Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama tan suit controversy


 * 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 no consensus. Perhaps the merger option could be further explored on the talk page.  Sandstein  07:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Obama tan suit controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Is there any relevance to this article? Despite the numerous references, this is nothing but a bunch of vulture journalists jerking each other off. What was the "controversy" here? Some people didn't like his fashion choice on one day. That's hardly a controversy. This deserves maybe one sentence in another article. — Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete not an encyclopedia worthy subject in spite of the references. If we must: redirect or merge it to Barack Obama Lightburst (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. First, I note that this topic probably, somehow, passes the GNG. That said, GNG only establishes a presumption of notability. As the nominator put it, this topic is only covered because "a bunch of... journalists [were] jerking each other off", not because suitghazigate (thoughts?) had any impact whatsoever. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm going to have to pull WP:IAR as a reason to delete this.  Somehow it manages to pass WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT somehow, but deleting this makes the encyclopedia better.  Completely trivial. Hog Farm (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The Obama Tan Suit controversy caused enough noise to have it pass WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Yes, you may personally think that it was a dumb controversy (I also hold this opinion), but it happened. I'm thinking this is a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Amielkpo (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As Mdaniels5757 said, GNG only presumes notability. This article falls into trivial or sensational information as described in NEVENT: Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting. What is there to say about this topic? Obama wore a tan suit. Some people didn't like it. Others did. Some people thought the controversy is frivolous. That's all. Everything else in the article is merely providing context. I think it makes sense to ignore all rules here if this really qualifies for an article.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete If we keep these types of articles, Wikipedia will soon turn into one of those sources considered inappropriate per it's own guidelines. Absolutely unworthy subject. Here it's more about common sense then WP:GNG Less Unless (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. The topic has had enduring coverage and seems comparable with our other articles about the dress of VIPs such as Anthony Eden hat or Eisenhower jacket.  The worst case would be merger into one of the numerous pages that we have about Obama per policies including WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a fair comparison with Eden or Eisenhower, because those were about lasting trends, while this was about a one day's wardrobe choice controversy. StonyBrook (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a dumb controversy but it passes WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. I disagree with User:Less Unless about it hurting the quality of the encyclopedia because Wikipedia is known for covering some wacky topics, yet that hasn't led to Wikipedia being dismissed as a tabloid or the sort -- concerns over reliability are what people usually have over Wikipedia, not over the subjects it covers. I ought to clear up a COI though, as I contributed a good deal to the Obama tan suit controversy article. Apathetizer (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Probably the dumbest dispute to have graced the moldy minds of right wing talk show hosts, and I think the article gives far too much weight to the people who had a problem with it, but it is a topic that passes GNG and NEVENT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hog Farm; this article makes us look absolutely awful and has only continued to have any kind of fleeting N thanks to AM talk radio 'remember when?'ing this non-troversy.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Maybe a silly topic for some, but Wikipedia explores plenty of similar minutiae of all types, so long as the sources are there and the article is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. I think there is an element of WP:IDONTLIKEIT with this one. There is nothing wrong with this article. It's rather illustrative of American political and popular culture, it can inform the reader and does no damage. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. How can we vote "delete" when this was widely covered in reputable media outlets? We shouldn't decide "notability" on subjective or other arbitrary criteria. We may not want to believe this is notable, but the various good/primary sources prove that it is, concurrent with wikipedia standards.Nic T R (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Even reputable media outlets still air a lot of junk news to fill airtime and column space that doesn't deserve later consideration, thus my vote! here. I'll say no more besides that.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep A prime example of how a "dumb" subject, even one primarily notable for how dumb it is, can be an encyclopedically valuable article. In this case, the importance comes from the ongoing polemic reference to this nothingburger, by Trump critics, to rhetorically contrast Obama's "scandal-free" presidency with Trump's constant norm-flauting. This use, and the conservative push-back against it, makes this an important story to record with detailed context. Certainly this is not a case where WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC should trump the relevant WP:NEVENT policies. I added some material clarifying this importance.
 * Note also that a recent biography of Obama devotes a sidebar to this event. FourViolas (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the ongoing at-least-annual "remember when" analysis of this event and contrast with indicates notability under the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE guideline: cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, which clarifies WP:EVENTCRIT's language: national impact and very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. FourViolas (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with Public image of Barack Obama, where it would find a good home. This news story has sources and is clearly noteworthy, but it is too much to say that it is deserving of a standalone encyclopedia article, as others have stated. StonyBrook (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per and . O, the audacity of taupe! Look, I'm not so old that I'm not the only person who knows that to this very day it was and is a huge problem for many media types on the Right. They made it such a yuuuuuuuge issue. Now, with tens of thousands of Americans dying, it seems trivial, which of course it was. That's the point of the article: the media attacks a black man or a women over their attire. It was headline, above-the-fold news for weeks, and remains a popular meme on social media to this day. Of course it passes WP:GNG. Even a Chad or a Karen knows that. Future readers yet unborn need to know how the silly season used to be. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:20, 7 April 2020 (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.