Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mama grizzly

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 no consensus. I discount the opinions by Mtiffany71, JMK, Saebvn and Solevita, because they are not based on Wikipedia policy or guidelines or are otherwise weakly argued. After subtracting them, we have a headcount of 10 keep (inc. rename) opinions and 9 delete opinions. This is no consensus to delete. Sandstein 05:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mama grizzly

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Egads, where to begin. What we have here is a split-personality article; the titled is a flash-in-the-pan neologism while the subject is essentially the List of candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin. WP:NEO addresses the former, while a simple WP:N covers the latter. We shouldn't have articles on neologisms until/unless they demonstrate lasting, historical significance, e.g. strategery, and while the drive-by media is fascinated by Palin 24/7, I see little to support the notion that an article solely about her endorsements is notable either. Many politicians endorse many candidates, there is nothing to suggest that Palin's are more notable than ex-presidents, senators, etc... Tarc (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article could use a fair amount of editing and more references should be found, balance added, etc., but the topic itself is notable. There is wide press coverage of the term itself and Palin's use of it. Palin didn't create the term or its essential meaning so I would expand the article to include use of the phrase in other contexts. I think we could probably also lose the list of Palin's candidates, though brief mention of them without photos and bios might be appropriate. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are Non-Notable Neologisms, which Wikipedia slays like Minnesota mosquitos, and then there are newly coined terms which have become part of popular culture. The subject of this article is among latter; the Emily's List response lends balance and the list of endorsed female candidates is helpful. All in all, a nicely done page. --Carrite, Sept. 27, 2010.
Delete - It's a neologism, and while it's being used (inconsistently from my brief survey of the sources provided in the article), that doesn't mean the word itself needs an article, which is basically a list of endorsed candidates. For presidential candidates we have lists of who endorsed them (List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008 and List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008) but not those they endorsed (I can't find any quick examples of individual lists of them). Shadowjams (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N --Cosmonaut Kramer (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Non notable neologism that at best deserves a blurb in the Sarah Palin article. He iro 04:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If only to spare the family-values types most likely to resort to this sort of jingoistic idiocy the embarrassment of being told that since grizzly bears are solitary animals and males and females only tolerate each other's company to mate and do not form a pair bond, they are in fact endorsing promiscuous sex and unwed single-motherhood. Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (It's a mother mammal's instinct to protect her young that is being invoked, not other aspects of brown bear character.) Having said that, the fact that Mrs. Palin endorsed some candidates should be given in her article, the articles on each candidate, and the article on the election. The expression itself does not have lasting importance, and even if it did it's not the job of Wikipedia to ~~report that~~ have an article on the expression itself. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It could be mentioned in Palin's article when the endorsements are mentioned. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a term which has a coherent definition and appeared in several reliable sources independent of Sarah Palin. There's plenty of precedent for articles on political slang and slogans like Change we can believe in or if you like it more historical, Massachusetts Miracle. With little effort I could find a dozen more of such usages in Wikipedia -- and many nevertheless could be called neologisms. Regarding the nom: it passes WP:NEO -- and in an obvious way since third party sources are using the term - which is the test for inclusion, and the WP:N failure is merely asserted and not demonstrated. Also, some of the Delete arguments are actually suggestions for improvement of the article, which is a strange way to support a proposal to delete. patsw (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term has been picked up by reliable and verifiable sources which show independent coverage of the term to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "fails notability arguments" are easily refuted by the fact that there are a dozen different references that are in the article (which is just a small sampling, Google has 3/4 million articles). As for the argument that the article reads like a "List of candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin", this is an exaggeration. Yes, there is a section which lists all the Mama grizzlys, as one should expect in such an article, but there are also sections on how the opposition has responded to the Mama grizzlys as well as a section for other uses. I'm not quite sure what message the nominating editor is trying to make with the statement "drive-by media" (Drive by media redirects to Media Bias, so it would be advisable for him/her to explain any perceived bias), but to say that "there is nothing to suggest that Palin's [endorsements] are more notable than ex-presidents, senators, etc" is contradicted by this external link in the Washington Post (which is listed in the article). Victor Victoria (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately with this idiotic, two-headed monster of an article, there are two wildly different issues to address. First the neologism, where "it's reliably sourced so therefore there must be an article" is an all-too-common mistake made around here. There are other hoops to jump through, such as the depth and breath of the coverage, which in this case falls woefully short. Name-dropping "mama grizzly" when talking about Palin's speech or a female candidate she endorses is not enough; show me a few reliable sources that discuss the term itself, then we'll talk. As for the endorsement list, again find multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject itself of Palin's endorsements; not just the fact that she nominated this or that person. The Post is one, so let's see if it can meet the "multiple" requirement of WP:N. Maybe that could justify a "List of..." style article as I noted in the nomination, but one way or the other, this list needs to come unglued from the neologism. An encyclopedia is not Sarah Palin campaign button. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Words such as "idotic, two-headed monster of an article" fail WP:Civility, so there is nothing further for me to say. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reliable sources only quote Palin, which doesn't make Palin's quote notable. JMK (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Huh??? There is a section on the opposition response -- those references definitely do NOT quote Palin, as she has nothing to do with her opponents. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer:Whether they quote her directly or indirectly makes no difference, the article is based on a Palin neologism. JMK (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:It actually makes a big difference, as it shows that others are using the term. Yes, she inspired the term, but the more people use it the more notability the term receives. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Political neologisms do appear in Wikipedia, such as Triangulation (politics) (do you really want me to cite a dozen?) The test, as explained in WP:NEO is third-party usage, which is clearly evidenced in the article itself. Gov. Palin is not using the term alone. patsw (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This almost reads like a Keep rather than a neutral comment. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have un-bolded the "keep" in your response. Please don't do that; if this person wants to enter in a keep opinion, they can do it on their own, and don't need you to do it for them. Actually, "patsw" already voted above, so it is doubly inappropriate. Tarc (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notice the stand-alone article Political positions of Sarah Palin already exists. I believe the content, possibly in condensed form, without the photos, but with all references included, could make a good addition to that article. JMK (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Perhaps the list of candidates could be listed there, but I don't see how the other sections about the opposition response and how the Washington Post used to the term to Stephanie Herseth Sandlin would not be appropriate in the article Political positions of Sarah Palin. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Delete. Should be covered adequately with a mention within the Sarah Palin article (or the political positions article). And, for those who argue that "strategery" is covered separately, it should have been covered in the George W. Bush article or the political positions article, as well. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Saebvn (talk • contribs) 21:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. At some point, for each neologism, the community will have to decide whether we can predict with any certainty that a phrase will become a byword for an age. This appears to be one for our day. Regardless of whether one supports Palin or not, she is a political leader of our times, she is here to stay, and this matter is notable, as shown by the extensively cited article. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please note that Notability is not temporary. If it's notable today, it is considered notable forever. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: And that is what worries about this neologism: its permanency. These candidates are not linked together by a strong, known concept, like neo-conservatism for instance. Their only distinctive quality besides being women, is being "vociferous". They are Palin's 21 unelected hopefuls, and 2 incumbents, given a brand name by her, all listed and pictured thanks to wikipedia. With a knee-jerk by the opposition as proof that they are notable. Maybe some political opportunism is at play here: if these particular ladies are not elected, we can keep the brand name, courtesy of wikipedia, and change the photos. JMK (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention 15 minutes. When the 15 minutes are over, and its still notable, we create an article, other wise merge it to Sarah Palin or leave it to WikiNews. He iro 00:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a sense this is not even a neologism, just two words that most people (Americans that is, English speakers outside of North America might not get it) can easily understand. How about "angry hornet", or "busy beaver"? Besides that there are much more important political expressions that don't have articles, commie for instance. Drive-by media already mentioned. Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there's a political significance to Angry hornet or Busy beaver that can be defined, summarized and cited, go for it! Obscure political expressions like Locofocos and the more recent Blue dog have articles. (Is this my fifth example?) patsw (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, turn upside down, and rename to The role of Sarah Palin in the 2010 election. Put "mama grizzly" at the bottom in its own little section. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting perspective. With a redirect from "Mama Grizzly," that would work fine. --Carrite, Oct. 5, 2010.

