Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niggers in the White House

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The consensus is clearly to keep the article, regardless of the technicality of whether the subject passes GNG. Since there are enough reliable sources for the resulting article to pass WP:V, I see no justification or policy-based reason to override the overwhelming consensus to 'keep' that formed in this discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niggers in the White House

[edit]
Niggers in the White House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm going to keep this simple and just look at the sources. I think the article is artfully written, but it is stretching references that just aren't there. Let's go through them.

Reference #1: Is this one from the Theodore Roosevelt Center. It's just a simple listing of the poem itself with a brief description, just like the site lists all the other letters and things written by famous people. It doesn't really confer anything to notability at all.
Reference #2: Is this from the Presidential Collections. And it's basically just a copy of the Roosevelt reference, it links to it and everything. Nothing to do with notability here.
Reference #3: Is this from an old 1903 printing of the poem in the Dispatch. It's just a printing of the poem with no commentary at all. It adds nothing to notability.
Reference #4: Is this book that has a single sentence on the poem. Very much trivial coverage.
Reference #5: Is this book, which does't appear to mention the poem at all or even obliquely, unless i'm mistaken.
Reference #6: Is this book, which also doesn't appear to mention the poem at all.
Reference #7: Is this book, with yet again no reference to the poem.
Reference #8: Is this book, which is actually the best reference so far, with a full three sentences on the poem. Which is pretty much nothing and really still just trivial coverage.
Reference #9: Is this news article, which is actually directly about the poem. It is a 1929 article from the Evening Tribune. But it is far more about the incident of it being read and then struck from the record than any real commentary about the poem. That and the datedness of the source really just makes it seem like a minor event.
Reference #10: Is this news article, which is paid-locked, so I can't judge it on quality. But the title has nothing to do with the poem, so I can only assume the coverage in it is trivial. And, again, it is a dated 1929 source.
Reference #11: Is this, which is the same as reference #1, just in image viewer format.
Reference #12: Is this, which is the same reference as #1 and #11.

Do note that the article is subject to change. So the references align with this version of the article, which is the one I was reviewing.

Now, onto the Bibliography section.

Number 1: Is this book, which is not in a readable format. But when I put the name of the poem into the search bar, nothing comes up. It doesn't appear that the slur "niggers" is even used in the book.
Number 2: Is this article in JSTOR that is about the White House dinner that the poem was a response to. But the poem is not mentioned in this article at all.
Number 3: Is this article, another from JSTOR about the dinner. Again, no mention of the poem at all.
Numbers 4, 5 and 6: I'm not going to read, because they're pretty long. But they both appear to be about the dinner as well. If the poem is actually mentioned in them, please let me know, but i'll assume it's not.
External link #1: Is this article, the one and only external link and actually a recent news source! That doesn't mention the poem at all. Okay, moving on then.

So, in total, we have a bunch of sources that don't mention the poem at all, a few sources with a single sentence on the poem, and then a tie between the dated 1929 news article on the poem that is more about the incident and the three sentence bit about the poem in a book. You pick which one you think gives more notability.

