Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Go Brandon

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. There's a strong consensus for keeping the article, with several editors citing WP:GNG and some citing that it has a lasting effect. However, the article needs some clean-up as indicated below. Since the event has been on a roll for days, it would be best for this to be reviewed again in a year or so. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Brandon

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Let's Go Brandon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books ¡ news ¡ scholar ¡ free images ¡ WP refs) ¡ FENS ¡ JSTOR ¡ TWL)

This recent slogan is related to the "Fuck Joe Biden" chant previously discussed at the Fuck Joe Biden AfD that closed as a snow delete on September 27, 2021. Notability does not appear to be supported at this time, due to insufficient support for the historic or lasting importance of this recent slogan per WP:EVENTCRIT by independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)- nomination updated with additional detail Beccaynr (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article at present is a mess is not a reason for deletion. You can improve it. Per 力, the article has very solid references. Banana Republic (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't vote delete, did I? Also, I have been attempting to "improve" it [1], meanwhile you've given me a bad-faith template on my talk page. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The conspiracy theories-related del-sort was added based on recent reports from independent and reliable sources, e.g. BBC (October 12, 2021): "The perceived media filter has also been a key component for the popularity of the Brandon meme. Some conservatives view Ms Stavast's attribution of the Biden chant as yet another example of the media covering up for and protecting Biden by downplaying what they view as the depth of the president's unpopularity." And e.g. The Washington Post (October 23, 2021), discussing "Let's go Brandon": "Trump supporters instantly saw signs of a coverup, claiming on social media that journalists were deliberately censoring anti-Biden sentiment." Beccaynr (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. But isn't that implying that any conservative surmise about political bias in the media is, ipso facto, a conspiracy theory? TuckerResearch (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the Kelli Stavast RfC about "Let's Go Brandon" and the Brandon Brown RfC about "Let's Go Brandon" I have discussed my concern about sources including a focus on how Stavast is accused, without any apparent evidence, of being involved in a 'cover up' etc. I hope this helps clarify the focus on this event and its portrayal in the recent burst of news coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It'd be nice if we could stop at any time the aspersions that have been persistent in these discussions for weeks now. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No cuss words this time? The Mote and the Beam. The Mote and the Beam. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you attacking people's motives is in any way relatable to me using some words you don't like. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This passes the WP:GNG, and poignantly captures the level of maturity of current American political discourse, which will be of interest to future generations of researchers looking back on this period. BD2412 T 18:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This recent event is noted in the Public image of Joe Biden article, and there is a pending Redirect for discussion for Let's Go Brandon. My concern is whether the recent sources are sufficient to demonstrate the historic or lasting significance for a standalone article, as described in WP:EVENTCRIT, including because per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not, and per WP:INDEPTH, Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally. Beccaynr (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC) - comment updated Beccaynr (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For example, The Independent (October 14, 2021) describes this event as a "blip", i.e. "The insult to Biden also snubs the “liberal media” – the blip is being used as an example by Trump supporters of how certain outlets bend the truth." Maybe this event belongs in an article that is notable per WP:NFRINGE, but on its own, it does not seem to have independent and reliable support per WP:EVENT, which is a guideline formed with the intention of guiding editors in interpreting the various pre-existing policies and guidelines that apply to articles about events, including WP:GNG [...] and its relationship to WP:NOT#NEWS (i.e. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material). Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate your perspective on this, because I think framing the topic as broader than this recent event could support a selective merge and redirect to where this has already begun to be covered in Public image of Joe Biden. "Let's Go Brandon" does not appear to be more than a brief burst of news, according to the RS discussed here, while the broader encyclopedic context as an anti-Biden social phemonenon is being developed elsewhere. This article includes five post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK sources, four from the partisan Washington Examiner (per WP:RSP), and one from WP:TMZ, as well as a variety of recent independent and reliable sources, which seems insufficient per WP:EVENT for a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC) - comment updated Beccaynr (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Notability requires lasting significance. This is a meme, and as with any stand-alone article about a meme, we need to show more than just a short-term burst of coverage, even if there is a lot of coverage in that burst. If this is still indeed a popular phrase receiving news coverage in a few weeks, not opposed to recreation (or even draftifying in the meantime). For some topics, it's harmless enough to say "ok, we don't have evidence of lasting coverage, but let's wait and see." I'd argue that for any contentious area, including BLPs, that that is not a good approach. