Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political gaffes

: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. If this were a snout count then the !vote would be split if one counts plans "B" and "C" as "keeps" and plan "D" as a "delete. However it's not and I didn't find the "delete" !votes convincing. Most of the "delete" !voter's concerns can be dealt with through the normal editing process and BLP policy. The issue of whether or not to include a list and what criteria to use to determine what goes on it can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

=[[Political gaffes]]=

:{{la|Political gaffes}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_gaffes Stats])

:({{Find sources|Political gaffes}})

This is just a bad idea from the beginning. All it is doing or would ever do is exist as a honeypot for every two-bit criticism and political "incident" from any part of human history. It already ranges from the Hamilton-Burr duel to swearing in parliament to shooting your friend in the face. It in essence a "list of..." article, but this listing is just of indiscriminate, random criticisms, sometimes of living people. Note: the seeds of this began at Talk:Dan Quayle#Overemphasis on Gaffes, where a user is seeking to rid that article of a perceived gaffe overemphasis. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Neutral. I created the article to possibly alleviate the Quayle issue. I don't really care if it remains as an article, is partially converted to a list, or both deleted. It was mentioned on the talk page that the gaffes should be 'notable and memorable'. It may be difficult to decide which ones qualify.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as a list of articles which are specifically about gaffes, such as Fuddle duddle, Jimmy Carter rabbit incident, George H. W. Bush vomiting incident. If we have such articles, there's no reason against listing them in one place. If we don't have such articles, then they don't belong here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as an article about what a political gaffe is, it's after effects and so on (would need to be renamed to Political gaffe). There appears to be more than enough sources for the term. The article as it is should probably be moved to List of political gaffes, and there's a bit of a difficulty ensuring that the gaffes are notable enough to be mentioned and don't contravene WP:BLP, but it's certainly possible. WormTT(talk) 13:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete unless the list of gaffes is removed. A similar article was deleted previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Politacle Gaffs. This article risks being turned into a political football, with new entries for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney being added by each candidate's detractors every few days. The inclusion of the Burr-Hamilton duel on this list seems to indicate that the meaning of "gaffe" is unclear at best. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep -- but what about limiting it to gaffes that involve politicians who are not current candidates or officeholders? That ought to lessen the "political football" aspect, which I agree is a concern. William Jockusch (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Plan B. I agree it could be a mess. Could we set criteria as gaffes that have a stable article in wikipedia as brought up earlier? If the gaffe article is deleted it is removed from the list?--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Bush Vomiting and Cheney shooting his friend are not "Gaffes" and I would guess that most on the list are not gaffes either. A Gaffe is typically a stupid statement made by a person. Since politicians make a lot of stupid statements that make the news, this article is likely to fill up with a bunch of statements and likely turn into an attack page. Arzel (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't called aa list, it's an article, so the question is "Is this subject notable enough for an article?" At the moment I'm inclined to vote "Keep but make sure it's a well-sourced article." because a quick look at Google books suggests that we can source it. Of course, it will be a political hot potato, but is that a reason to delete? Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • :Then we're veering into "not a dictionary" if all you're going to do is tell the readers what a "gaffe" is. But to expand beyond a rote dicdef, you're going to have to go into examples and political history, and that is the loaded territory you seem to want to avoid. This is one big "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, which is why IMO we're just better not having an article at all, as its either going to be dry or a POV honeypot. Tarc (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - This should be covered by a category, whereby all the entries must be worthy of a standalone article. This "article" (actually a list with a definition) has inclusion criteria that are sufficiently vague and subjective that it will always attract edit warring, POV pushing, flame bait, etc... just a bad idea. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Proposal. Create a category as the wise Blaxthos suggests. Would that satisfy the keep and delete people?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

:A category would be a much better idea. It would limit it to truly notable incidents and make it much less likely to result in edit warring. Arzel (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - I can see that this is POV bait. Waiting to see if it passes WP:HEY or should be turned into a category. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Create Category per Blaxthos, whereby all entries must warrant a standalone article. Agree w/ Bearian that having this as a separate article is "POV bait".--JayJasper (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:Source list and WP:NNC requirements. Cavarrone (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Plan C. Keep as an article but only include 'standalone' articles. If an editor wants to add one that isn't, then an article needs to be written and survive for a certain time period? I am COI because I can legally vote in my country. I think incarcerated criminals aren't allowed to vote in some countries so they may have to decide for us. I don't think many are allowed internet so this may be difficult.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I am still feeling meh. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Plan C, per above. If the gaffes are truly notable, then they will have their own article and then it is proper to include them in such a list. Otherwise, this will turn into a political mess and BLP attacks. SilverserenC 20:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The topic is notable as see, for example, [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FXjcoZkDJDIC&pg=PA126 Message Control]; [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TXOh7CvYaPMC&pg=PA70 Image Bite Politics]; or [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9aPeGqTWW2UC&pg=PA404 Political Communication]. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - A political gaffe will always be an event and would need to meet the criteria for events to have an article. Adding a category to group these together for navigation would be more than sufficient. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

:* Please see WP:NOTDUP. A "category is better than a list" argument is a non-starter. SilverserenC 00:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

::* I was probably not clear, I did not mean to argue that the list should be deleted as a duplication of a category (which is what WP:NOTDUP says not to do). I was saying that a list is inappropriate for this type of collection, whereas a category is ideal. The advantages of a list actually argue against making this a list (or leaving it as a list), and the disadvantages mention the issue of sourcing brought up by others above. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete and Create Category per Blaxthos. That would allow an easy way to find the events that have actually been deemed to be notable and well sourced enough to have their own article, while preventing any POV warring that would inevitably arise from an article such as this. While keeping this as a list, but only allowing "stand alone" articles is a good idea, I think that would be difficult to enforce, and we would wind up with the same problems as we would with a straight keep. Rorshacma (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Plan D? Create the category, move the definition to the top of the category page, close this Afd.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

:*As long as it categorizes events and not people, I'd be fine with this. Tarc (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

::*I agree. We should put a set of criteria at the top of the category page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete - Too subjective, will become a crap magnet. Anything listed here would have to be an article in its own right, which means a category is more than sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Plan D then? Should we keep the definition with sources at the top? Is the sort by country ok? Should we keep the 'see also' section? Thoughts?--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2012 (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.