Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resignation of Shirley Sherrod


 * 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   keep. With seven non-keep "votes" and over thirty to keep (mostly all policy-based), I am invoking IAR and closing this debate early; there really isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this will end up being closed as keep delete. NW ( Talk ) 11:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Resignation of Shirley Sherrod

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article about a single event in the life of an otherwise non-notable person. Certainly the event has generated some news buzz, but within a week, the entire affair will likely be forgotten. This had been proposed for deletion under WP:BLP1E, but the article's author removed the prod, with the explanation: "This is an event article, not a biography, so BLP1E doesn't apply." If that is the case, than WP:NOTNEWS does apply. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This incident may serve as the incident that finally pushes this country into a useful and helpful dialog about race. It is also turning out to be one of the most controversial issues for NAACP in recent history. I think at some point it will be referenced on the NAACP page, the USDA page and any post mortem done on the Obama Administration Thediva  —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep. This is a part of history just like the Blood letter. It wasn't considered much when it was written, but twenty years later we see how it changed the world. History is history. The researchers who use Wikipedia will be deprived of an important bit of history if this is removed. Taram


 * Delete wikipedia is not the news. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Temporary Keep. I suggest waiting until early August before making a decision, to see what happens and where the controversy goes. For example, there are now reports (example) that the USDA may reemploy Ms Sherrod. Once things settle down, we can work out whether we should have a BLP about Ms Sherrod (very unlikely, IMO), rename this article to (say) "the Sherrod controversy" or merge it (preferably shortened) into some other article. (As an interim measure, we have a section about Ms S in the USDA article.) As things stand, the reasoning behind the BLP1E rule and WP:NOTNEWS are both good arguments for deleting the article. We should only keep it (possibly under a different name) if something changes. But I think the end of this AfD will be too soon to decide on that. CWC 13:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Temporary Keep. I'll second the above. ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Rather than the "temporary keep" recommendtations above, I would suggest that the article, as it stands, violates the spirit of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, and even though the information is sourced, its sources may not be the most neutral, and it is controversial and may well violate BLP guidelines. With so much that is troubling about the article, why not incubate it until the story plays out, and then it can be introduced later if the event merits.  There is no rush to introduce information to Wikipedia, but there should be a rush to remove information that is injurious to living people.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. for now and review later. We are not in a rush to declare it WP:BLP1E. Also, start to think about where this content would be merged into. I don't see how a factual account in Wikipedia of the resignation is injurious in the WP:BLP sense. patsw (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Temporary Keep- with all due respect to the WikiDan61, I don't think incubation is the right way to go in this instance, Since this story is all over the news right now (which doesn't mean it necessarily falls under NOTNEWS), people are going to be coming here to look for information on the subject. In a month or two, when the fuss has (hopefully) died down in the media, then we can re-examine and judge a little better whether or not its really just news with no encyclopedic merit, or a genuine encyclopedic topic. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with that method is that, in a couple of months when the controversy has died down, no one will be monitoring the article to see if it still merits inclusion. My experience has been that once an article gets past its first few weeks of existence, no one pays much attention any more and it will hang around forever.  Just because people may come to Wikipedia to find information on a current event doesn't mean they should succeed in that search.  Wikipedia isn't going anywhere -- if the story makes enough of a difference in things (e.g. if it causes a fundamental change in the operation of the DOA) then it may merit a story in the future.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone, namely I, volunteer to keep an eye on it. patsw (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Regarding the question where this could be moved to, I can think of three articles: the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the Tea Party articles since the controversy is more about them than it is about her.-Smile1234smile (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep People rarely win when it comes to nominating something that's very much in the news at the moment, although I fully support that as a means of bookmarking the topic for review later on, after it's no longer being talked about. I suspect that this won't be historically notable, and that Shirley Sharrod will join Fawn Hall and Reginald Denny among people who had 15 minutes of fame, but at the moment, it's just a guess on my part.  On the other hand, it's also possible that this will be a cautionary tale about not rushing to judgment.  Ultimately, people consult Wikipedia because they want to look at something in an encyclopedia, and this has a currency that other sites do not have, while preserving the background that most of the "latest news" articles would not keep.  Wikipedia won't suffer if this is kept. Mandsford 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. While I concede that the article will probably be kept, I also agree that it probably violates WP:BLP in a few ways. It really does need some attention to make sure it's as Neutral as possible. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Suspect WP:BLP edits are fixed in the editing process, not in AFD. patsw (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, which is why I noted that such issues exist, and why I very specifically did not recommend deletion. It's awful hard to judge when the article - and the subject - are changing so rapidly, though. And that's part of the problem. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, a redirect for Shirley Sherrod to some other page, perhaps United States Department of Agriculture, is probably all that's needed here. Ronnotel (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't concede that WP:BLP1E is applicable here. Please make the case for it. patsw (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: absolute non-controversy for a very un-notable government employee that Andrew "I can Quote Mine Anything and Fox Will Believe Me" Breitbart targeted so that he could defuse the controversy over racism in his beloved Tea Party. Come November, the only part of this story that's going to get any coverage is FOX's complete lack of journalistic integrity. And you're damn right I'm pissed off; pissed off that this is even news in the first place 'cause of some idjits over the pond Sceptre (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It at the least has the same political significance as ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy. How can it not be called on July 20 a controversy? We can retain the article, let it evolve, and come back on August 20, September 20, etc. patsw (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You could make a stronger case if your bias wasn't so obvious in your diatribe against keeping the article. At least attempt to appear non-partisan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With regards to the small text - this sort of thing annoys me too, and in the past I have supported deletion of articles at AfD on the grounds that 'this shouldn't be news!' (Balloon boy, anyone?). But I've eventually come to accept that Wikipedia does not decide what is notable. That's for news organisations and other reliable sources to decide; if a person or event has achieved notability, then we have to cover them, no matter how much we might prefer not to. Robofish (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment idjits?? thats not nice. Badmachine (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep for the converse reason--it will serve as a good historical example of how the Tea Party and its far-right allies & supporters were willing to destroy the careers of individuals, no matter how otherwise "notable" (or non-notable) they might be, in order to score political points. They destroyed the life of an African-American civil servant in order to try to convince everyone how totally not racist they are.  Taken within the whole political context of the present day, you better believe this incident is notable.  -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 16:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep I agree with the analysis of Mansford, but disagree with the conclusion. I linked to this article from my Google news page. In the short run, it saved me from the tedious process of reading a number of news articles, many of which only cover the last 12 hours of the story, and allowed me to apprehend the entire controversy in one big gulp. I don't think there's much left of it except for the talking heads. So one of my primary reasons for arguing to keep it is simple utility. I am not a wiki lawyer, so I suspect that someone in favor of deletion will find this reason useful in support of their cause. In the longer run, I think that there will exist a extensive Wikipedia article on the presidency of Barack Obama. Certainly a significant part of that article, or even a separate related article, will include discussions as to how race relations impacted his presidency and vice versa. Articles such as this may assist in that endeavor as, ironically, as primary source or it may be merged in another article collecting such incidents as these and the many articles that are sure to be written about Barack Obama in totality. In short, utility in the short run and substantive encyclopedic knowledge in the long run.75.30.69.83 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep. Clearly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable beyond WP:BLP1E. The Sherrod incident will be referred to on blogs everywhere for the foreseeable future as proof of either the racism of the Obama administration or the power of the Vast Right-wing Media Conspiracy (tho probably not both on the same blog). I wouldn't object to an appropriate merge. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Andrew Breitbart, because he's the man responsible for the whole thing. DS (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This story is everywhere. It is incredibly notable and is being discussed by the Administration and the Mainstream Media. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and let's discuss in the appropriate forum whether Fox News is a reliable source. Reliable sources publish retractions & sanction employees for irresponsible reporting. -- llywrch (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. See Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy. Comparable situation, arguably. Also, keep in mind that even though WP is not the news, a large part of the responsibility of any encyclopedic work is to document events in history which WERE the news at one point. Ms. Sherrod may only have 15 minutes of fame, but the question of race relations in the USA will persist for a far longer time, bringing this story squarely into the realm of notability. This is also notable because a Presidential administration and its potential legacy are also closely involved. I would also strongly cross-link with Breitbart.Msr69er (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As Msr69er has summarized my viewpoint on the question very well, and EastLaw has summarized the exact opposite of my viewpoint. Not one member of the Tea Party was in any position to fire Ms. Sherrod and ruin her career.  That was accomplished through the admitted incompetence of the Secretary of Ag and the White House.  QueenofBattle (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Move The topic is notable and encyclopedic, although the article should be move to a article simply called Shirley Sherrod and then the event is described within the article. Cocoaguy ここがいいcontribstalk 21:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep obviously. Become a huge story now, involving White House, Vilsack, CNN, Breitbart, FOX, et al. I also support * move to Shirley Sherrod -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obvious keep.  