But, all in all, there doesn't appear to be any notability of significance here. Maybe enough to have a single paragraph in another article, but certainly not enough to have one all on its own. Thus, I think this article should be Deleted.SilverserenC 06:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have access to the NY Times article "White House Tea Starts Senate Stir". New York Times. June 18, 1929 (reference 10 mentioned in the AfD nomination, and currently reference 9), and it does note that this poem was included in the Senator's racist motion, and its inclusion was directly criticized by two other senators and eventually struck from the record of proceedings after a debate, so it is relevant to the topic of the article and provides substantive coverage (about six paragraphs) on the poem and its reception. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as keep For the love of all things nigger... but seriously, we do not expect this to have staggering coverage. Just this much coverage is enough to warrant a decent article. Furthermore, it passed a stringent DYK review and is currently on the main page. You can't go against us. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're the creator of the new masterpiece, No N*ggers, No Jews, No Dogs. Is that headed for Wikipedia's main page too? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm surprised the dinner that set this in motion does not have an article itself. Is there a section on it somewhere? I distinctly recall learning about the dinner in high school, and given how long ago that was, it must have been covered to quite an extent. If it turns out the dinner is notable enough for its own article, then this poem may fit better as a section therein. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But this poem surfaced at two dinners. Not just that dinner, so it would not seem right. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability is not temporary (regarding the old sources), and by gosh there's a heck of a lot of controversy. This goes into some detail as well, as does Life. Likely quite a few offline articles as well. This reminds me of "Langit Makin Mendung" in a way: a controversial work of literature that is terrible as literature, but notable as a social artefact. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You added a single reference about an event. It's certainly better than all the other sources, but there is no evidence of ongoing coverage or any critical coverage at all or discussion of the poem outside of the event itself. This gives the event notability, not the poem. SilverserenC 17:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Weak delete While notability is not temporary, I don't see how article meets the lasting effects, geographical scope, depth and duration of media coverage criterias from WP:EVENT guideline. It seems to be century old WP:SENSATION. Article has serious issues with sources, including citations to material that does mention the subject matter at all. Unless refimprove'd, I'm inclined to delete per nomination. jni (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The poem appeared in several places (including, temporarily, the record of the US Senate), and the Baltimore Afro-American printed (most of) the poem in covering the Jessie De Priest incident, along with commentary on the abhorrent racism displayed by the poem. This seems to be a small, but significant, item in U.S. history, and helps to build a picture of US Society in the early 20th century, with numerous sources mentioning it (some in the article, some noted on this page, and also others). Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. -- 101.119.29.159 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and rename into an article whose main topic is that White House dinner with Booker Washington itself, which appears to be a lot more notable, and to which the existence of the poem is basically just an historical footnote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Crisco, I think this is a historically notable subject and should be kept. Personally I think that the poem's unmitigated dreadfulness on every conceivable level makes it a subject worth keeping a record of. Removing record because of fear of causing offence also contributes to these things being forgotten. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't explained why it is notable, especially when most of the sources don't even mention the poem. Just because you think it is of historical import isn't a policy-based argument of any kind. SilverserenC 17:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It passes GNG because of articles from 1929 that are about an event? That gives the event notability, not the poem. And there is no evidence of all of enduring notability or continuing coverage separate from the reactionary coverage just after the event. SilverserenC 17:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and rename as per Someguy1221's and Future Perfect at Sunrise's suggestions. Not notable enough in its own right to merit an article, but a legitimate component of an article on the actual event. Awien (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and topic ban Bonkers from articles related to race for lack of competence. The amount of commentary on this more than 100 years olf poem establishes notability fine. SilverSerens argument that the coverage is not substantial is not convincing, clearly it is not comparable to the amount of coverage expected for high literature but for the kind of satirical/racist poem it is it is clearly substantial. Its not as if we could expect someone to write a book about it. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet you give no explanation on why it is notable. You don't discuss the references, you don't refute the statements made in my nomination. You haven't called forth any policy argument whatsoever. SilverserenC 17:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The poem is only marginally notable, for sure, but there is no reason not to err on the side of inclusion for the reasons I gave. We are not a bureaucracy. And, frankly, I doubt anyone believes this would have been listed for deletion were it not for the title and content of the poem, even though your nomination does not say so. Paul B (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I sense your frustration Silverseren! I think this is going to be one of those times you'll regret expending so much good effort on folly; but I think you've undertaken a fool's errand. I didn't include a bunch of interlinks to policy because it is my nature not to template an editor as regular as you; and I didn't link fool's errand either for the same respect in your competence. Frankly, I don't want to delve into this subject beyond the cursory review I'd done in proximity of the article's creation. And I do remember seeing enough to warrant the subject's inclusion as having met the burden of wp:gng.

    12 online accessible links from wp:rs and 6 book citations is overkill in suggesting it relates to the threshold of significant coverage. Personally I think three solid references are sufficient to secure verifiable notability for a subject, and the additional references are for verification of the article's content; which I'm certain that you know the threshold for content inclusion is less stringent than the threshold for notability.

