Wikipedia

Talk:Binders full of women/Archive 1

< Talk:Binders full of women
Latest comment: 10 years ago by SummerPhD in topic Propose this be a redirect
Archive 1

Speedy Deletion

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Minor fumble in debate, instead of saying binders full of women's resumes, Romney said above. No serious insight obtained, just a day of humor. Clearly not notable; clearly composed as attack page (See Also; Misogyny????). No serious argument for importance. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to take it to AFD. However, I feel it has enough coverage to reach WP:N.Casprings (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Given the number of major media mentions of it (I just added two more), notability is pretty easily met. But as you've been told already, feel free to take it to AFD. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Really? Speady delete. Arzel (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems to fail as an attack on romney though. I had expected to find a juicy cringe inducing gaff behind this "meme" and instead I find this inexplicably banal background. Romney went to womens advocate groups and asked for help filling cabinet positions with women and received files full of qualified women? really? that was the big gaff??Zebulin (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Yup, you have it absolutely right. There really was no big gaffe; Romney asked for help from womens' groups and bipartisan groups finding as many qualified womens' resumes as possible before filling positions. He then did his part and read them and fairly considered them, resulting in the best record in the country for actual representation of women in State government. He referred to large binders of womens' resumes as "Binders full of Women".--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
On its face apparently not a big gaff, but its being talked about extensively, and is being used, rightly or wrongly, as political fodder. we only need to decide if the overall coverage deserves an article separate from the debate/campaign articles. a good measure is if there is info on this phrase which is notable but which fits awkwardly into the campaign/debate articles. I myself am unsure.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... There are hundreds of sources on this. Clearly meets WP:N and a speedy delete assumes consensus where there is none. See Talk Page. This should go to AfD, if there is a problem with it. --Casprings (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There are hundreds of Clinton jokes. Not the same thing. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
This is little more than a blip. An attempt to take Romney out of context and continue the lame "War on Women" meme that the left has been trying to push for months. The only reason the left has latched onto this is becuase Obama is falling in the polls to Romney and they are desperate. Arzel (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
And again, if this "blip" is talked about enough, with enoug effectiveness, then its notable, even if it seems screamingly unfair to some. remember, this isnt a forum for discussing the issues here. comments here about how this is an unfair attack on romney simeply dont belong here; nor do comments about how this is a fair political battle. what do reliable sources say about this meme?(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible merge

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is my first time actually doing something somewhat useful on a talk page, so pardon me if I'm not following the proper guidelines. I think that this article should be merged into the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 Media Issues section. A few of controversial gaffes made by Gov. Romney have already been added, and the "notability" status of this binders article thing will probably dissipate in a matter of weeks. --HelicopterLlama (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

EL Tumblr

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI, Tumblr is a blog/social networking website and not the official site of Binders full of women (which as a political attack meme has no official website). As such it violates WP:ELNO #11. Please abide by general WP guidelines. Arzel (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