If it had to be kept at all, I could support this, but wasn't something else similar argued above? A redlink in the nom perhaps? He iro 03:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave my reason why I oppose List of candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin. In my opinion, The role of Sarah Palin in the 2010 election wouldn't work because she doesn't have any role other than her endorsements (both male and female candidates). The male candidates she just endorsed individually (she could have easily called them the "Papa grizzlies"), while she gave a special name to the female candidates she endorsed in order to add an image in the minds of the voters. Victor Victoria (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but her role in endorsing, and/or brandnaming, candidates has been widely covered in the media and is probably WP notable. ("Papa grizzlies" wouldn't work for the reasons Mtiffany71 mentioned.)Steve Dufour (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Papa grizzlies" would not have been appropriate, but she could have branded them as "The gladiators" or whatever (not our roles as WP editors to give her branding advice). The point is that it is the branding of the "Mama grizzlies" that has become notable. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is very wide media coverage of her endorsements, and sufficient reliable source references already in the article to demonstrate the notability of the topic. Whether the article should be called "Mama grizzlies" or "List of candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin" or something else entirely can be addressed separately. 28bytes (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Some neologisms are commonly used, and in this case several facts about this term are used for evidence of its notability. Truthsort (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of politicians endorsed by Sarah Palin could be integrated in her article.--Solevita (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not merely a list but a memorable and cited political term like Nixon's Enemies List for which there is a clear, obvious, manifest precedent for including. patsw (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAP is not a valid rationale to keep an article, and this media mini-blip sure as hell hasn't gained the notoriety that Nixon's list had. Not in the ballpark, not even the same sport. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me too it. My thoughts exactly. He iro 16:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an OSE. Every time an editor makes an appeal to a clear, obvious, and manifest precedent that a class of subjects passes notability, it's not OSE. In this case it's demonstrating that political terms passed WP:N, like Greens, Suffragettes, Netroots and the more obscure Kitchen Cabinet and Wobbly which have their own articles. The threshold size of the media mini-blip as you put in has been easily reached for Mama grizzly for Wikipedia and many political terms with much less prominence have passed WP:N. patsw (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is precisely an "otherstuff" argument; "they have theirs, I want mine!" to a T. Wobbly and kitchen cabinet have demonstrated historical notability, while this is much too soon to say the same. Editors here need to heed WP:RECENTISM and not rush here to write an article everytime the media says something juicy. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cover of Newsweek for October 4th uses this term with the title "The Bear Truth". Raymie (t • c) 00:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)'[reply]
Rename to "Endorsements of Sarah Palin in 2010" and include the men. Her role as an high-profile endorser is what is being reported by the media, the nickname is secondary. Borock (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was the briefest of news memes; should be relegated to Palin's page as a minor entry. swain (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All political issues aside, this has to go. Simply put, we don't create articles for memes unless they have a much larger impact than this, say two decades and of use and a place in the permanent lore of the field. In fact the only meme I am aware of that has its own page is All Your Base Are Belong To Us. (yes it is a meme. If we stop pretending that politics isn't a part of pop culture, it clearly is a meme) Sven Manguard _Talk 01:13, 13 October 2010 (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.