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated: Struck delete !vote. It's been nearly six days since I !voted, and the coverage has barely slowed down. I'm stopping short of !voting keep, because I'm not sure about a merge. Certainly not to public image of Joe Biden -- a simple expression of derision with no specifics doesn't seem related to "public image" any more than the number of votes the person got or a time people clapped for him -- but possibly somewhere else? Not sure, so just abstaining for now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another merge option that has been suggested is List of internet memes#Politics, and there is an article for Let's Go Brandon (song). From my view, it seems reasonable for various groups to want a Wikipedia article for promotion of a new viral phenomenon, perhaps especially if it is commercial or political, and I think the question here is how to apply our inclusion criteria for standalone articles about recent viral phenomena and "shock" news - do we first delete or merge and then wait for lasting, historical significance to develop sufficiently to create an article? or do we permit articles without demonstrated lasting and historical significance to stand, and then revisit them at some indefinite point in the future when it seems reasonable to expect that lasting, historical significance should have developed? I am concerned that !votes advocating to keep the article and revisit later are implicitly conceding the current lack of lasting, historical significance, and this rationale actually supports deletion or merger at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) - comment updated Beccaynr (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per the already overwhelming consensus above. May I quote from the AfD on the far less notorious incident, Covfefe, all of which apply exponentially more here, since this one originated in real life, going viral both on and off of social media: "Notable event, and funny!" -- "It's a developing phenomenon which may yet acquire greater notability than it has already." -- "The article should be kept for historical reasons." -- "It is becoming a cultural artifact." -- I would add that the impression this meme has made upon the psyche of the public is profound and indelible. This AfD is a waste of time and should be closed posthaste, because the very idea of not having an article on this topic is absurd. - JGabbard (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article for covfefe wasn't kept at AfD. It was merged, and then recreated more than two years later, once lasting significance had been demonstrated. It's possible that the effect of this meme have been profound and indelible. Scholars may write books about it for decades or longer. We may tell our grandkids about it, talk about where we were when we heard how the reporter hilariously misunderstood what a crowd was saying and then a bunch of other people said it, too. But we could, you know, wait for evidence of that lasting significance, too. Just saying. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do see the merits of a weak keep (it's part of the Congressional Record now, like it or not), but a lot of this article seems to have used a saved draft and sources of the deleted FJB article as its base, and there's a lot of lousy Newsweek, TMZ, and 'explainer in 500 words' sources we wouldn't usually allow in other articles (and which I was attacked for reminding others aren't proper). I really doubt this is still going to hit WP:N in May and we'll be back here with a lot more peaceful discussion, but every AfD and RfD discussion related to this since the FJB deletion has been bludgeoned with 'look, this (thing) says its notable' things, along with a complete disregard for AfD process where we never create new articles through it. Sadly, these odd slogans you need to research to know the meaning of if your TV isn't stuck on a political news channel 24/7 are becoming too normalized and WP:N isn't being applied where it should. And I do realize I'm in a minority here now where I prefer to see well-formed articles rather than just throwing anything into mainspace and calling it a day (re: Cooper Hoffman). Nate • (chatter) 03:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mrschimpf: All required for notability guidelines to be passed is that the sources exist, not that the sources currently be in the article. And, sources exist (1 2 3 4 5 6 7), so I really don't see question on notability. I'm also finding a number of fact-checks related to various claims of censorship regarding the phrase (1 2 3 4) as well as an apparent song that's actually topped some charts that is closely related to the phrase. In light of the existence of other sources, there might be an argument you'd make for draftification to improve the article owing to some of the problems described above, but also I'm not convinced that doing so would be better than making bold edits to improve the page while it's in the mainspace. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weakest possible keep, under protest The Southwest pilot deciding to interject this on Friday has led to a whole lot of mainstream 'explainer articles' through this weekend, in addition to the pilot getting write-ups. There are much more important things to write about, but with more than fringe media talking about it now...it hit the lowest possible WP:N peg. I expect in a few months when clear-out stores have buckets of LGB merchandise for a buck this will get deleted or redirected to some political meme graveyard article where the ones that weren't above Tippecanoe and Tyler Too live on, but for now...sigh. We can do a lot better than this, and I still think the majority of the sources being explainers is a discredit to our processes. I also continue to stand by my original rationale despite the vote! being struck by myself. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The slogan has received notable news and media coverage, and now even has several chart-appearing and even chart-topping songs named after it. I believe this to be a safe keep, and that it will be a meme, political protest, and dog whistle of important enough definition in reflection of Biden's presidency. See basket of deplorables; Trump supporters called themselves "deplorables" as a repurposing of Hillary Clinton's choice of words when she talked down about them.
And one more suggestion: I am of the opinion that Black conservative rapper Bryson Gray is deserving of his own Wikipedia article. His recent song "Let's Go Brandon" topped the Apple iTunes charts, and he was also featured in the film Uncle Tom, produced by Larry Elder. I, as a person who specializes in music-related articles, believe his recent chart-topping and coverage, particularly recently, easily fits WP:N (music) standards, even considering his status as an independent artist. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
extended discussion re: WP:RPA