MassGAP

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Editor Arzel is doing repeated disruptive editing to remove content that might reflect negatively on Republicans as we near the election. He is actively trying to get this article deleted entirely, calling it "silly season garbage" then accuses my contributions as being a coatrack. Actually the contribution are called substance to show why the meme is so popular. The article is not about just the meme as he wishes to misrepresent. If women did not think Romney and other Repulicans had a virtual War on Women, then his contradictory statements would not be the joke it is. So we have several quotes that show 1) that Romney DID not initiate the search for women that he said he did and 2) that he didn't make and effort to maintain the progress he claims. Quite the opposite. Once the cameras were off, he let levels fall considerably. With the current edit, Arzel is whitewashing the substance and deliberately misrepresenting the truth. I'm putting the quotes back in. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are turning this into an attack on Romney by including a bunch of quotes from people that have nothing to do with the incident. Read up on WP:COATRACK and stop trying to invent a secondary controversy where none exists. Arzel (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
The "popularity" of which you speak was because of humorous posts overnight that were actually funny, but have no lasting significance. The partisan attack tags are a campaign strategy, but little else. What you are adding is both WP:COATRACK, to an article that is strictly about the phrase, and WP:UNDUE. If the phrase was about Romney's record, a paragraph about the record is justified, but your blinder-impaired focus ONLY on nit-picking, not about the spectacular success of the Romney program, but about who deserves credit and how much obscure the central fact. MASSGap was only a PART of the Romney initiative (and thus WP:UNDUE), and second, people only climb all over themselves to claim credit for a program IF IT IS WILDLY SUCCESSFUL. You can only really introduce minor quibbling and not violate WP:UNDUE (in addition to WP:COATRACK) if you first give the overview, or major opinion, shared by every commentator and all of the various collaborating organizations (including at the time, MASSGap) that the Romney administration was extraordinarily successful in recruiting and finding qualified women candidates for senior and junior positions, that the administration worked across the aisle in a bipartisan and collaborative way to prioritize that goal and to achieve that goal. Only then does nit-picking by one of the many collaborating organizations (or, more correctly, the CURRENT leadership, who weren't involved) over who and how much credit was due, clearly a MINOR opinion, and not warrant removal under WP:UNDUE (in addition to removal under WP:COATRACK). --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Anonymous and Arzel. Neither of you present any sources. You just use your personal opinion to try to overturn what other people are saying. If its a small part, show the bigger part, not by snipping and leaving incomplete the quotes I posted, but by finding a source that says something contradictory. I don't live in Massachusetts. All I have is what is posted on line. So this is public information. Wikipedia is one of the most read sites on the internet. You wish to make it report complete (thus mis-)information. That is a political agenda, a POV that should not be tolerated. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? This discussion has gotten so far into the weeds and is so verbose as to turn off those following the discussion. So what, it's political. Who cares? 71.52.199.48 (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Title unfairly represents this

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I changed it to "Binders full of women quote out of context", which is factually accurate. This was reverted as "blatant POV pushing."

I have no particular attachment to that title. However, the current title is an NPOV and BLP issue. Because it simply takes a small portion of what Romney said and harps on it, without going into what he was saying.

