Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fistgate


 * 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   redirect to MassResistance. We can of course have neutral articles on notable fringe theories. This one, however, fails WP:EVENT. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  ♠ 08:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Fistgate

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The fistgate article serves only to accuse President Obama's openly gay Kevin Jennings of being associated with a sexual practice using unreliable sources or sources that don't support the statements at all; also "fistgate" is almost solely used by conservative activist bloggers. The short version is that in 2000 an activist from Mass Resistance illegally taped a health/sex education conference workshop that was co-sponsored by Jennings' group GLSEN (they did not approve information that was not age-appropriate and had nothing to do with the session which was run by State health educators). Despite a court injunction against releasing the recording, the activists did so, held a press conference and a talk show aired parts of the tape including someone (who may have been a plant) asking about fisting. This was re-dug up a decade later after President Obama announced he was appointing Kevin Jennings to the US Department of Education in 2009 and rebranded as fistgate by those opposed to Obama, Jennings or both.

Media Matters, who have debunked a lot of similar claims, said''The latest charges, which highlighted the creepy right-wing fascination with gay sex, were rolled over days and presented as the ultimate take-down of Jennings. But alas, the serious press has been singularly uninterested in the story. A check of Nexis shows not one serious national news outlet picked up the story this week, despite the fact that right-wingers, led by Andrew Breitbart, hailed it as a sensational blockbuster.''

I think it's essentially a tranparent and slanderous smear being legitimized by Wikipedia. I started to fix the article but there is very little to support it existing at all. Haley 01:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This topic is in fact covered in multiple sources and is notable, MMfA notwithstanding. Oddly the article doesn't even mention Jennings, which seems to be your point of contention. Anyway we don't delete articles because they are conservative, or liberal, WP is not censored. For a left-wing example of this see Santorum_(sexual_neologism) Lionel (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Lionel, look at the sources for Santorum_(sexual_neologism): Philadelphia Inquirer, Slate, National Review, Roll Call. Hell, you can't even google Santorum's name without getting a lot of hits related to the, um, fluid. It's clearly notable. This clearly isn't. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

MassRessistance, Mass "News" and other activist blogs are not reliable and have been shown to be lying. The only reason this 2000 incident was recirculated and called Fistgate was because Jennings was appointed by Obama and as mentioned above some people simply wanted to discredit either or maybe both. Even though the present article doesn't name Jennings the underlying legitimizing of muckraking is still going on. After I eliminated all the blogs and Morman, Catholic and Christian "news" sites (hint - if they refer to homosexuals recruiting children they are undoubtably an unreliable source) I find no sources that could be used. I'm sure there is something somewhere that is reliable but could you present anything useful?Haley 02:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have articles on all kinds of notable fringe theories here on Wikipedia. The idea is not to put our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist; the idea is to present neutral information about them, complete with references to third-party reliable sources. If reliable third parties state that Fistgate is a fringe theory, then edit the article to say so. If the vast majority of reliable sources state this is a fringe theory, then we report that too, as we don't give undue bias to fringe theorists (e.g. we don't give equal representation to proponents and debunkers of the supposedly psychic act of spoon bending, as all reliable sources state it is prestidigitation and not a psychic act). --NellieBly (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - You're right, Nellie, that we have articles on all sorts of notable fringe theories here, but nothing in this article establishes that this is notable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not finding any third-party reliable sources and the entire article is not presented neutrally and I don't think it can as this was one group's attempt to discredit the Massachusetts Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth which Jennings was instrumental in setting up. The real story is that there isn't much of a story and fistgate sounds horrible but lacks evidence from credible sources.Haley 02:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article has no place on Wikipedia, except in the hearts and minds of anti-gay conservatives.  --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  02:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious Delete - The only thing established by reliable sources in this article is that MassResistance is a hate group. That's not enough for a Wikipedia article. Also there are many living people mentioned in this article. None of the facts alleged about them are reliably sourced, which brings up obvious BLP concerns. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Move? I'm not sure this warrants a stand-alone article, but it might be a suitable section of an article on controversies surrounding sex ed in the schools. (We had an uproar just last year about a school presentation by Planned Parenthood.) Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Maybe, but you still need some reliable sources to support whatever you put in this hypothetical suitable section. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note the original version. including the gem The term quickly became a general term for any outrageous activities in the sexual education field in Massachusetts, such as a Newton High School Health Class's requirement that ninth grade girls go to the drug store, buy condoms, and practice putting them on bannanas. This was sourced to About.com.

