Chicago. Thanks again. Hugh (talk)


 * Merge This is a WP:CONTENTFORK. Merging back will force the focus pared down to the encyclopedic core rather than the expansive off-topic presentation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge The reason why I rejected the PROD in the first place was because the PROD concern was inadequate notability. There appeared to be sufficient RS in my opinion, so I rejected the PROD. Now I see that Chicago-style politics exists, which justifies the PROD placer's actions. A section can be added on the Chicago-style politics page. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. Now that you know Chicago-style politics exists, could you please take a look at it? I think you will agree it is a very poor article. The merge suggestion is good but Chicago-style politics is untenable as a target for merge of Chicago-style politics (meme), or anything else. Not only is Chicago-style politics very poor, it is doomed: unredeemable given its recent lede proclaiming its charter as focusing exclusively on the negative aspects of Political history of Chicago, a blatant WP:POVFORK: "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article." With its clearly stated scope, Chicago-style politics can never conform to our neutrality pillar. Of course a telling of the political history of Chicago, free of our usual constraint of balance, would be fun to write. Political history of Chicago is also quite sad, but not irredeemably so; Political history of Chicago is important to WP:CHICAGO and needs editorial attention. Of the three articles, Political history of Chicago, Chicago-style politics, and Chicago-style politics (meme), Chicago-style politics (meme) is clearly, objectively, the best written and best referenced. In summary, respectfully, I believe the way forward here is to merge the very few decent statements and refs, if any, from Chicago-style politics that are not already in Political history of Chicago, and keep Chicago-style politics (meme) and summarize Chicago-style politics (meme) in Political history of Chicago (as has been done already, please see). Let's write one, neutral, political history of Chicago, at Political history of Chicago. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, I suggest we delete Chicago-style politics and move Chicago-style politics (meme) to the title Chicago-style politics. The "(meme)" part in Chicago-style politics (meme) only exists to distinguish it from Chicago-style politics. Having only one of these would expand the scope, and we can talk about subjects discussed in both of the existing articles. As for Political history of Chicago, we can add a hatnote on Chicago-style politics explaining that Chicago-style politics is not an article informing the reader of the history of Chicago politics (we'd include a link to Political history of Chicago somewhere here), but instead an explanation of the term. In others words, we are mentioning the term, not using it. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think HughD offering only part of the story here. Prior to April 2014 the Chicago-style politics article was about the phrase, both its origin and use.  In April of that year HughD changed the thread to only talk about the use of the phrase to attack President Obama.  While that is a valid discussion topic, it is not the only valid topic related to the article.  HughD is making it sound as though the article is meant to bad mouth Chicago politics (and some editors have used the article for that) but he is leaving out that the opening sentence of the article states the topic is the phrase.  Thus it is appropriate to have some measure of the history that leads to the phrase.  He is right that is shouldn't be a dumping ground.  He is not being true to the lead when he claims it is just to have a POV fork.  HughD used this claim as a way to remove reasonable content from the original article.  In the end it doesn't really mater which article gets merged into the other.  What does mater is that the final product should not ignore the origin of the phrase or be exclusive to 2008 and later as HughD has attempted to scope the article he recently created.  In effect, HughD tried to change the scope of the original article.  When editors objected he created a new article and now he is attempting to delete the content of the old article via tag warring.  His edits are the primary reason why the old article is in such poor shape so to claim that the article is in poor shape and thus it should be deleted can be seen as both self serving and less than the whole story.
 * I would propose that we add the content of the article HughD has created to the older article thus preserving the edit history so future editors can fill in the citations which were missing from the older content that was removed without proper discussion. The new article effectively has no history of removed content and thus the loss of it's edit history isn't a problem.  The subject of the combined article should not be Chicago political history in general but should contain sufficient material to explain why the phrase would exist at all.  After all the phrase "Georgia-style politics" was never used haunt Carter nor did "Arkansas-style politics" taunt Clinton.  Clearly there is some reason why people discuss "Chicago-style politics".  That was the original article.  The use of the phrase as a political meme is just part of the story of the phrase.  Springee (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - this is clearly notable, based on the strong citations alone, and has been improved lately to the point I'd rate it as a "C" class article. Bearian (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Note Updates to Older Article - recently did a significant update to the original article.  The update includes merging the majority of content from the new article as well as recovering and improving the older article content.  The revised article now includes historical information related to the term as well as more recent information that was featured in the (meme) article.  With these updates I would suggest that the merger has in effect occurred and the (meme) article should simply redirect to the appropriate section of the original article.  Springee (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Chicago-style politics, where I have already merged much of the content from this article back in, and largely replaced what was already there with something a bit better sourced (and neutrally worded). The work Hugh has done on the "meme" article (the one up for discussion here) is good and should be salvaged, but we need only need one article this, and I can't see a justification for the fork.  Both meanings of the phrase "Chicago Style politics" should be discussed at Chicago-style politics.  Fyddlestix (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect or merge: The target now seems to fully cover this. And a slander is not a "meme" just because it is frequently repeated.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per TonyTheTiger: It's a WP:CONTENTFORK! MrWooHoo (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2015 (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.