(Personal attack removed)

Please, behave noramlly. There was no personal attack here. Read WP:RPA ("removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack") before removing other people's comments, please. StjepanHR (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "veiled personal attack" removed was other than the reasons I can't write here. Upon whom is this a PA? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The user concurred with MarshallKe, who directly attacked the nominator. Those attacks were removed, then this user writes the above amongst the few things he can think of why there is an AfD here. Have I explained myself well enough? I don't believe I'm out of line here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. StjepanHR concurred about 2 hours after the PA was removed. I'm minded to AGF since it does not appear directed at anyone in particular. YMMV. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is clear that I refered to "obviously notable" part of the post, since it was all that was written at the moment. As for the "other reasons", I mistakenly thought GhostOfDanGurney started the AFD and he has a history of quite rude remarks ([3] that ARE serious attack on those who are politically different to him, calling us, as I prefer President Trump to Biden, "idiots". My mistake resulted from him starting a section to remove "Let's Go Brandon" from Brandon Brown's page ([4]) and I confused the two.StjepanHR (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@StjepanHR: I apologize. The remark in question was made on my user page as an outburst in response to what I felt were SPAs that had came to the Kelli Stavast AfD !voting keep to WP:ATTACK her over the meme. It way far too big of a generalization and in poor form either way and I regret making it. I understand my behaviour is embarrasing at times and is the cause of a lot of the negativity I've been perceiving. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accept it and I understand even people who share my political opinions (icluding me) can be jerks sometimes, as I guess has happened to You. I know it's sometimes hard to control ourselves, but, for the sake of de-escalating conflicts, it is best to release the anger off-line instead of here :) I know we are on the different sides of this issue, but I really appreciate this gesture of Yours. StjepanHR (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DELSORT discussion
You all missed the point. Delsort pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women lose their utility for subject matter experts when cluttered with entries on AfDs that are not about those topic areas. This one is about deleting or keeping "Let's Go Brandon" which is neither a band nor a woman. Oh well, enjoy the clutter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Public image of Joe Biden. This does pass the GNG, but I'm not convinced that this has lasting notability, which is needed per WP:NOTNEWS / WP:EVENTCRIT. While there is plenty of media coverage all of it is from the last few weeks and doesn't mean it will still have significance years from now. It isn't always easy to guess how much coverage something will get in the future, but internet memes often have a short shelf life and Category:Chants is very short on articles on older political chants (I can only see one). Hut 8.5 19:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When I googled the phrase in question, up came a search page on which the page under consideration here is prominent and seemed by far the best answer to my question. (Yay, wikipedia) I came to the page because I had not yet learned what it was about. The page seems pretty straight forward to me and is not a mess. (Perhaps it has been improved since it was declared a mess?) It is an informative page, and the claim by someone that the information is available on a page about President Biden's public image is inadequate - I originally said "not true" because the reference is so obscure that I missed it when I first looked at the page Public image of Joe Biden where it is too brief to give much of an explanation. Milesnfowler (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The phrase is well noted by news sources over the last couple of weeks. I would also expand the article as it is still quite short. Finally, per User:Hut 8.5, a Redirect would also be appropriate for the time being. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 21:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You just can't stop this train. People are searching for this chant or term. People want to understand where the meme came from and the meaning to a large portion of people. We need to stop being so biased or this important experiment (Wikipedia) will fail. I honestly try to be as neutral as possible.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per WP:PAGEDECIDE. I'm seeing a lot of confusion above regarding WP:Notability criteria, the questions of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, the concept of WP:GNG being sufficient for creating an article (it's not; it's just a minimum bar), not to mention WP:NOTCRYSTAL in comments like "it will assuredly have lasting significance to at least the same extent that the current administration does". The fact is, when a meme hits, we don't yet know whether it has lasting significance or not, only that everybody is talking about it right now. But even if it's clearly notable, even it meets GNG with a hundred press mentions, that doesn't mean it qualifies for a standalone page right now.
Will this still be being discussed six weeks from now? Eighteen months? After the next President is elected? Who knows? Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE and there is no emergency about having this topic have its own article; as long as the content is merged and redirected appropriately (perhaps to List of internet memes#Politics, or to Public image of Joe Biden as is already mentioned) anybody searching Google or Wikipedia for the phrase, will come straight to the correct (merged) article destination. They might even learn about related internet memes, or related public image issues, that they wouldn't have if they came straight here; remember also, that tracking studies show that most readers spend only a minute or two on an article and never read past the lead.
A paragraph or two at another article is more than enough to cover this for now until we know whether this really has staying power or not. So, for now, merge and redirect it to the best target (with a {{Further}} or section-top {{See also}} link to the other one) and wait patiently to see how this develops. Every time some meme bursts into prominence, there is feverish activity on both sides whether to delete or not, with the same arguments about GNG and NOTNEWS trotted out for each one, like they were stamped out of the same press. Just be patient, until we know how this shakes out; there's all the time in the world to create a standalone article about this, for right now curious users won't miss out on anything if a proper redirect is supplied. Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added SPA tag because this is the user's first edit. Plus, the username. Clearly here for a reason. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Analysis in this recent The New York Times article also seems to indicate a lack of lasting, historical significance, e.g.