The only reference that looked good was to Bay Windows but the link is to a news sales service. The original "article" is actually an opinion piece which says nothing about what it's suppose to be sourcing and instead states rather boldly - ''Gay activists should be aware of the history of the right-wing campus group Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) infiltrating gay speakers’ presentations to ask embarrassing questions, especially about "fisting." As a founder of campus groups at Arizona State, Long Beach State and UCLA in the ’70s, our speakers were constantly confronted by YAFFERs posing as students who seemed obsessed with exposing fisting practices. At conferences we discovered that this was a national project of these Hitler Youth, one of many dirty tricks that date back to Watergate trickster Donald Segretti’s leadership of the YAF. ''We already know that a right-wing operative had infiltrated the GLSEN Tufts Conference in order to tape record potentially embarrassing discussion. That some of the questions could also have been plants is entirely possible, especially given a past history of exactly these kinds of tricks.'' ''Incidentally, today Roger Hedgecock is broadcasting the GLSEN tapes on the national radio program "Weekend" from the Republican National Convention. I was able to call in just before the tape was played to raise these doubts and clarify that the Massachusetts GLSEN program was founded with support from Republican governors to provide remediation for the high rate of gay youths’ suicide, and that the distinguished GLAD advocates secured an injunction to protect the privacy of those taped after the tapes were distributed to the media by right wing operatives.''

I think editorial pieces can be used judiciously but what was put in the article doesn't match the source in any way whatsoever.Haley 03:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:EVENT: it got coverage in reliable sources when it happened, but not very much, and hasn't received any since. Not a notable event. (If kept, however, a better name must be found - this isn't, say, "Rubygate" where reliable news media use the term, it's something invented by one side to make it sound scandalous and used only by them.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not a single event, but a drawn out set of circumstances.  There is the event at the meeting that sparked the initial outrage, but there is the later outrage over the attempt by a judge to supress any knowledge of the matter and Nat Hentoff's attempts to get jail time in protest against the judge's heavy handedness.  This article was not created to attack any Obama appointees, I know, I created it.  Personally I find the action of the judge to be a much more important issue than anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that an event took place over several months doesn't exempt it from WP:EVENT. The event is over. No lasting significance has been demonstrated. Heck, no one's demonstrated that it was significant when it happened. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - agree with Roscelese & Steven J. Anderson: minor event that has sufficient coverage in MassResistance. AV3000 (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Per this argument we should not delete, we should change this article to a redirect to the MassResistance article. I also would like to point out this whole incident was heavily covered by MassResistence figures in the wake of the appointment of Paul Colccelli as a US ambassador by George W. Bush.  It has a long history of being brought up when people with any connection to it have a chance of public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * MassResistance is not a reliable source for the purposes of attesting notability, nor indeed for anything except statements about their own organization. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Additional Sources Found these with a quick google search:, , (with attribution this is WP:RS),  &  (these blogs pass WP:SPS), , , and MassResistance is reliable about it's involvement in the event.Lionel (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL yes, WorldNetDaily, GatewayPundit, Emmaus Ministries, and WashTimes opinion pieces are totally reliable sources. The others don't mention this incident, so I don't know why you're linking them. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Boston Herald, Weekly Standard (reprinted w/permission) Lionel (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So another far-right opinion piece, and an article from when the event happened that naturally doesn't satisfy WP:EVENT? You're not doing very well. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rosceles, sould you accept an opinion piece from the New York Times as a legitimate source. If yes than you need to also accept Opinion pieces from the Washington Times.  Anything else would be biased acceptance of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's amusing to hear you speak of the WashTimes and the NYTimes as equivalents in terms of quality and journalistic integrity, but that isn't really relevant; opinion pieces aren't good indicators of notability. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At least pretend to be looking for liberal or pro-gay sites that mention the event. I know they did, because that's how I heard about when it got brought up to use against Obama. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I am just following the lead of Dr. John McCurdy, and he has a Ph.D. and is not considered a conservative extremist by anyone. I would actual argue the opposite, that being covered in an opinion piece is a clear indication that a thing is notable than coverage in the regular news section.  This seems the case based on the balance of material in news sections and opinion pieces.  My last comment was meant as a response to Roscelese's first response.  I am now going to critique her second response.  Fistgate occured in March 2000.  There was a suit against the father who recorded the conversation as early as the very start of April 2000.  The Boston Globe article Lionel linked to is from May of 2000, which is getting us over a month after the initial event.  The Weekly Standard, which is published 48 times a year, ran an article on the matter in its July 2000 issue, that is over 3 months after the story first breaks.  It is a bit much to call an article on something three months after the fact an article "at the time of the event" that includes the citation of rules about events that are only covered in news media when they happened.  This would be like arguing that a mention today in a news magazine of the change of government in Egypt shows that it was only an event of temporary note because it is still at the time of the stepping down of Mubarak.  There may be some validity to this view, but we have to be open and honest that we are dealing with several months.  Whatever else the Weekly Standard is, it does not fit in the normal definition of "far right".  Right yes, but modifying that with "far" would be questioned by most people.  The Boston Globe is not right at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I had not noticed before, but in reading through some of the discussion noticed the mention that Jennings in not mentioned in the article. A review of the article confirms this is true. This article does not mention Jennings. The fact that the delete argument staarts with the assertion "this articles only purpose is to smear Jennings" should cause people to ask why such a claim is made when Mr. Jennings is never mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The delete nomination seems to be spured by both a desire to censor wikipedia for a specific political purpose and extreme presentism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll let the nominator speak for hirself, but you seem to be complaining that Wikipedia bases itself on verifiability, notability, and neutral point of view, rather than about a specific problem with this nomination. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominator does not question whether there are sources that support this, the question is focused on sources post-2008 as opposed to in 2000. There are sources, like the Weekly Standard that are mentioned in the references listing at the bottom of the article.  The argument centers around the line "the only reason why people to day would note this is to attack Jennings", yet as I have said this is notable for the various actions of the judge involved in the suit, which does not involve Jennings at all.  The NPOV position is a hard sell, because the nomination essentially is "this is detrimental information about someone, we should therefore delete it".  That is not a NPOV view at all.  There is also a general dismissiveness towards the views of those who disagree with them on the part of some who favor deletion that is very disturbing. To laugh at people for holding a different view than you is the epitome of rudeness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the nominator observes that the article is sourced to "unreliable sources or sources that don't support the statements at all" and that the term does not appear in reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability restrictions already prohibit us from adding information that lacks reliable sourcing; when it's about living people, the requirements are even more stringent (information that cannot be reliably sourced must be removed immediately). Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I absoltely dispute there are enough reliable sources for this. Have we found one reliable source yet that calls this fabricated crisis "fistgate?" And though the article doesn't name Jennings the underlying legitimizing of muckraking of him and Obama is still happening.Haley 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect (update: and merge) to MassResistance, as suggested above. It's already included in that article, and this way if anyone does search for the term, they can be taken to that section directly. Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that article is much better at all. Most of that material is also bias and almost entirely unsourced when looked at. The only source that looks valid is 1. "Fistgate" is never used, neither is fisting. 2. "The conservative group is using this incident to call for the state to stop funding gay and lesbian programs in public schools. "The Department of Education works hand in hand with GLSEN," Whiteman said. "We believe the only way to stop this, is to stop all funding for GLSEN."" 3. Parents Rights Coalition president Brian Kamenker has already garnered suport by airing portions of the tape on a local talk radio station. A transcript of the tape was also put out on the Internet last week, and he is now selling taped copies of the conference for $5 each. In other words a question/answer session of minors asking sexuality questions was illegally taped by this group who went on to sell the tapes all in an effort to shut down funding for GLSEN, which is Jennings group.Haley 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Critics contend safe-sex forum far too graphic which is used to only to source ''Scott Whiteman, a MassResistance member, "secretly recorded the workshop."" That source doesn't actually say that but comes close enough. However the main points of that article being used misses:

