Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial Don Imus quotes on women and minorities


 * 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 delete.  Majorly   (hot!)  21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

List of controversial Don Imus quotes on women and minorities

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete and transwiki to wikiquote per WP:NOT. Moviedone 12:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WikiQuote. (To do a proper transwiki, it's recommended the page is deleted afterwards by speedy deletion (copy of material on other project-criterion). So I prefer delete be mentioned after transwiki rather than before). - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * move to don imus wikiquote move everything to don imus wikiquote 168.253.19.54 13:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikiquote per nom. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 14:58Z 
 * Transwiki to Wikiquote. RobJ1981 20:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Content has no place in Wikipedia, though a summary of his racist, homophobic and antisemitic rants ought to be discussed on the article about him. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 21:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per above. 1ne 21:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * DELETE Attack page on Don Imus. Not a real encyclopedia article. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť  (Talk)   (Contributions)  21:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See response to this point below Ecostaz's "speedy delete" comment below. Noroton 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't shoot, I surrender. I surrender! I favor Speedy Delete of this, my own little baby, because I've just transwikied it myself, putting the quotes into the Wikiquote Don Imus page. Looking over WP:NOT I see I misread part of it yesterday, and looking over Wikiquote rules, it seems it should fit in there. I was inclined to wait a bit and see what other humorous objections :might come up, such as "Attack page on Don Imus", but That Would Be Wrong because it's just wasting the time of Wikipedians who are acting in good faith. I hope some admin will speedy delete this now under WP:SNOW and prevent others from wasting any more time or effort on it. Sorry for the bother, it was in good faith. Noroton 21:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because it covers a current event that is getting an almost crazy amount of coverage on the news. It's on MSNBC right now as I type and has been covered for the past hour consistently.  Therefore, a list like this is immensely helpful for people curious about what exactly Imus said and if he has a real history of such statements.  Maybe delete in the future when the issue has died down, but right now this stuff is relevant to a MAJOR news story, for better or worse, and therefore is useful and interesting to Wikipedia readers.  --172.129.153.232 21:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as per article creator above. Also per my earlier prodding as an attack page on a living person. Ecostaz 21:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It won't be speedy deleted. The AfD can be closed early though, then the page deleted, but I don't want to close it just yet. Perhaps another admin will feel differently.  Prodego  talk  01:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As for being an "attack page", it should be kept in mind that this is a fully footnoted list of quotes by Imus himself; the only "commentary" is a description of the list as statements that have been called denigrating to women and various other groups. How can the article attack someone by listing that person's own statements? I suppose statements could be taken out of context, but if that's the case, the article could be fixed, and the overall context that Imus says he was making these comments to get a laugh on a radio show is something that has been added to the Don Imus article. This objection is groundless. Noroton 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wikiquote. per above. --Aminz 01:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * DELETE Even if this was not a page designed to slander "which I think it is" any pertinent information in this matter should be in the main Don Imus page. Vipercat 02:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think some clear thinking is important here, and important for the record: In the law, truth is an absolute defense against the charge of slander and libel. Except for two quotes (involving Ifill and 60 Minutes), as noted in this list article, neither Imus or anyone else has argued whether or not the statements were made. The list simply asserts that the statements were made and does not comment on them other than to say that they have been called denigrating to various groups, something that is also not disputed (even by Imus) and is verifiable. Information about what has been made of these comments by others is in the main Don Imus page. Noroton 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep it. Keep in separate page beacuse they're quotations.  It is not slander because it proves a history of bigotry.  It is well supported by citations, and it will be of enduring value to scholars and laypersons interested in the history of bigotry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.131.185.93 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Ehh, a transwiki seems reasonable, but it should probably be attached to the main article; I know at least I've been complaining about how such a reactionary hack can have such a wide platform to spew his bullshit, and now a lot more people are on my side apparently, so it's an important resource that a transwiki would partially silence (the awful truth, as we all know, is that wikipedia recieves infinitely more hits than any of its sister projects). --Tothebarricades 06:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Move any notable quotes to Wikiquote or Don Imus. --Zippy 07:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as per article creator above. Though very entertaining to read, perhaps provide a link to Wikiquote on main Don Imus page? —24.23.67.215 09:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not allow recreation. Totally not notable in an of itself. Part Deux 18:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not notable? Then what were those editors of TIME magazine thinking when they put this guy on the cover last week? Probably the same thing as the editors who put this controversy on the front pages of The New York Times, Washington Post and other newspapers. Probably the same thing the producers of the Sunday talk shows were thinking. And the evening cable talk shows. Those guys need to get a clue. Noroton 16:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to conform to List_guideline. Every list item is referenced.MikeURL 01:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikiquote. Yem75 02:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki ... these quotes are all pretty valid and important. it establishes a pattern of behavior. in the face of the controversy, it explains why this much momentum picked up behind one comment. it was really a culmination of a lot of comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.179.234.98 (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Why exactly should it be tranwikied? The list seems to conform to list guidelines.MikeURL 16:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the reason is here at WP:NOT: "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." Now you could argue that the quotes in this article are not "loosely associated", which is what I was thinking when I created the article, but then every list of quotes on a particular topic would fit in under that definition and then why would there be a suggestion to take them to Wikiquote? (I'm not sure what the words "loosely associated" is even doing in that sentence, since they don't seem to serve any useful purpose. But that's another discussion.) Noroton 17:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to conflict with List_guideline which I think this article passes.MikeURL 22:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but as official policy WP:NOT outranks List_guideline. Noroton 03:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete article has already been transwikied, delete per WP:NOT as suggested previously. -- Craigtalbert 10:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per 64.131.185.93. Captain Infinity 16:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Blatantly POV title; lists of quotes belong at the Wikiquote project. - Gilliam 07:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The title is POV? You mean there was no controversy here? If it's the title you're concerned about, what would be an NPOV title, in your opinion? Noroton 15:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I find that it's POV to start a collection of an individual's quotes which are specified as either favored or disfavored. The NPOV title could be "List of Don Imus quotes" but that really belongs at Wikiquote. - Gilliam 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we disagree that something identified as controversial can be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Each of the quotes was something Imus was criticized for saying. There is no dispute about whether or not he was criticized for saying them. There is no dispute that those kinds of statements were particularly important in the controversy that eventually got Imus fired. None of this is POV. Focusing on what's controversial about an encyclopedic subject is part of what an encyclopedia does. Since he lost his job for at least one of those quotes, it seems to me that the subject is important enough for an encyclopedia to focus on. {My sole reason for reversing myself and wanting to delete is that another, related Wiki exists that can cover the subject [as long as the links are adequate from the Don Imus article]). I guess this is academic anyway, but it's useful to understand everyone's reasoning. Thanks for your response. Noroton 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Content in this article is now on Wikiquote. Article should be removed per WP:NOT.  Link to Wikiquote should be easily accessible to those unfamiliar with Wikipedia. --'oac' (old american century) | Talk 02:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gilliam. This is a list of offensive quotes. "Offensive" is not the same as "controversial," and "offensive" is even more of a NPOV term. - Chardish 05:59, 17 April 2007 (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.