Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senator Murphy gun control filibuster

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. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Murphy gun control filibuster

[edit]
Senator Murphy gun control filibuster (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)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this is a prime example of an article that falls afoul of recentism. As noted on the talk page, this is one of only two articles on filibusters in the entirety of Wikipedia; the other is 2008 Parnell–Bressington filibuster, which broke a national (Australian) record. This one doesn't even come close. At best, it should have a paragraph or or two in a related article, probably 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. ansh666 04:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ansh666 04:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ansh666 04:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the inherent pointlessness of the words. They're designed to waste time, so summarizing them (if even possible) just wastes space. The thing they're stalling is often meaningful, and the results can be, too. But everything about the thing itself is nothing. If it wasn't against the rules, they could hum the same tune (or even not). Can't hum a real speech. It's why Wikipedia has a ton of those. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge. I don't think Wikipedia needs new filibuster pages, although mentioning it briefly as part of describing some historical filibusters of note on the main page for the US Senate filibuster could be worthy, I would leave it up to the editors for that page. Honestly I would be just as supportive of doing so for the one filibuster page older than this one, but I am not so motivated as to nominate doing so. I think the majority of the content about this filibuster specifically that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and ongoing editorial review process should be merged with Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and further added there after the lifetime of this article. I even made a statement about how such a merger is one of the examples for why we actually need to keep that page, which is facing its own AfD, on its AfD page. Sumstream (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge- I don't think we need a separate article for an individual filibuster, and that this topic can be adequately covered in other existing articles including Chris Murphy (Connecticut politician) and the Filibuster in the United States Senate. articles.--TommyBoy (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now There is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument here which should be avoided as there is nothing stopping anyone from creating articles for other notable events. This leaves WP:NOTNEWS in the argument, I think we should wait and see before outright deletion. If this filibuster accomplishes anything notable then WP:LASTING would apply. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand it correctly, WP:OSE, it most is saying to avoid comparisons based solely on the existence or lack thereof of articles that are similar in some way. It mentions how it can be appropriate to consider, as only one factor, the total consistency within a category on the encyclopedia, here it would be "filibusters" while in WP:OTHERSTUFF its example is Star Wars main characters. That was all I was trying to do and my delete and merge suggestion was based on this having its own article seeming to be recentism when all of its good information (I am not actually meaning anything currently on it would or should need to be trimmed) could be located between the US Senate article the Chris Murphy article the shooting reactions page or the shooting page itself if the reactions page does not survive. If this event became so notable and with an actual lasting impact such that the information for it could not fit on those pages, then even I would not mind it being kept either. I don't feel like the information is lost or hidden by this not having its own article and the information can be as readily accessed in those other locations, potentially even better so. Strom Thurmond's filibuster is described in detail on all three analogous pages, his Biographical one, the US Senate one, and the article for the Civil Rights Act of 1957. I think all of what Wikipedia needs to know about his filibuster can be satisfied on those three pages, and I feel it would be most appropriate to do the same with Chris Murphy's filibuster here. Sumstream (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I created the article; with a really short stub. Almost instantly, experienced editors arrived and built a solid, unbiased, well-sourced article. I regard their edits as a kind of tacit endorsement of notability. And urge editors new to this page not to allow the AFD to discourage you from improving the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly want to support this kind of initiative. My only concern is that I would want Wikipedia's coverage to be focused on factual descriptions and sourced relationships between events. I worry about something that could be more viewed as an "Agenda Timeline" when articles are created to group events by long term intent, like the described "Gun control in the United States since 2012" when the inclusion criteria starts to involve messier motivations and associations internally on the parts of the individuals involved. I similarly wouldn't want a "Ongoing efforts to fully repeal the USA PATRIOT Act" page even if I would be fine with all of the same information that would be put on that page being on Wikipedia spread across the relevant events and parties involved that were described. Sumstream (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you wrote what you meant to say at the end? It's cool if you did, just a bit absurd. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask what is the WP:RUSH here? If there was no potential for growth then yeah but I do not see this as a lost cause. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to rush, just understand why we'd rather consider deleting something after it becomes notable than before. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom29739: The rationale for deletion isn't WP:OSE, it's WP:NOTNEWS; that bit about the other filibusters is providing context for the nomination, not reason for it. ansh666 22:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This was not your run-of-the-mill filibuster. It was a notable event for actually resulting in the log jammed opposition to relent and actually allow a vote to happen. That's almost become a once-in-a-generation event in the annals of the United States Senate. There are a lot of notable events that don't have articles at Wikipedia. Absence of such doesn't mean they aren't notable, just that someone never got around to writing them. This one was notable, and the article should be allowed to stand. — Maile (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Per other supporters. This is definitely not a typical filibuster and certainly is a unique event to occur in the history of the gun-control debate within the U.S. Parsley Man (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is not directed at any one specific user. I would want to encourage, generally, people to be careful here to avoid certain arguments such as sounding like the NotabilityDiviner or saying that the article should be kept because you just like gun control. Even though I disagree (but don't think this is the proper place to fully address the issue) regarding how to organize Wikipedia's coverage of filibusters, with E.M.Gregory, I can respect at least the consistency in that argument and don't find it to be WP:OTHERSTUFF just as describing my own views on the context of how this information is arranged (agreeing with how it is with most cases now, a 3 article inclusion setup of roughly politician/event/filibuster in that parliamentary body) is not either. Please fully discuss your rationale and think about it from the perspective of a detached encyclopedic arrangement of the information how it happened, not how it could benefit a specific political objective like gun control. Sumstream (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to show my rookie editor side and attempt a correction here. I think I may have actually been meaning inheriting notability, and not just liking gun control. I didn't mean that editors were arguing because of being fans of gun control, but that it seemed (to me) that there was an over attribution of notability of gun control to necessitating the existence of this article, not actually editors' liking of it, I apologize for that. I still think the information for this filibuster event itself is best located elsewhere as I've alredy stated. Sumstream (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep but unsure. It does seem to pass WP:NEVENT based on the way I'm reading it. Kinda hard to know about the "lasting effect" at this point, but it did accomplish the goal of obtaining votes on measures and has probably inspired today's sit-in by John Lewis. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The subject is notable and it seems to be part of a wider effort by Democratic Party members with regards to gun control (it has nothing to do with me either opposing or supporting the cause). It was followed up by House of Representatives sit-in led by Rep. John Lewis.
Overall, if we are discussing the notability of filibusters, especially those that lasted longest while being used as a political tool in decisive moments, wikipedians should create more filibuster articles (those that are notable and meet the criteria for inclusion) instead of deleting and/or merging of this particular filibuster. --ReordCræft (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly encourage editors to do so as it is an interesting topic regarding the aftermath. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholeheartedly, the lack of articles for historic filibusters is a void in this encyclopedia if anything. Removing a fairly well done article on a notable, and successful, filibuster (which can certainly be improved even further does nothing to improve the content of Wikipedia. If anything, this article could serve as an able model for the creation of articles on both future, and historic filibusters of note.--Ministre d'État (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that with past events ongoing coverage counts towards notability (although it is not required). But with recent events over the longue durée is obviously is not required.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and only covers things with lasting significance. That said, we do sometimes keep articles on current events when it's very clear there will be lasting significance. So by default we should not create/keep news stories, but in those rare cases when it's very clear that it would be a waste of time/effort to delete, passage of time can be dismissed as a formality. I'm not sold that this is one of those where we know where will be lasting significance. I appreciate that others disagree. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Not only does that statement on its own seem very WP:OSE the notability of the two events is incomparable. I would first point to how this entire filibuster event is best characterized (as this article itself does in its first sentence) as a reaction to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. There are other reasons, such as people there being killed in record breaking numbers, however an exhaustive listing of such reasoning is unnecessary because I do not see how you are not arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sumstream (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: To make sense of this response I have to assume you only read part of my last comment, which could be summarized as "in rare cases we decide to keep articles because there's overwhelming evidence that there will be lasting coverage -- this is not one". Do you really think (a) I would not consider the Orlando shooting among those rare cases, or (b) that this is anywhere near the Orlando shooting in terms of certainty of lasting coverage? I also have to gripe about these bolded "Note:" tags. "Note:" implies that you are commenting for, say, a closer to read and not actually engaging with me in discussion. It has the effect of "look at the invalidity of the comment above" rather than a direct response. I know you don't intend it this way, and it's not against any rules I'm aware of, but I have to express that it's difficult not to resent a back-and-forth in which the other person is bolding their own responses as quasi metacommentary. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododentrites, as I see it, what you and I have here is a difference of opinion. I see the sources and supporting the notability of this event, i.e., as demonstrating that it is not "routine" and that it it is having a an impact on a national political conversation. You do not. But please note that WP:LASTING states: "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation."E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:NOTNEWS states: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." What is discouraged is "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities."E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: The subject is notable, especially as a it played a large role in leading to 2016 United States House of Representatives sit-in, the amount of coverage it continues to generate, and the growing significance of guns as an issue in both the forthcoming presidential and congressional elections. This article has strong content as is, and could certainly be built-on and improved as well, I believe that Good Article status could certainly be attainable. That being said, the page should certainly be moved to something like "2016 US Senate gun control filibuster", or at the very least have "Senator Murphy" changed to "Chris Murphy"--Ministre d'État (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved boldly to Chris Murphy gun control filibuster as per several comments above, and because it is usual to refer to filibusters by the name of the Senator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2016 (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/Senator_Murphy_gun_control_filibuster&oldid=1142230321"