This is a pretty big story  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JahnTeller07 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States Department of Agriculture. No need for a stand alone article, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, unless it grows into something bigger, which is very unlikely. It's already discussed at United States Department of Agriculture (in fact, I think it violates WP:WEIGHT there). 71.52.140.113 (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Understood, but I would partially disagree. My reading of WP:NOTNEWS indicates that some events are exceptions to this rule if the nature of the event transcends "routine" news reporting; that is the case here, because of the underlying issues I mentioned above. That makes this a notable story which will have some lasting historical significance. In the USDA article there can be a brief summary and a link to a standalone article; this is done all the time.Msr69er (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and do NOT redirect to United States Department of Agriculture.  We can't give adequate coverage of the event over there without violating WP:WEIGHT.   The USDA article should just have a brief mention of this event with a link to this article which could provide fuller coverage.   This is not a BLP, this is about an event, like the DOJ attourney firing scandal.  WP:NOTNEWS doesn't mean we bury our heads in the sand and ignore everything less than 10 years old.   The amount of coverage this has gotten guarantees it more notability than most of the things on Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable and verifiable, and a valuable resource for the user public. --Art Smart Chart/ Heart  22:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. This appears to be a major event. I think waiting a few weeks to see how this develops is a fairly good, conservative position. We can look at this in August, and see if the article is still relevant and encyclopedic. AniMate 00:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, and consider a WP:SNOW close of this AfD. Shirley Sherrod would be a BLP1E, but this appears to be a notable event in the course of the Obama Presidency, and certainly is for Andrew Breitbart and Tom Vilsack. At the very least, wait a few days or weeks before dismissing it as a flash in the pan. Robofish (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge/Something - I'm not even sure what the right article to merge it into would be or even if that right article exists. I don't think the main USDA article is right.  Maybe an article that covers all media controversies started by Breitbart (basically splitting Andrew Breitbart into its own article).  I don't think this topic needs its own article, but I don't think it should be expunged either. --B (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it does qualify as a article. I agree that it be move to Shirley Sherrod. Robert Moore (Robert Moore) 01:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. The nomination's logic make no sense, at least now. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP. That this was even nominated seems suspect. Badmachine (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notable article that goes beyond one event and daily news - has been verified by multiple reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A highly notable event, at least for now. But let's revisit the article in six or twelve months to see if it still stands. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not biography, but history being written in a new way. Contributor01 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. This event has been reported on by multiple highly reliable sources. Easily passes the General notability guideline. LK (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this scrupulously referenced article about a significant aspect of "conservative" demagoguery and the power of "conservative" blowhards over government. Morenoodles (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As a person who doesn't read the news (since Nov '04), God Bless Wikipedia for putting together a succinct, well-sourced article filling me in on what I'd missed on this subject... and God DAMN the deletion process for trying to prevent me from seeing it put together so usefully... Dekkappai (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep highly notable news story, with unique elements that easily transcend the subjects minor position. While we arent a crystal ball, we should keep this here as a separate article for at least a while, and if it makes sense in a month or two to merge this with another article (warning weird humor) like "dismantling of Foxnews", "execution of Brietbart on PBS", or even "Election of Sarah Palin as head of NAACP". anyway, once notable, always notable, we just dont know where this content will end up. for now, this should stand as notable now, and not just a news cycle headline.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The forced resignation incident created Shirley Sherrod's notability. The forced resignation is a touchstone which illustrates the political forces in play today. Not real? It got real very quickly for her. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep WP:BLP1E says "write an article about the event, not the person", so it really doesn't apply here. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply either though: To quote said policy: "[...] including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate [...]". We have here a case where developments are noteworthy and lead to much coverage with a good chance that there will be a lasting notability. NOTNEWS seeks to remove articles and content that are clearly better suited for Wikinews, i.e. where it's obvious that the notability will vanish after a few days/weeks after news reports about it stopped. In this case, we cannot say for certain whether this will happen and the amount of coverage and discussion this subject created makes it a real possibility that lasting notability exists. If it turns out that this was incorrect, we can revisit this question in a few months. Regards  So  Why  07:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep at least for now - Skysmith (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't understand how the world's finest encyclopedia keeps coming up with reasons to delete these worthwhile and very important articles. KEEP so others can read about and understand how this woman lost her job because folks were jumping to conclusions. The woman and this issue are extremely noteworthy events in July 2010. 174.26.112.170 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 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.