Yes, my mistake, it was created ten days before the Presidential election, this is the point, it was to discredit people associated by implication and the entire incident is presented as scandal and the are almost no reliable sources for it. Here is an article from May 2008 showing Jennings as a prominent gay rights activist raising funds and newly supporting Obama. Haley 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect is what I believe you mean to suggest, and I would support a merge with MassResistance while redirecting the current article there.AerobicFox (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The deletion argument involves a lot of insinuation of intent on the part of those who created the argument. It also involves a large amount of attack on the "original article" as opposed to the article as it currently stands. I would say that that is not the right way to go about this.  However the attack on the original article did cause me to remember why I created the article.  I was researching about John Silber and found a mention to his stand about curriculum at BUA that used the workd fistgate.  I then did a wikipedia search for the term and came up with nothing.  In my more general search I came across references the judge trying to surpress the tapes, and this caused me to feel it was a case that desereved to have the light of day shed on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominator for deletion would have been wise to check the history of this article. It was first created on October 23rd, 2008.  That is before Barack Obama had been elected president of the United States.  It is hard to see how an article created at that time could have had the primary goal of discrediting an Obama nominee, when Obama had not nominated anyone yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * However the article has never mentioned anything about Jennings. You are the one who keeps claiming it is some how meant to discredit him, when it has never mentioned him at all.  Your unwillingness to believe that the creator of the article knew the reason for its creation is also disturbing.  It was not created in light of the upcoming election, it was created, as I said before, as an outgrowth of the study of the life and work of John Silber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

From the Silber article - ''In 2002, Silber ordered that a B.U.-affiliated high school academy disband its gay-straight alliance, a student club that staged demonstrations to publicize the deleterious effects of homophobia. Silber dismissed the stated purpose of the club -- to serve as a support group for gay students and to promote tolerance and understanding between gay and straight students -- accusing the club of being a vehicle for "homosexual recruitment." Silber denounced the group for "evangelism" and "homosexual militancy" with the purpose of promoting gay sex.'' Yikes. Regardless of the motive behind the article's timing with the presidential election, or if it specifically names Obama, Jennings, and even GLSEN, this non-controversies' screeded as Fistgate seems pretty transparent as some platform and political smear tactic. (see October surprise.Haley 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That article is almost as bad as this one with reliable sources missing and neutrality being the main issues.Haley 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC) With respect, I don't see any sourcing there to support this either. I guess that's the main problem, no reliable sources call this fistgate and this was never a big issue to anyone but MassResistance to begin with. The most polite way I can say it is that the group are extreme activists whose goal is stated to shut down supportive programs for lesbian and gay kids that prevent suicides and disease. If you combine everything from these articles and then look at what solid sourcing is available almost nothing holds up. This was one of several smear campaigns trying to accuse Kevin Jennings of pedophilia and recruiting children which are tired old myths against gay people that are recycled by anti-gay groups. If there is solid sourcing I wouldn't care if the content was neutrally presented, there just isn't much at all.Haley 13:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:SCANDAL is a good reminder of Wikipedia is not for, namely, scandal mongering, which is mostly what we have here. I'm not seeing the reliable neutral sources, and what sets scandal mongering apart from good, Wikipedia-ready verifiability is fair, balanced coverage. Even if this were to be kept, I agree with what Roscelese said above, which is that the name "Fistgate" would be an improper and non-neutral article name. However, as I explained, I do favor deletion. Kansan (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Minor event covered elsewhere. I also agree with Kansan above. Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the MassResistance article. Too trivial for a standardalone article, and the action was driven by the group, so leave coverage there, where it exists anyway. Rd232 talk 08:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Minor, local drama, not a significant or notable event that received much coverage in the outside world. OpEds, blogs, and hate sites do not establish notability.  We should also avoid naming articles with the "-gate" snowclone whenever possible, but since this is such a WP:GNG and WP:EVENT fail, that's a secondary concern. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to MassResistance article. Not sufficiently notable for a standalone article, borderline WP:SCANDAL which may actually dictate deletion. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No indication that this topic satisfies WP:GNG or any alternative notability rules. I could find no coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. In addition, titles with "-gate" are often not appropriate. For a long time WP:Article title had Attorneygate as an example of a title that we are specifically not using. (The passage was removed from the policy, but that was in the course of cleaning up the presentation, not because anyone disagreed.) In fact, most articles linked from List of scandals with "-gate" suffix are under more neutral titles. Hans Adler 14:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No coverage in WP:RS, not notable. I also concur with WP:SCANDAL comments made above. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's some more, from October 2008, another "news" source identifying Jennings as "GLSEN's founder Kevin Jennings happens to be a prominent fundraiser in the LGBT community for the Obama campaign." Also from October denoting the 10-year anniversary of Matthew Shepherd's murder - Jennings is quoted ""It's homophobia. A lot of people want to deny that there are LGBT students." The article goes on to include Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama released the following statement to mark the 10th anniversary of Matthew Shepard's death. The campaign for GOP nominee Sen. John McCain did not release a statement. - "In the ten years since Matthew's passing, Congress has repeatedly and unacceptably failed to enact a federal hate crimes law that would protect all LGBT Americans. That's not just a failure to honor Matthew's memory; it's a failure to deliver justice for all who have been victimized by hate crimes, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. All Americans deserve to live their lives free of fear, and as Americans, it is our moral obligation to stand up against bigotry and strive for equality for all." That last part is a shot across conservatives' ship that gay marriage will be supported by Obama, certainly more than any Republicans would ever want. Going back to January 2008, Jennings is shown to be high profile enough to be figured into which democratic campaigns have LGBT support, "Edwards has the support of longtime Democratic activist David Mixner and youth advocate Kevin Jennings." In November 2008 Jennings is shown to be the architect of a "Bullies-Free Zone" for the Chicago schools who notes Obama would likely tap the schools' chief Arne Duncan as Education Secretary (which he did).Haley 19:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, local kerfuffle that doesn't establish long-term notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:EVENT, WP:SCANDAL. Like other editors, I'm curling my lip at the paucity of sources that (a) describe the subject in "significant detail" and (b) are reliable sources with a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy."  I want rather more than bloggers and fringe "news" sites, please. [[User:Ravenswing|  Ravenswing  17:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weekly Standard is not a fringe news site. Whether the reference there establishes the issue is another question, but it is not a "fringe" news site.  Also, there was no implication of Jennings as an Obama appointee in October of 2008 so the purpose of the article was not to discredit Obama or his appointees.  The purpose of the article was the created needed coverage for a case that went to the courts.  Nat Hentoff is no right winger, so his involvement in covering the developments of this story complicates the whole matter.  He may be fringe in that he really believes in civil liberties, instead of only supporting them when they are used to benefit those whose policies he agrees with, but he is no right winger.  The whole delete nomination seems to be motivated by a desire to suppress information that is seen to be embarrasing and that some parties would rather be entirely forgotten.  There is also the factor that the full nature of the charges involved is normally skirted around outside of allegedly "fringe" publications, because outside of these "fringe" publications explicit references to sexual acts as would happen if this was brought up in full is censored.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Haley, you are still failing to pay close attention to the most important factor in history, that events can not be influenced by things in the future. If something is written in October 2008, than an article published in November of 2008 has no relevance to it.  You say this is a "non-controversy".  Since it is clear that different people have differnt views about the events described, it is by definition a controversy.  