    I'll keep an eye on the emerging consensus in this discussion and if deletion becomes viable by some measure, I'll compile a more specific argument; but this discussion answers itself from a rudimentary level, and I think you know this as well. I also took a very close look at your AfD contributions and do get a sense that a politically correct element exists within this nomination. And I think you mean well by your manner; but it's folly I tell you, and avoiding folly is a divine utterance to my understanding.—John Cline (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum - By the way, I agree with Maunus that Bonkers The Clown is disrupting the discussions I've seen regarding this topic and I wouldn't suggest suffering his malfeasance much longer.—John Cline (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you realize that Bonkers is the original creator of this article? Too bad he disrupted us by creating content. Not everyone here cares if someone uses the nigga word in talk. jni (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I realize "Bonkers is the original creator of this article" and I did not attempt to speak for everyone, particularly by prefacing my comment with "I agree" and "I wouldn't suggest".—John Cline (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do not attempt to remove history. Most here agree the name is abhorrent and John Cline has rightfully pointed to the folly of whitewashing everything in the name of political correctness. I do disagree about topic banning our court jester as throughout history black comedy has been used to draw attention to issues we may have other wise ignored. Bonkers in his demented way has accomplished that here. 172.56.11.197 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, really? Is it that hard to make a policy based argument or at least discuss the nominator's argument? You do know that the closer is meant to disregard any non-policy votes, right? SilverserenC 18:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you know that having the nominator respond sarcastically to every "Keep" is rude and annoying, right? As for your complaint WP:NOTCENSORED and [WP:NOTABILITY]] are policy-based !votes, and that you, as nom, don't get to limit the grounds on which other editors based their decisions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an article about the dinner itself, the one given by TR with BTW as a guest. The dinner itself is the important thing. The "poem" is reaction to this event. The effect of this article is to give undue weight to the negative views while just barely mentioning the positive. BayShrimp (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. And yes, this is what I meant to say: the nominator's given multiple reliable sources that cover this poem sufficiently — the nominator's tone, together with the "hurry let's get it down immediately" tone of the WP:AN thread that brought me here, make it appear as if the nominator's ultimately motivated by dislike. Citations such as #9 are from established news media, and unlike WP:NOTNEWS-violating stories on the latest events, this article uses news media from years later to demonstrate that the poem remained a topic of interest decades later. "Datedness" is no reason to reject a source, unless it's something scholarly that's later been shown to be wrong; this would have passed our notability criteria eighty years ago, so it remains notable now. Meanwhile, the nominator's making irrelevant objections about certain sources not discussing the subject at all: they're given for background purposes, and they don't hurt the article. We have enough coverage to write about the poem itself, and we have enough background information to place it in context, so let's allow it to remain a separate article. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that any of the sources that discuss the poem in a non-trivial manner are the 1929 ones about the Senate event. That would give notability for the event, not for the poem. There is no evidence at all of enduring notability here. And please keep your assumptions about my motives to yourself. SilverserenC 18:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, delete this article or bury it in the test of another article where no one will find it. No one wants to point out the Jim Crow racist history of the "Democratic" Party and make it easy to find for those interested in non-revisionist history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.124.242 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC) — 74.83.124.242 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge this poem is by an anonymous author written over 100 years ago and is of no historical significance except as a reaction to the dinner hosted by teddy roosevelt for booker t. washington. It belongs in a section labeled as "reactions to the dinner." Agree with Bayshrimp. — Dadahorse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Please assume good faith about my DYK review. I resent suggestions that I failed to review the sources. I did review the sources, and I agree that some added context without directly discussing the poem. As others point out, however, the poem is discussed directly in multiple sources from the article. Is that level and amount of discussion up to Silver seren's standards? Obviously not, but the detail in coverage necessary for an article (per WP:GNG) is something that reasonable people can (and frequently do) disagree on (and consequently a prime ground for discussion and consensus-building). Bonkers has behaved embarrassingly throughout this process and I would support a topic ban if anything like this continues (Silver seren himself is starting to bludgeon the process as well). Nevertheless, the poem is notable. Others have mentioned a merger, but there is no article to merge to yet, and that discussion should wait until there is such a target. The fact that the poem was republished for a second historical event makes this seem unlikely. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't explained how it is notable. I clearly pointed out how, out of the 12 references, 4 are just a catalog listing of the poem, 1 is just a reprinting of the poem itself, 3 don't mention the poem at all, 2 have trivial 1-2 sentence coverage of the poem, and 2 have coverage of an event in the Senate in 1929 that has more to do about the event than the poem itself. So, where is the notability? SilverserenC 23:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment I totally agree with Silver Seren: in all the references that mention the "poem" at all, it is as a passing glance in coverage of the actual events. None of them (barring oversight on my part) are about the "poem" itself, which is what would be required to demonstrate notability. Awien (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, the article has been largely rewritten. -- 101.119.28.204 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into article about the dinner. I agree with FutPerf. The dinner was the notable incident that got most of the attention. The poem is historically significant and deserves to have its own section in the main article, but the main article should be on Teddy Roosevelt's invitation to Booker T. Washington. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, a merge is not ideal per reasons laid out by IronGargoyle above. Also by merging content definitely will be swamped. Let it stay as an article on its own and perhaps include a "See also" link to this article if there is an article on the Washington/Roosevelt dinner. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The article is well sourced and is notable because it demonstrates the level of Racism in the United States at that time and 30 years later when it again raised its ugly head. The varying reactions of the notable politicians of that time also establish notability. We cannot delete history because we do not like a word no matter how inappropriate it sounds. Deleting the article would be foolish from a sociological and historical perspective. I am sure the reason to delete is well intentioned (but misdirected) but we all know the expression about good intentions. It is simply to important in the history of racism in America to try to bury it. The tone of the article does need to be watched carefully and possibly the article needs to be locked down. My opinion is some articles (due to their controversial nature) should only be edited by vetted academics with expertise in the subject area. That would not hinder submissions but additional editing. The problem with wiki is any fool or agenda pusher (and there are many) can edit but that should have no influence on whether to keep an article or not. That is why wiki's credibility as well sourced, academic tone and neutral point of view have yet to be established. 172.56.10.211 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while I wish we could delete the horrible racism from this period of American history, that is unfortunately not a possibility. This is an artifact of that history that received significant coverage and attention on several occasions from the US Congress. It's a subject we can have an encyclopedic article on, and we should. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A simple request - Can anyone show me a single reference that has non-trivial coverage of the poem that is not printed directly after and is not about the 1929 event? That's all i'm asking for. SilverserenC 23:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take this page off your watch list and find something else to do for a few days. The nomination states your case well enough that you don't need to badger respondents. An admin once told me to do this when I was getting increasingly annoyed and frustrated with a policy discussion. I didn't realize my behavior was rapidly becoming disruptive and confrontational, and it probably saved me from my first ever block. Sometimes it's best to just let things go; this is doubly true when you find yourself compulsively and angrily replying to policy discussions. It's not worth it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly Silver's fault that he is about the only person in this AfD who understands Wikipedia policy on third-party, non-trivial coverage of the subject itself, and therefore is the only one pointing it out. --86.181.17.180 (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)— 86.181.17.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Restructure -- The incident, about which the peom was written, was clearly notable and we should have a WP artilce on that. The amount of reaction to the WP article makes clear that this touches a raw nerve with a lot of people who do not like it. I would prefer to see an article written mainly about the events that generated the poem, with the poem discussed near the end of the article, rather than an articel on the poem, which would merely be a fork of that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough non-trivial coverage about the poem itself from independent sources. You can't exclude all coverage of the poem just because it was written when the poem was of public interest, especially when that was 20 years apart.