Karen North, a professor of digital media at the University of Southern California, who worked for the Clinton administration, said that a moment like the “Brandon” phrase “has the fun of being an inside joke or meme and the power of being a rallying cry at the same time.” But these moments seem to have an ever-shorter shelf life, Ms. North said. “Because new trends and memes spread so much more quickly,” she added, “people have something new to jump to more quickly.”

Beccaynr (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A single individual opining to the New York Times isn't a crystal ball. I don't see a reason to delete based off of a single prediction from a former Clinton administration official. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Analysis is also reported by NPR, which seems to support WP:NOTCRYSTAL, due to the lack of evidence at this time demonstrating a lasting, historical significance necessary to support this article per WP:EVENTCRIT, in an article updated on October 31:

Independent researcher Hampton Stall says the phrase itself is "shareable and adaptable" and can be used in public in "way[s] that cursing out the president cannot." [...] "I think it's sort of past the point where enough people in the mainstream political audience in the United States have heard it that it will be remembered in the future," he says. "It just maybe won't have the same level of staying power [as covfefe]."

And from the New York Daily News on October 31, this type of commentary also seems to suggest a lack of lasting, historical significance:

While public criticism, even vulgar, is not new, it’s the social media amplification that has enabled such sentiments to gain traction. “Before the expansion of social media a few years ago, there wasn’t an easily accessible public forum to shout your nastiest and darkest public opinions,” Dartmouth College history professor Matthew Delmont told AP.

Beccaynr (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree that the articles are saying that "Let's Go Brandon" will not have lasting significance. The NPR piece seems to indicate the opposite. The line before the line you quoted said:

As for whether people will remember this meme in the future, Stall says it has likely reached the point where most people will know what others are saying when they say "Let's go, Brandon," just like many still remember Trump's "covfefe" typo turned meme.

Just because he doesn't think it has as much staying power as "covfefe" doesn't mean that it won't have any staying power. The New York Daily News comment doesn't say anything about the staying power of "Let's Go Brandon." The comment was just about how social media has enabled the propagation of such phrases to be more common, not necessarily saying that just because this kind of event is more common that it will have less staying power. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the independent researcher helps emphasize, particularly in the context of the other commentary I have added to this discussion, is that there is no evidence of a lasting, historical significance at this time, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, e.g. "It just maybe won't have the same level of staying power [as covfefe]." And relatedly, the Thanks, Obama meme article was added to this article recently, and is an example of a meme that began in 2009, but did not become an article until 2016 [8], after its lasting, historical significance was established by independent and reliable sources. From my view, there has been no support offered in this discussion from independent and reliable sources to demonstrate a lasting, historical significance, and the sources noted in this discussion appear to either suggest there is no lasting, historical significance (e.g. because it is "not new") or that we cannot know at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think follow up events, primarily the Southwest Airlines incident [9], and the debate around the meme usage, are quickly rising it above the yet-another-political-meme significance. MarioGom (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVENTCRIT includes, Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, and this recent "shock" news and viral phenomena does not appear to currently have support for the kind of lasting, historical significance described by the guideline, and therefore seems specifically excluded per WP:NOTNEWS at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2021 (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/Let%27s_Go_Brandon&oldid=1054352721"