The title of an article sets the whole tone for the discussion. The title "Binders full of women" tends to make this an attack page and is therefore not acceptable. William Jockusch (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that you have similar concerns over You didn't build that. — goethean ॐ 19:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
This is the first time I've heard of that article. About the title alone, I would tend to agree, but the article as a whole is much more balanced than this one was before I edited it just now. William Jockusch (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I happen to like using quotes. It gets away from "out of context" interpretations of what was said. So in that respect, I agree with William Jockitch's earlier edit. We should include Romney's exact quote representing that he initiated the search for women. Then I will be glad to find an exact quote from Shannon O'Brien, that I have already heard on the air, stating that MassGAP brought the idea of more women to both candidates long before Romney won. Wikipedia should be presenting the facts. I disagree with Jockitch's title change as a statement; that it is used out of context. That is heavily POV. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, how about "Mitt Romney Women in Cabinet Debate Answer" -- or something along those lines. William Jockusch (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
This article is not about Romney's debate answer. This article is about the phrase "binders full of women". You don't seem to have this problem with "You didn't build that", "Read my lips: no new taxes", "Series of tubes", "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys", "There are known knowns", "There you go again", etc. When an article is about "LMNOP", we name it LMNOP, not The alphabet. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Is the issue me? Or is it the article? William Jockusch (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
This issue you have with the article seems to be limited to you. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
It's hard to assume good faith when after responses like that by truthteller William Jockusch (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
If you believe an editor is acting in anything other than good faith, feel free to address the issue, but not here. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I'm not happy with the result of the AFD, but it's going to be around for awhile, and this the best possible article title. The article is about the phrase and how it has taken on a cultural life of its own; it's most factual and neutral to just use the famous phrase and let the reader make up his/her own mind. Kansan (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Latest comment: 11 years ago42 comments23 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was not merged. --BDD (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Having just come across this article, I'm somewhat disappointed (though not surprised) to see it was kept at AFD. However, the result of the AFD was 'no consensus' and that just means the content shouldn't be deleted; we can still discuss merging it somewhere. Personally, I think this content could be perfectly well incorporated into the United States presidential election debates, 2012 article, specifically the section on the second debate at Hofstra University. There's no need for an independent article on a transient meme that'll be forgotten a month from now. Please comment on this proposal below. Robofish (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now, too soon for a merge. Maybe in a few months once the elections and their results have been digested we can see where this meme has gone. Even then I question how much of this will be tossed out for a brief explanation in a larger article. Insomesia (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It is too soon to have a separate article for this meager subject. It should all be merged into the article about the debates. If that article becomes too large, then a separate new article can be re-created for the second debate. It is mistaken to suppose that these four words are more article-worthy than the entire debate in which they were mentioned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support - that is precisely where it should go. Kansan (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
You have put the cart before the horse. This is a discussion about whether it should go anywhere, based on our policies and guidelines. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose-The quote meets the five criteria of WP:Notability. It has been used in the MSM (both written and television) on a wide basis. The article has 15 sources of which 14 look legitimate to me. Davidpdx (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:N, notability "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." That's why it was okay, for example, to merge the second debate article into the overall debate article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I understand a number of people don't like this article. They feel it is an attack on Romney, puts him in a bad light or is about a minor part of this one debate. A few points: At the moment, the article is certainly not written as an attack. Whether or not this puts him in a bad light is moot. This leaves claims that it is trivial. Frankly, it is too well sourced to be trivial. This article is about a statement made in the debate, the resulting commentary on that statement, attacks based on that statement and the internet meme that grew out of that statement. This rules out deletion, as was previously determined. (Additionally, the AfD discussion did not find a rough concensus for deletion.)
So now, those displeased with the AfD outcome are trying a new forum: Apparently trying to merge this smaller article into a significantly larger article and have it "disappear" into that article. Why might we merge an article? Four basic reasons, addressed one by one. 1) This is not a duplicate. This reason does not apply. 2) There is not significant overlap (the target article boils this down to all of two sentances, as it should. Much of the well-sourced content here is only tangentially related to the debates as a whole. This reason does not apply. 3) The article is not very short. This reason does not apply. 4) There is not much in the way of context from the debate as a whole that is needed to understand this article as the article is about one discrete segment of a debate that covered numerous subjects (discussion of international relations/policies, for example, were a significant part of the debate but have nothing to do with this topic).