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that the coverage of the 1929 Senate event is mainly about the event. The mentioning of the poem is not about the poem so much as it being read in the Senate. So, as an event, that might be notable. But the poem by itself is not. There is no critical commentary whatsoever that's been shown about the poem. And there is practically non-existence coverage of the poem when it was first made, other than a sentence or two in articles or books that are otherwise discussing the White House dinner. Again, all i'm asking for is a single article that is actually focused on the poem itself and not the Senate event. Finding a single article shouldn't be that hard if the subject is actually notable. SilverserenC 22:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will repeat the above warning: I suggest you take this page off your watch list and find something else to do for a few days. The nomination states your case well enough that you don't need to badger respondents. An admin once told me to do this when I was getting increasingly annoyed and frustrated with a policy discussion. I didn't realize my behavior was rapidly becoming disruptive and confrontational, and it probably saved me from my first ever block. Sometimes it's best to just let things go; this is doubly true when you find yourself compulsively and angrily replying to policy discussions. It's not worth it. 208.54.40.240 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeating yourself doesn't actually make you more right or more convincing. You can ask for whatever you want, but I'm free to decide that policy doesn't demand that I give it to you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into an article discussing the dinner. Clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria... 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." Coverage is trivial. No "keep" voters have addressed this fatal flaw, and none has given a reason to ignore the guideline. It doesn't surprise me in the least that so many here would vote to keep an article with this title that clearly fails GNG. yuk! Awesome! heh heh! Niggers in the White House! Woah! heh heh! NOTCENSORED! Yay! "Nigger nigger nigger!" "We can so we will!"
Well, this time you can't. It doesn't pass GNG. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Added "or merge" 18:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attributing childish motives to keep editors is utterly unsupportable, (with, I concede, the possible exception of "Bonkers the Clown"). The childishness exists only in your own last sentence. On the contrary, the reason that "keep" voters have repeatedly given is the fact that this is a significant and striking aspect of US history. The poem was printed and discussed in numerous newspapers from 1901-3 and in 1929. If this were an event happening now - some brouhaha in current newspapers about comments made by a US senator - there would be no doubting we'd have an artiocle on "X's comments controversy", of which there are many such. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't pass GNG, does it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. Or do you miss the point that its discussion at the time(s) forms part of its reception history by sources. Paul B (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the point that its discussion at the time(s) was as a mere footnote to a larger incident? Someguy1221 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't. It was involved in two quite separate incidents, which is why it is not a good candidate for merging into an article about the dinner. Of course such an article does not exist, so the suggestion that it should be merged into it is really rather meaningless. If such an article is created, a possible merger might be discussed then, though there are, as I have said, good reasons to oppose such a move. Paul B (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then mention it in both articles on those topics (if either or both topics pass GNG) or simply delete it. Sorry. This poem doesn't pass GNG. If the one or two incidents around it don't have sufficient coverage for their own articles, then that just reinforces the poem's insignificance. Sorry. Go spray it on a fence somewhere, not on Wikipedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This argument is nonsensical. There is no doubt that the dinner could have its own article (there are whole books about it as well as an opera by Scott Joplin!). The fact that no-one has created one yet is not an argument that an article on a topic related to it should not exist. That's like saying we should delete an article on the deputy prime-minister of country X because no-one has yet created an article on the prime-minister. Many editors diagree with you about GNG, so just reasserting your belief more dogmatically, but with no coherent argument, does nothing of value. Your last childish sentence just indicates that GNG is not the real issue for you. Paul B (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. So write an article about the notable dinner and, if you like, mention the otherwise non-notable poem. As for many editors disagreeing with me: eh? This place is full of fools and bigots, many of whom will flock to an AFD like this for the lulz and worse. That's why these things are not a vote. This poem does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, hence it is not notable. By all means mount an argument to support ignoring WP:GNG in this instance, but so far no one has chosen to do so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to editors who have given coherent arguments as fools and bigots is both foolish and bigoted. No-one with half a brain can believe that the people who support the existence of this article are doing so from bigotry. The only "bigotry" and prejudice I see on this page comes from the opposite POV. Paul B (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are fools and bigots. You can never win a fool or a bigot in an argument, Anthony, so just drop it. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you're not all fools and bigots. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge into an article about the dinner(s)). I find no compelling arguments here as to the notability of the poem. As has been mentioned many times, the references that support this article at best demonstrate the notability of the dinner that inspired this poem. The keep votes here appear to be, without exception, ignorant of either the notability guideline or the content of the references. This forum of course has the power to carve an IAR-based exception to the GNG (this is how little hamlets got kept at AFD for years before they were explicitly declared notable) - but it's tiring to see people pretend that this topic meets the guideline when it plainly doesn't. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "keep" !voters here are quite aware of the sources and of the GNG. We have the subject of the article discussed repeatedly over a substantial period of time, with a substantial discussion in, among other sources, the Baltimore Afro-American. I find it very disturbing that some editors want to refocus the article to be solely about the dinner, thereby removing the perhaps even more significant 1929 Senate event. One can't solve racism in the present by pretending that racism in the past didn't happen. -- 101.119.29.15 (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single person on this page is pretending that racism in the past did not happen, so I have no clue why you are trumpeting that line. You are also disturbed about something that isn't happening, since no one has suggested that the article be solely about the dinner - rather, the consistent suggestion is that the article on the poem become a part of an article on the dinner. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and since the 1929 Senate event involves the poem but is completely unrelated to the dinner, it would get quietly swept under the carpet. -- 101.119.29.17 (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We now have an article on the 1901 dinner, and an article on the 1929 tea party/Senate reading. Both cover the poem, and that is where it belongs. There is significant coverage in multiple sources of those two events. There is not significant coverage of this poem in multiple sources. It is mentioned once, in a footnote, of a biography of an African American Evangelist. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's obviously enough sourced material here about the poem in particular, on multiple occasions, that it can't be merged into an article about a dinner, and of course we should not consider deleting it. Yes, there is a deep racial ugliness to it - conveying the truth, however, is our mission here. I wish that we had made more progress faster against racism, so that by now this would be a "Yankee Doodle" that folks of all races at the White House could sing over 'sparkling wine' to mutual laughter. But the time will come... Wnt (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How's this for critical commentary (from the article): "Republican senator ... Hiram Bingham (from Connecticut) ... described the poem as 'indecent, obscene doggerel' which gave 'offense to hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens and [...] to the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.'" -- 101.119.29.35 (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It does seem to just meet the bare minimum for WP:GNG with reference eight being compelling as a source mentioning the poem a hundred years after it was published. A merge doesn't seem appropriate since one event associated with the poem doesn't concern the only viable merge target.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: additional references to the 1929 reading of the poem can be found in Pan-African chronology III: a comprehensive reference to the Black quest for freedom in Africa, the Americas, Europe and Asia, 1914-1929 (Everett Jenkins, McFarland & Co., 2001) and The New York Times. -- 101.119.29.35 (talk) 06:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You left out several sources, such as the mention in the Joplin book, and did you perhaps forget about the poem's 1929 reading in the Senate? That received widespread coverage in 1929, and is also discussed in books on Afro-American history. I'd add Life Magazine's coverage to the article, except that someone would claim it was WP:OR when I pointed out that they're being sarcastic when they call it "a pretty little poem," and call Blease himself "chivalrous." This is a notable event in US history, though one I guess many people would prefer to forget. -- 120.144.24.102 (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Joplin book says, in total, "The Sedalia Sentinal printed a poem on page one entitled 'Niggers in the White House,' which concludes with a black man marrying the president's daughter." That's it. That is a trivial mention. We're looking for significant coverage.