Why you are bombarding us with pro-Jennings propaganda is beyond me, but it has no relevance to whether or not this article should be included.  The article should stand on its own merits, not the good or ill of people who headed organizations mentioned in the aritcle.  It has taken me a great deal of restraint to engage in pointing out the logical fallacy in using someone whose murderers both got life sentances as a cause celebre to push for tougher laws.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I can be any clearer, please present reliable sources. This entire episode was fabricated to bring disrespect to Jennings, that's rather obvious as ll roads lead there, he's the country's authority on anti-gay bullying and he has been for years in Massachusetts. And Matthew Shepherds murder is a textbook example of why hate crimes against anyone need specific and tougher laws. When you attack a minority person it affects other people in that minority group. But let's save that discussion for some other time. Haley 01:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Obama, Jennnings, Matthew Shepherd, bullying, are not mentioned in the article and your off-topic diatribes are becoming taxing. If you continue pushing your personal views and theories in this forum your comments will be collapsed. And I tell you one more thing: as a non-white minority person you certainly do not speak for me and I do not subscribe to your tribal us-against-them mentality. WP is not the place for this. Lionel (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The connections of the subject to Jennings, who is the authority on bullying and works for Obama are pretty clear and I've tried to explain these on-topic points as best as possible. I never thought I spoke for anyone but myself and if you are offended I apologize. Ironically this is the point of why this article is such a problem - it's completely pushing personal views and theories. The battleground was done when the MassResistance guy illegally taped a safe space question and answer session and then sold copies despite a court order not to. I believe reliable sources should speak for themselves and if a group is reliably called a hate group then it is whitewashing to leave that out. We may have to just agree not to agree and I'm not here to win anyone to my views.Haley 01:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Haley, I do strongly support deletion here, but any Obama connection or the reasoning behind the article creation isn't really relevant here - the issues here relate to notability so it's probably best to leave speculation as to said reasoning out of this debate. If, hypothetically, Wikipedia were brand new again and somebody with a strong political point of view against Bill Clinton created Monica Lewinsky, she would be notable regardless of why the article was created. I maintain that, regardless of why this page was created, it's not notable. Kansan (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, I also realize that any explanation given probably isn't going to sway them. I'll try to step back and see where it all goes.Haley 00:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:SCANDAL and WP:EVENT. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable attack meme per WP:SCANDAL and WP:EVENT. Edison (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only POV-pushing sources are available; no careful, neutral analyses. This topic is not yet encyclopedic in scope. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this was a big deal in Mass, it seems notable enough for an article. - Haymaker (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: It was? This Bostonian political science wonk barely heard of it at the time.  Just another 24-hour news cycle blip.   Ravenswing  05:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also from Boston. Remember the incident. Came and went as a story. No one used the term. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Kansan and others above. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. A manufactured scandal that never caught on. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:EVENT, WP:SCANDAL, WP:RS, and other alphabet soup. There's not really enough material here to merge. PhGustaf (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No lasting impact. Pburka (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ...or Redirect to MassResistance as per Aristophanes68's comment below Pburka (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Question: If we delete this page, do we redirect it to the MassResistance article, since the same material is mentioned there as well? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I really hope we don't. The issue has been that no reliable sources even use the term and the term itself is synonymous with that group only to a very small subset of "extremist conservatives" in the state. The term is invented and hardly used. I don't think we should give it any credibility. Haley 04:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we then remove the material from the MassResistance page as well? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be something to be discussed in the edit cycle for MassResistance. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say no. There is really little to no consensus for such a merger. Kansan (talk) 05:46, 28 March 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.