Essentially, this merge proposal is a question of whether or not to keep this article. There is no reasonable way to include even a significant part of this article into the proposed target without creating a significant departure from the subject: getting into various opinions about Romney's statement, what it may or may not have meant, whether those meanings are an accurate reflection of his work, the meme that developed, etc. Instead, we are faced with two possibilities: determine that most of the material here is trivial in relation to the larger article and kill it or determine that it is not trivial and keep it here. At present, the article is well sourced to diverse independent reliable sources. In several months, we might determine that this material is trivial recentism (AfD is littered with the bleached bones of those) or it might be more significant. Current "debate" -- if we can call it that -- seems to focus on feelings rather than content. If the material "feels" like an attack, check that the sources are reliable in relation to what they say and that the content here accurately reflects what the source actually says ("David Icke said this showed Romney is a lizardman from the constellation Draco" vs. "This showed Romney is a lizardman from the constellation Draco"). - SummerPhD (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
An example of WP:ICANTHEARYOU . Either this article needs to reflect what was ACTUALLY reported, namely, a one-day bunch of Clinton jokes, or the WP:N[otability] arguments have to go. It is being argued that there was a trivial reporting of a harmless but trivial phenomenon, (which some editors are simultaneously lauding as a justification for this article and denigrating within the article) but that INSTEAD of editing the article accordingly, it is being used as a pure attack article. The attacks don't really meet WP:N, and the writing on the part of the speech from which the phrase came is utterly WP:UNDUE. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I HEAR YOU, Anonymous. Reading the discussion before mine, I still do not see an argument that the article doesn't "reflect what was ACTUALLY reported". If a tree doesn't fall in the woods, no one hears it. If you believe the sources state that it was nothing but "a one-day bunch of Clinton jokes", you haven't read the sources. If you feel individual editors are editing inappropriately (going beyond what the sources say or using unreliable sources), the solution is to deal with the editors not delete I mean "merge" the article. You are now saying it is being used as a "pure attack article". What I heard were arguments that the subject is trivial ("a transient meme", a "meager subject" on "these four words"). Your new arguments focus on WP:UNDUE, which discusses the space given to each source based on its "overall significance to the article topic". The article topic is "binders full of women". The UNDUE arguments are for if the article is deleted merged into the article about all of the debates and you want to "trim" all of this content down to two sentances. It is a tool for doing that, not a reason to do it. My discussion covers the consensus reasons for merging. I do not see how those criteria are met. Frankly, I don't see much discussion focused on those criteria. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Again, ignoring the arguments put forward. I have meticulously stated that "Binders of Women" is actually TWO things. One, an overnight phenom of humorous Clinton/Heffner/Beyonce jokes, mostly graphical, that captured attention and made it to general consciousness. If editors argue that an article should exist (and I do not), then it needs to be proportional to the Notability, namely 80%(arbitrary stat) about a bunch of trivial memes with innuendo. Obvious notability in the sense of coverage, no significance. If an editor argues that this is trivial, then that is an argument for deletion, and a repudiation of the stand that the coverage translates into WP:N. The SECOND thing that "Binders of Women" is, is an awkward attempt to shoehorn pure partisan attacks onto a pre-existing humorous internet meme. Not trivial, but also not notable. Further, the awkwardness of the WP:COATRACK is such that it almost automatically leads to Merge (assuming we HAVE to have an article) with some Obama campaign article (or other), since the attacks, particularly nit-picking of credit by MASSGap requires so much ancillary explanation that in addition to being WP:ATTACK, ends up violating WP:UNDUE on this article, and inevitably leads to Criteron 4, Context, of Merge, that in laymen's terms, to get to what you want to say, so much has to be added that the article is about the bigger article. Remove the Clinton jokes (which editors seem to be intent on doing), and you are left with an undeniable Merge.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
There continues to be confusion on the aspect of attack. It is not so much that this page is an attack page, but that this is a stupid meme for which the only purpose is to politically attack Romney. That WP should be used to further political campaigns (which is what this is clearly doing) is a disgrace. Arzel (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Notable attacks are still notable. Writing about an attack is not the same as "furthering" that attack. If you disagree, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is certainly a far more offensive attack and there are hundreds of others. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I cannot believe that you are comparing that to this. This is an attempt to use WP to push a current political event. Arzel (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you may be misunderstanding what I am saying. What I was saying is that the reason for the meme is completely irrelevant to discussions of whether or not it is notable. If you believe the meme is "a stupid meme for which the only purpose is to politically attack Romney", that is irrelevant. If you believe that the only reason this article is being supported is to attack Romney, you will need to support your assertion of bad faith. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh I understand what you are saying. You are saying that this faux Meme is historically important when it is clear that it is not and has already all but disapeared. You seem to think that history is immediate, while others, like myself, would rather wait to see if it becomes anything long term. As for my bad faith, ha! tell that to the crew trying to turn this into a faux controversy about MassGAP and tell me how this article is really being used. There is some bad faith here, just go look in the mirror. Arzel (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be reading something other than what I am writing. You also seem to be saying the meme is an attack and/or the article is an attack. (Whether or not the meme is an attack is irrelevant.) Please assume good faith. Also, please discuss the established consensus reasons for merging. You seem to be going after reasons to delete the article. That discussion failed. If you wish to delete the article, this is the wrong forum. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with just about everything that SummerPhD has said. First of all this merge proposal does not involve forum shopping; the closing admin at the AfD emphasized explicitly that merging is still an open question. Moreover, even though I support merging, I do not think the subject is "trivial". There is lots of stuff in the article about the 2012 presidential debates that is non-trivial, but that doesn't mean each of those non-trivial things deserves its own article. And finally, the accusation that merging is intended to make the subject disappear is false; it's like saying that the editors who wrote the Charles Darwin article were trying to make his birthplace disappear by not putting his birthplace into a separate dedicated article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
"Merging" this article into the article about ALL of the 2012 presidential debates will result in the "removal" of the vast majority of it. The meme is not a significant aspect of the debates as a whole. Most of the discussion of the phrase outside of the meme is not in the context of the debate. Removing virtually all of an article is deletion by another name. The discussion in favor of "merging" largely ignores policy in favor of "gut level" thinking: "Election time stupidity at it best for all to see on WP." and "that is precisely where it should go" say "I want this gone" not "I believe our policies/guidelines/consensus says this shold go. Darwin's birthplace is one isolated fact. If there is significant coverage discussing Darwin's birthplace as Darwin's birthplace, we should have an article about that, similar to Hitler birthplace memorial stone (or Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism, Adolf Hitler's 50th birthday, Death of Adolf Hitler, etc. along with the notable attack "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball"). - SummerPhD (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Talk about putting the cart before the horse! This is a merge discussion, not a discussion about "removal of the vast majority" of the article from Wikipedia. I think every last letter fits nicely into the article about the presidential debates, but if some editors later disagree about that, then we can create a separate article about the second debate. Do you really think that this four-word phrase is more separate-article-worthy than the entire debate in which it occurred?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
If I thought A is more worthy than B, I would say that. I don't, so I didn't. Much of this article would be out of place in a discussion about the debates and, were it added there, should be removed from there based on WP:UNDUE. This article would either create a weird, out of place section in the article about the debates or, more likely, be "trimmed" to the likings of those who are already at work here doing the same. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT - Election time stupidity at it best for all to see on WP. Arzel (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand you don't like it. Do you have reasons -- preferably based on our policies and guidelines -- for merging? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I see you've begun to take a knife to the article to remove substantial portions of it. I'd as that you hold off on that or at least discuss it here first. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You mean WP:STUPID is not a valid reason? How about WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTADVOCACY. Arzel (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I mean not giving a reason is not giving a reason. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SummerPhD's excellent reasoning. This can certainly be revisited if the term does not persist. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SummerPhD. — goethean ॐ 15:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - "There's no need for an independent article on a transient meme that'll be forgotten a month from now." This is a very strong supposition. The initial comments were that it would be forgotten in days. Now that that turned out not to be true, it is supposed to be a month. For now this statement has started to lead a life of its own, and there is no indication that this will die down. IF and when it does it is timely to start discussing this. Not now. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 02:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose any merge, ever. Notability is forever, and this is notable. Everyking (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. I don't know if immediately starting a merge discussion after an AfD is forum shopping, but a coherent case for merging has not been made. Expanding the sentence or two dedicated to the binders comment at United States presidential election debates, 2012 would be a welcome change regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Gobōnobō + c 19:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support merge - A phrase from a debate becomes a meme then fades form sign in a week, whoop-de-do. Y'know, sometimes I feel bad for having a hand in running the likes of ChildofMidnight and Grundle2600 out on a rail. Lately, the obvious liberal bias is obvious. And I AM one. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for a merge. Unlike Todd Akin 'legitimate rape' and pregnancy comment controversy for example, this doesn't seem to have enough independent material to make a good stand alone article. I don't think the current version of the article is intrinsically an attack piece or pov or anything, but that the subject's just not interesting enough to make a separate article. Let's mention that it became a meme in the campaign article and leave it like that. We don't need any more You didn't build that's. a13ean (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose SummerPhD's seems to have written it out quite well. --216.81.81.84 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose and hopefully delete. Garbage no matter whom it represents. pick a guideline, anyone should fit. Non Notable, Not encyclopedic, advertising etc. Mugginsx (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's clearly notable. There are plenty of articles about it. I've even seen 'binders full of women' Halloween costumes. Spgilbert (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Post election