    Where is the Life article? I am open to persuasion, you know. Just show me some actual significant coverage. The 1903 Baltimore Afro-American article I alluded to above is the only significant discussion of the poem per se that I've been shown. Bring a few more like that to the discussion and you'll have made the case. I've been looking very hard and have found nothing. Every source, except the Afro-American article, is either trivial or about a single event - the reading of Blease's Senate resolution - not the poem, per se.

    The 1929 reading in the Senate is an event, centering on the behavior of the notable Coleman Bleaze, and it is dealt with, in detail, at Coleman Livingston Blease#Blease as Senator, where it belongs.

    What "books on Afro-American history" give significant coverage of the poem, and why aren't they cited in the article? If they exist, why are you edit-warring to keep a list of books in the "Further reading" section that don't even mention the poem? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be kept. At this point we would all do better to focus on improving the article rather than continued bickering here. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove that list of "Further reading" that doesn't even address the poem, that would be a start. Then perhaps you could find one source, other than the Afro-American article, that critically addresses the poem (more than one sentence from an outraged legislator.) I've been looking, and failed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the "Further reading" section is a matter to be discussed at the article's talk page (I have commented there). As for finding more sources, that would be wonderful, but there's certainly consensus here that the article, as it stands, meets WP:GNG. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's been asserted, but anyone who's been challenged to point to the exact sources that contain significant coverage of the poem as opposed to trivial mentions (apart from the Afro-American article) has failed to do so. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Failed to do so to your standards.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The significant event is the dinner, the poem is a bit of historical detritus connected to that, but insignificant itself. This is original research synthesis, stringing a bunch of sources together, many of which don't even mention the actual subject of this article, to create a facade of notability. Gamaliel (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nom and Gamaliel's points above regarding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The references do not establish notability for the poem in of itself and amount to merely trivial coverage at best. Perhaps merge some content to the article on the dinner as appropriate. As I understand it AfDs aren't straight votes per se, but based on the arguments made as well, so the point being asked above about what supports significant, non-trivial, coverage seems valid. Also think the assertions that the nom is merely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT to be a bit against WP:AGF when there is a reasonable rationale and argument provided as the basis of the nom. Number36 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I cannot agree with the nominator's discounting pre-1930 sources, since notability is not temporary. If anything, readily available sources for a century-old subject are likely just the tip of the iceberg. So I think this does edge past the notability bar. But if it is the dinner that is truly notable, it may be best to redirect this to an article about the dinner, merging a small amount of relevant content. Rlendog (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just on the point about Notability not Being Temporary, reading WP:NTEMP that wouldn't appear to necessarily mean that early coverage of that nature (and as you say it's in the context of the dinner in any case) necessarily establishes notability. As per the example there "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." (Reading 'subject' for person, and 'article about that subject'), this would seem to be applicable in this case where it was mentioned only in the context of a single event. So I agree with your point regarding redirecting and merging with the article on the dinner.Number36 (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on. This article will survive or not on the basis of whether there is significant coverage of the poem in multiple sources. I've read, I think, all of the sources for this article now and don't believe it passes GNG. I will collate them - those that actually mention the poem (the vast majority just talk about the dinner, the tea party and the senatorial rebuke) - with a transcript of every word addressing the poem, and hopefully that will make the question of notability clear, one way or the other. Presently the above consists of a lot of disputed claims regarding the nature of the sources. However, I won't be able to get to this for a day or so. So I would appreciate it if anyone contemplating closing this could wait a bit until that's done. (Anyone who wants to make a start is welcome to do so.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to this in the next day or so. I'm traveling. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into articles about dinner - the article as stands, presents a reasonably good analysis per the sources. Generally, it meets notability beyond the momentary coverage. However, the arguments towards upmerge also suggest a much better (and more thorough) article should subsume this one, Sadads (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Silverseren's nomination statement does a very good job of dismantling the referencing. The title is utterly horrendous, and the DYK hook that was tied to it even more so. Beyond that, there is a serious issue here that most of the keep !voters haven't even attempted to look at the sourcing properly; they've looked at the number of citations, and concluded that this must be notable. Notability isn't temporary, that is correct; however, the notability is for the dinner (which has its own article at present) and the tea, not the poem. Now, what we're left with is a poem that has a lot of mentions, but that's all they are; passing mentions. The events are notable, but the poem is not. For obvious reasons, the title is not appropriate for a redirect. I seriously hope that the poor sod who eventually has to close this can see through the non-policy based !votes on both sides, and give us a proper result one way or another; one that isn't no consensus. There may be some content that is worth merging into one of the relevant articles, and if there is, that should be done. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are in fact multiple sources describing the poem and its being read out in the Senate (including sources in the article, other books, and Life Magazine of 1929); this is a separate issue from the dinner and tea (though done in reaction to the tea). The title is indeed horrendous, but WP:NOTCENSORED. There's no point whitewashing the past: someone did write this poem, multiple newspaper editors decided to print it, and a US Senator read it out aloud in Congress. No doubt many US editors are ashamed of this, but Wikipedia's job is to present the historical facts in a WP:NPOV way. -- 119.225.153.211 (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut the bullshit about "not censored" and "whitewashing." The notable things here are the events, not the poem. The sources have been completely and utterly taken apart by a very accurate nomination statement, and it is clear that the mentions are only in passing, and that there is no independent notability whatsoever. And I'm not a US editor, so playing that card is wrong. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who begins a "delete" vote with, "The title is utterly horrendous", has no business telling anyone to "cut the bullshit". That's an "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" vote, plain and simple. Especially when it's followed by the baseless and false, "For obvious reasons, the title isn't appropriate for a redirect". Niggers in Paris is a redirect. Nigger Jack is a redirect. And we have other unpleasant redirects, such as James the Shit, which redirects to a featured article about a very well-known king. WP:NOTCENSORED is often misapplied, but it applies perfectly here. Get over it. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did read what you wrote; so will others, which is obviously why you're so upset. So, no thank you. You are free to "fuck off and go away", though. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Repeating that again and again won't make it true. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: On a scale from George Washington to Barack Obama, how much did the word "nigger" influence your decision? If the answer is any higher than Andrew Jackson, you probably have racism and language on your mind. I would like to remind you that Wikipedia has very extensive articles on the words "nigger" and "fuck". It is possible to have a valuable article that educational, historical, and profane. Just because the title makes schoolchildren laugh does not mean that it's bad. —Zenexer [talk] 10:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite what some people are trying to portray (and my attempts to close the conversation have been spitefully and pathetically reverted, not that I expected anything else from that user; it's their modus operandi), it is very much a tertiary factor. The simple fact of the matter is that the referencing is an attempt at "look, we have loads of references, it must be notable" when, in fact, many don't mention the poem, and even those that do usually do it in passing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, it's the motive of the guy who wrote it - he knew that if he put "nigger" in the title of an article it would get lots of hits when it appeared on Wikipedia's front page (and he'd lined up 2 more "nigger" articles for the front page), and the fact that it's not notable - there is only one source that gives the poem itself significant coverage (the Afro-American journal mentioned above). Tomorrow, I swear, I'll summarise the sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for coming out and admitting that your dislike of the article's creator is the real reason you want it gone. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dislike the author. In fact over the last couple of hours I've warmed to him considerably. He was trolling, though: referring to African Americans as "niggers" in conversation and wearing that swastika. No, I'm beginning to think he might be quite something, actually. It remains to be seen of course. I think he may have actually been genuinely oblivious to the degree of offense that behaviour would cause.
I'm not worried that white or Asian schoolkids would have sniggered at seeing the title, Zenexer. I'm concerned for the black children who wouldn't be sniggering. But this is closing the door after the horse has bolted. It's already had its day in the sun. If the thing was worth keeping, I really wouldn't be bothering with this. It's just that there is the notability problem. So it was the obvious dubious intent of the author that got my interest, but it's the notability problem that's kept me here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm concerned for the black children who wouldn't be sniggering." That is, IMO, a fundamentally misplaced view. Absolutely. Black children hear the word "nigger/nigga" all the time, especially in the music many of them choose to listen to. This is not a question of "protecting" vulnerable people. This article epitomises what Wikipedia should be about. This is the kind of article that will help children, black or white, who are studying the history of racism. It is an article that they and their tutors can use to explore the difference between the White House of Roosevelt and Obama. It draws atention to a moment of cultural history in a way that a more conventional article would not. The article brings together disparate moments of history is a way that makes them 'live' more vividly. It matters not one jot what motivated Bonkers. Maybe the person who created the "penis" article did so because they got a thrill from writing the word "penis". Who knows? It doesn't matter. All that really matters is whether it is useful, properly referenced and informative. This article gives the context clearly. Ironically, this whole outrage is topsy-turvy. Anyone could upload the poem without any of the cultural context and commentary to Wikisource (since it was published befiore 1923), and there would be no "policy based" arguments for deletion at all. It would be there in all its "glory" for anyone to read. Yes, its notability is borderline, but we should err on the side of inclusion in cases such as this, since the historical significance of the topic is clear. Paul B (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All good points. That tally of sources is looking borderline now - and I haven't finished.
I'm merging the articles about the dinner and the tea into an overview about blacks in the White House from the Haitian ambassador in 1798(?) to Sammy Davis Jr. under Nixon (presently clumsily-named White House hospitality toward African Americans). I suppose if everything worth knowing about this poem can be comfortably contained in that article, it may make sense to merge Niggers in the White House into it, but that will only be clear once the full inventory of sources is done, and we know how much there actually is to say about the poem itself. (There is a lot of repetition.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. I do find the insinuations on the page that the nominating editor and people voting to delete/merge could only possibly be motivated by IDONTLIKE a little irritating and condescending though, and a needless distraction, there are plenty of policy based arguments here with supporting points/evidence provided, WP:AGF applies.Number36 (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:N requires that the subject of the article be notable; per WP:GNG, this means that the subject have received detailed coverage in multiple independent sources. As Silverseren has clearly pointed out, this subject (the poem) has not been discussed in detail in multiple independent sources. It's been mentioned a few times, and even reprinted, but that is not itself sufficient per our notability rules. Of course, should some of the editors looking into this dig up more sources with significant coverage of the poem (i.e., not the dinner), then this could be kept or recreated. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Added #Policy tree. Any objections, please contact me. —Zenexer [talk] 14:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can see a scan of the poem here. Also, in your searches, remember to use "white house", not "whitehouse"--they bring up very different results. Remember, primary sources cannot be references, so that image is not a valid reference. The rest of the page could be, I suppose, though I'd avoid it. —Zenexer [talk] 14:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be an acceptable--though perhaps minimal--number of potentially reliable sources scattered about various archives. Whether they establish notability is another question. —Zenexer [talk] 14:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy tree

