Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial attacks on Michelle Obama (2nd 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Racial attacks on Michelle Obama
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is hopelessly unencyclopedic and highly problematic. Take, for instance, the criticism section (I'm not even sure why it is named that). Governor Huckabee is (huge surprise) not a very big fan of the First Lady and stated that her blog postings are vile and hateful. Does that constitute a "racial attack"?

Was it a "racial attack" when Juan Williams (a black news corresponent) compared the First Lady to Stokely Carmichael? Stokely was not a very nice man and I would not like to be compared to him but I cannot see how such a comparison is racist.

This article is existentially flawed and could bring embarrassing media coverage upon wikipedia, it should be deleted. - Schrandit (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the nominator has misinterpreted the reference to Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is being cited as someone who has criticized racial attacks on Michelle Obama, because he said that the attacks that other blogs were making on her were "vile and hateful". He's not being cited as someone who himself made a racial attack on her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is true - Huckabee's comments were critical of the racist attacks. But that says more about Huckabee than Obama, so maybe it goes on his bio, not hers (see my comment below). This doesn't speak to whether this article should exist or not. Tvoz / talk 19:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Pare down, change wording to "Attacks on Mic helle Obama" and Merge to Michelle Obama as a new subsection. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not merge - if merged, this would have to be pared down to nearly nothing - at most a sentence that said that Michelle Obama had been subject to racist commentary - but that's hardly notable, and only would fly if we have third party independent sourcing characterizing the comments in some way and have some analysis to suggest they are notable.  This article is OR and POV - what one editor thinks is an attack another might think is merely an observation, but we aren't supposed to edit according to what we think, but what outside sources say.  As it is now this is a loose conglomeration of non-notable comments like "radio host Tammy Bruce referred to Michelle Obama as "trash" while filling in for Laura Ingraham on the radio". This article is a prime example of what should not be in an encyclopedia, and merging it to Michelle Obama does not help. As I said elsewhere, maybe a bit of this could go on the pages of the people who made the comments, if there were any long-term implications for their lives (like losing a job, say) -- otherwise the encyclopedia would be better off without any of it. Delete.  Tvoz / talk 18:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete have people told racist jokes about her, made racist attacks about her, or otherwise made criticisms that are "racial" in nature? Yes. Is there any sane reason to have a separate article of this nature? No. Any truly "notable" attacks on Obama, whatever their nature, will find a home in the article about her. Had my eye on this since it was created. It's of neccessity a piece of original research (who sez such and such a comment is a "racist attack") that gives undue weight to various idiotic statements of no particular relevance to her life and career. Basically, none of these kinds of titles should ever be allowed to persist -- they narrow the focus of alleged "encyclopedic" topics in such a way as prevent balance (aka "npov.") Just imagine Attacks on Bush's economic policy, Attacks on attacks of Obama's economic policy, Religious attacks on JFK, on and on it could go. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopaedic. Even the title of this article is problematic since many of the incidents related in the article do not have a racial connection. At best this information should be summarized and merged to Michelle Obama. Note that no other First Lady, even the highly controversial and lampooned Hillary Clinton, have an article like this. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then, start one! Stonemason89 (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bad idea, imho. Just becasue there aren't examples of other similarly bad articles out there, doesn't mean we should start such ones. --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep subject has received substantial media coverage, was deemed notable enough to make it to DYK, and is unprecedented in history (I don't think any Democrat ever talked this way about Laura Bush, for example). Also, I was not notified about this AFD nomination; isn't that usual protocol? Stonemason89 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Some of the material are not "attacks" per say. Add the material to the individual's bios if truly notable and well covered. Is there a parody type sub article, ect that could cover this?--Threeafterthree (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2010 (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.