  • Support This incident/campaign slogan has no enduring notability. It only recieved any media attention due to the election being on. Now it's over. It's notability is all inherited from the election campaign. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • A simple Google search for "Binders full of women" limited to the last 24 hours shows you to be completely wrong. For instance: [1]. This thing has staying power. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 01:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Whaledad says, a simple google news search limited to post election news shows it repeatedly comes up as a significant phrase in the post-mortum analysis. Try these for starters:

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] I suggest this is just something one side would LIKE to go away, so the urgency to delete/merge/try to bury this comes from a POV. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose: I added a reference to this article in United States presidential election, 2012. The elections article just gives a one sentence brief description on the meaning and significance of the phrase. This article gives more in depth details. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It's late December 2012, and a Google news search in the last 24 hours shows 11 hits, and a Google search of the entire web for the last 24 hrs shows >300 hits. So too early to pronounce the meme dead. Californicator (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good sources to add

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since article up for deletion. Added bunch at end just doing regular news search, as opposed to archive:

Feel free to add any others below. Somebody get busy beefing up article. CarolMooreDC 19:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Propose this be a redirect

Latest comment: 10 years ago26 comments9 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was not merged. --SummerPhD (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have already added what little meaningful content there is in this article to the one on the presidential debates. Since the election has ended this term has only come up as a trivial footnote of the election: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. That a politician said something that people cracked jokes about is not a legitimate basis for an article. He said it in the debate and that makes it a noteworthy thing that came out of the debate, but nothing more. Even the mentions above will likely dissipate in time after some other politician says something that people can mockingly point to as another example of politicians saying silly things.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Support However, there was a clear consensus not to earlier. I would suggest the article go back to WP:AfD. Casprings (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Once notable, always notable. If you'd like to delete the article, try another AfD. As for merging, there are four basic reasons for a merge, none of which apply here:
1) This is not a duplicate.
2) There is not significant overlap. The well-sourced content here is only tangentially related to the debates as a whole.
3) The article is not very short.
4) There is not much in the way of context from the debate as a whole that is needed to understand this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying a comment made in one of the debates is only "tangentially related" to the debates.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
You are not understanding me correctly. Much of the usage of the phrase after the debate makes no mention of Romney, the debates or the election. If you dive into the threads that the reliable sources discuss, many of the images give no indication they have anything to do with anything even remotely political. If they were somehow shown to a well-informed American voter before the debate, they would have had no clue whether the postings were about the presidential debates/election, Dirty Dancing, 18th century pimps, office supplies as Halloween costumes or inexplicable product reviews. There was no direct connection: Though they used a phrase from the debate, they were not in any way about Romney or the debates. At the same time, the phrase sparked discussion of the "role of women" in politics, Romney's record, the accuracy of his recollection of the event, etc. "Boldly" boiling that down to three sentences in the target article is not "merging", it's deletion by another name. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:41 26 February 2013 (UTC)
It is not a tangential connection and you know it, despite how much you may try to twist the facts to your liking. That people telling jokes don't explain their jokes is not evidence regarding what the joke is about. As for the typical battlegrounding "merging is deletion" argument, I only left so little because the section itself is small. Were there a dedicated article discussing all the noteworthy aspects of the debate, we could add more.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. I believe the connection was completely lost in many of the jokes. Your mileage may vary, but there is no need to accuse me of twisting facts, denying what you feel I "know", etc.
In this particular case, merging was deletion of most of the article. You "merged" all of three sentences when the established consensus was to A) keep the article and 2) not merge it. In any case, it's at AfD now. I would like to believe that will settle it. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
"When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic."
Thus the notability is fine, but this clearly belongs in the larger article. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment If a redirect is proposed, then in this case what would happen to the content? Is a sufficient amount already included elsewhere (and is it/would it be undue?), and should a merge proposal be made? -- Trevj (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Ordinarily, the key information and refs are moved into a new section of the parent article. Yes, a merge and redirect proposal should be made. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Fortunately, such a proposal has already been made, decided, made again, decided again, made a third time, decided a third time, made a fourth time and decided a fourth time. This article was kept as "no consensus" in October 2012, merged in October 2012, in March 2013 and this discussion, which you are trying to resurrect, went stale in April 2013 after undoing a unilateral redirect. (The "bold" (I'd say ballsy) redirects by a mysterious IP earlier today were also reverted, but that doesn't count as "discussion" now does it.) As this is currently formatted as part of that last discussion, my keep !vote is still here. If, however, you meant to start a fifth discussion in eight months, let me know and I'll !vote again.