[edit]

We seem to have gone off track, because I see angry mastodons. Discussions are meant to be objective, not personal. I'm creating this area for bulleted, specific facts. I plan to enforce objectivity in this section. Participation is obviously optional, but your contributions will help newcomers quickly pull out the facts. —Zenexer [talk] 14:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each relevant policy should have a bullet. Under each policy's bullet will be a sub-list describing the ways in which the policy applies. Such descriptions can have further sub-bullets giving concrete examples (for example, specific references that are problematic). Do not sign the bullets; these are not comments. Avoid using shortcuts (WP:EXAMPLE) for policy bullets without adding descriptive text. Information on relevance should be short and sweet.

Example: 

* [[Wikipedia:Policy 1]]
** How it applies
** Another application
* [[Wikipedia:Policy 2]]
** Relevance
*** Concrete example 1
*** Concrete example 2
*** Concrete example 3

A personal remark discredits a fact. Any personal or biased comments should be removed, and a note should be left on the author's talk page. Be sure to retain any objective material. Try to salvage as much as possible. Do not add any new information or change any existing information; you should be removing only, without changing the meaning of anything. Do not add your signature. If the meaning of the contribution must change to make it acceptable, remove it entirely.

If an edit war occurs, any controversial text should be enclosed in a <s>strikethrough</s> tag, unless the text is clearly true and objective, particularly to third parties. Further discussion should occur only on the talk page.

You should not be drawing any conclusions within this section. Such analysis is left to the reader. There is one exception: there can be a "Serious problems" pseudo-policy bullet which addresses issues not outlined by a policy. For example, if a large number of zero-edit users suddenly support an AfD, that is a serious problem. Serious means serious: these are problems that must be addressed by bureaucrats, and cannot logically be solved through discussion, or that outright break the discussion process.

Before responding, please review Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. This will prevent the majority of problems.