If you've been listening, the consensus is to keep the article. Yes, consensus can change, but you're seriously testing the limits here. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Who is testing limits? I have never been to this article before. I read the discussion and have made my observations. If you disagree, you can share your thoughts. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
One additional thought I would share is that edits made during the "silly season" i.e. the height of a campaign are often too POV from all sides. It is only after things die down that articles improve. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
You have been to this article before.[17]
As for the "height of a campaign", the second Afd was February - March 2013 and the merge discussion you are resurrecting was February - April 2013. The election was November 2012. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I most certainly have not been here before. That was not a diff for this article, or this talk page, or this article's previous merger discussion(s). You have added a diff for an article AfD debate page from October 2012. Additionally, if you will look at the top of this section you will notice that (contrary to your assertion) I did not resurrect the merge discussion. These are inappropriate methods of discussion. One should focus on the arguments not the editors. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You're splitting hairs. You said you had "never been to this article before". Yeah, you haven't edited this article previously. Unless you !voted to delete without looking at the article, you've been to the article before. The discussion you are(n't) trying to resurrect lay dormant for over two months. Discussion had ceased. This is a new request. This has been discussed, at the "height of the silly season" and after that. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you acknowledge that I did not start this discussion and had not edited this article. Your argument is that since merger has been discussed before by others, new editors shouldn't discuss it? Is that forever or is there a set time after which we can revisit the issues? Capitalismojo (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I said you had been here before, despite your claim to the contrary. And you have. I never said you edited this before.
Four separate discussions (and one unsupported redirect) in 6 months is a lot. You resurrecting this one makes it 5 or 6 in 8 months. You can start as many discussions as you feel you need. How many times do you need to get the same result in under a year before you expect doing the same thing over and over again will have a different result? Incidentally, AfDs always get a broader reading than these talk page discussions. I'd suggest you take it there for more eyes. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NTEMP. This is the fourth attempt to try to get rid of this article. Get over it. It is a permanent part of history. Trackinfo (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Umm, this is about merging, not deleting, hence not getting rid of anything. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
As previously explained, the overwhelming majority of this article would have to "disappear" in order to merge into the debate article. Yes, a merge would "get rid of" most of this article. If you would still like to delete the article, please take it to AfD again. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Whether the GOP likes it or not, this phrase has become a permanent part of history and this article is an important historic landmark. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 17:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The episode and phrase have more staying power than I thought at first. In addition to February's Jeopardy usage referenced in the article, in June a Washington Post correspondent likened a less-than-impressive Miss America contestant's response to Gov. Romney's: "'The income inequality question is difficult enough on its own,' writes Post opinion columnist Alexandra Petri. “When it was posed to Mitt Romney back during the debates, he wound up coming up with Binders Full of Women. And ever since it hit the public consciousness, that 40 percent figure has been inspiring people to insert their feet into their mouths and wiggle them around.'" Miss Utah’s Scatterbrained Answer to the Pay Gap. Correspondents comparing new bad answers relating to women's employment to Gov. Romney's from earlier indicates that his answer has become a notable standard against which to judge bad answers. A number of books about the campaign have also deemed the binders episode significant: [18], [19], [20]. While it might be appropriate to merge the original utterance and response to the debate page (if space constraints did not lead to undue truncation), it would be inappropriate to merge the current and ongoing usage of this phrase to that page about an historical event.24.151.116.25 (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this merge discussion is dead (right now) in favor of the third deletion attempt, so please comment there. Keep watching here, though, as we can never have enough discussions about this. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
  • In fact, I had already commented there when I discovered this was still open. Perhaps you would close it? Until it is closed, it seems prudent to object to both deletion and merging, if one is so opposed. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

}

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Binders_full_of_women/Archive_1&oldid=1151017701"