Reliable secondary sources that mention the poem

[edit]
Citation Quote
Jones, Stephen A.; Freedman, Eric (2011). Presidents and Black America: A Documentary History. Los Angeles: CQ Press. p. 349. ISBN 9781608710089. In the U.S. Senate, Coleman Blease, a South Carolina Democrat, introduced a resolution of criticism that included a doggerel poem titled "Niggers in the White House" that was so offensive it was immediately expunged from the Congressional Record—but not before it had been read aloud on the floor of the Senate.
"Blease Poetry is Expunged from Record". The Afro-American. 22 June 1929. Retrieved 16 September 2013. (Paraphrase)
  • The resolution was read and Senator Hiram Bingham (Rep., Conn.) described the poem as "indecent, obscene doggerel ... [designed to give] offense to hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens and to give offense to the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution."
  • Edge and Bingham, supported by King, Walshand and Borah, objected, made points of order and asked for it to be tabled
  • Blease withdrew the resolution - because it offended Bingham, not because it offended negroes - and it was expunged from the Record.
  • Quotes part of the resolution and 10 stanzas of the poem.
Ray Argyle (2009). Scott Joplin and the Age of Ragtime. McFarland. pp. 56–. ISBN 978-0-7864-4376-5. In Joplin's adopted home town, the Sentinel splashed on its front page a poem entitled, "Niggers in the White House." In its final line a black marries the President's daughter. The inspiration for this invective might have been drawn in part from the fact that Roosevelt's daughter Alice often asked the Marine Band to play "Maple Leaf Rag" at White House Parties."
Edward A. Berlin (1996). King of Ragtime: Scott Joplin and His Era. Oxford University Press. p. 106. ISBN 978-0-19-535646-5. The Sedalia Sentinel printed a poem on page one entitled "Niggers in the White House," which concludes with a black man marrying the President's daughter.
"Offers "Nigger" Poem". Evening Tribune. June 18, 1929. pp. 7–. Incorporated in the resolution was a lengthy poem entitled "Niggers in the White House," which was severely criticised by Senators Edge and Bingham, both Republicans.
Edward J. Robinson, To Save My Race from Abuse: The Life of Samuel Robert Cassius, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 2007, p.183 The Greenwood Chronicle published a derisory poem entitled "Niggers in the White House." A stanza of the poem went: [12th stanza]
"White House Tea Starts Senate Stir". New York Times. June 18, 1929. pp. 38–. (Paraphrase)
  • The resolution included "Niggers in the White House", criticised by Edge and Bingham
  • Edge raised a point of order to exclude the poem from the Record but the rule he cited was deemed not to apply
  • Edge raised a motion that the entire resolution be expunged but was deemed out of order
  • Bingham raised a motion that "the resolution be referred to the District Committee but its text omitted from the record"
  • Blease assented, because it offended Bingham, not for any offense it may give to "the niggers."
  • The motion received unanimous consent.
Life vol. 94, 1929. [1] Cole Blease, chivalrous Senator from South Carolina, read into the Record a pretty little poem entitled, "Niggers in the White House"...
Nicholas Von Hoffman, Organized Crimes, Harper & Row, 1984, p. 23 [2] The matter reached the floor of the Senate today when Sen. Coleman T. Blease (D, S.C.) read a poem entitled "Niggers in the White House." After several of his colleagues requested, Sen. Blease agreed to have it struck from the Congressional Record, not, as he said, "because I am ashamed of my verse or consider myself an inferior poetaster, but out of deference to the misconceived feelings of some of the other members of this chamber...
I've removed the two extensive quotes. The remainder I think conform to Wikipedia:Non-free content and WP:QUOTE. If I've got that wrong, please revert. I'll include summaries of the two deleted extensive quotes soon. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. These are from the article and this page. Are there any other reliable secondary sources that address the poem (not just reprints)? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's it. I think that's the sum total of the coverage in reliable secondary sources over 112 years. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly there are also other, offline, sources, but even what's in the table is IMHO enough for notability. -- 101.119.14.207 (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just stick to what we have been able to find. I haven't participated in enough of these debates to know what usually passes for significant coverage in multiple sources but the above looks trifling to me. Hopefully an experienced closer will know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Anthonycole is right that what he has tabulated is the sum total of the coverage of the text, what it amounts to is a number of mentions, but nothing that constitutes an analysis of the text as such. Today's (Sept 27, 13) Featured Article Whaam! is a classic example of what an actual analysis of a work consists of: sections dealing with the background and the history, a description of the work, its reception, a thorough analysis and interpretation of the work AS SUCH, and a discussion of its legacy. Niggers in the White House has apparently never been the object of such a study of the text IN ITS OWN RIGHT, and therefore clearly fails to meet the notability guidelines. Awien (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whaam! is one of the most famous of all 20th century works of art, so the comparison is pointless. Obviously Whaam! is much better known and far more widely written about. The question is whether it passes a basic threshold of notability, not whether it's famous. There are other sources, by the way. For example, it is discussed in David Day's article, for example. No doubt there are other instances of its discussion in 1901-3, 1929 and in recent scholarship. It does not have to have literature uniquely dedicated to it and it alone. We have separate pages dedicated to every single one of Shakespeare's 154 sonnets, and yet very few of them have books or articles dedicated to that sonnet alone. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer. I don't know if the above table represents "significant coverage in multiple sources" for these purposes but you should be aware that we now have Booker T. Washington dinner at the White House and Jessie DePriest tea at the White House which together contain most of the information in the table, and I am in the process of merging those two and adding prior and later history to make White House hospitality toward African Americans. When finished, it will comfortably accommodate all of the noteworthy information in the table. I'll be doing that over the next couple of days. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough evidence for historical significance. Even if the information is used elsewhere, the sone is significant in its own right and needs an article .he requirements listed by Awien for an article on a literary work are excessive here --they're the requirements for GA, not just for passing AfD . (I can not exactly see the argument for making a parallel with Shakespeare's sonnets, each individual one of which does in fact have all this information available from good sources--but the individual sonnets are world-famous, not merely notable .). Notable is enough for an article. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Niggers_in_the_White_House&oldid=1180006438"