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 delete. There is clear consensus not to have an article about this. A selective merger has been proposed, but does not find consensus here. Considering that a talk page merge proposal has also already been closed as failed, I'm deleting instead of redirecting. Should consensus later emerge to cover this topic at Donald Trump, as a testament to the quality of U.S. political discourse, the relevant material should be available on the talk page and can be copied from there.  Sandstein  12:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short-Fingered Vulgarian

[edit]
Short-Fingered Vulgarian (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)

Definitely not encyclopedic content. If really necessary, the content could be merged into Donald Trump, however I vote to delete it completely, since it has absolutely no importance in the description of Mr. Trump and is (imo) on the verge of being considered harassment. rayukk | talk 11:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
30 years isn't "recent". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, Spellcast isn't saying that the original use of the phrase was recent, but rather that its attention in popular culture and the media is recent. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't work by historical significance here, we work by the independent attention paid to it. This issue has garnered attention - fanned substantially by Trump himself. It also matters less if Nixon was unshaved or was even seen as looking unshaven - what matters is that the newspapers discussed it the day after. Clinton didn't smoke a cigar in the hearing, I don't even know if cigars were mentioned, but they were certainly mentioned in the press. The finger issue has received that same attention. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your two examples (do you even know what the cigar reference you made is about?; it appeared you did, then subsequently that you don't) had some historical import/significance, so was reasonable to assume you chose them in whole/part for that reason. Now you're saying historical significance is irrelevant to notability, and the only basis you give for notability is the thing got "attention". If I tell you that being in print or generating attention and therefore references isn't sufficient for WP:Notability, it just might just kill me by boredom. (So I won't.) That apparently is your single argument, without qualification towards editorial judgement (save the element of some degree of historical significance, which you said is a ghost). IHTS (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, is there a separate article on Nixon's beard-stubble? On Clinton's cigar? On any/all of the various alleged Presidential/Presidential-candidates' peccadilloes through the years? Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
well, we do have Barack the Magic Negro, Barack Obama "Joker" poster, Shut up your mouse, Obama, You didn't build that. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But nothing on the cigar or its close relative, The Blue Dress, or the stubble... Shearonink (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have established beyond any reasonable doubt that extremely derogatory memes can have articles in Wikipedia. We can have this kind of raw racist shit but somehow Trump's short fingers are immune? Makes zero sense - apparently the NOTABILITY standards for political memes are far more flexible than any of the "deletes" here are aware of. Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Binders full of women, Miss Me Yet?, and Series of tubes, but as far as I am concerned this conversation ended with Barack the Magic Negro. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does someone really need to do the cliche thing and link you WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Maybe those subjects merit an article, maybe they don't. But the fact that they exist right now is not an argument that this one should. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fyddlestix if you actually read what I wrote here I have explicitly said that I am not making an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. What I said was that the community standards for NOTABILITY and what constitutes an "attack article" seems very low in this topic area. You are surely aware that various topic areas have their own tweaks on the basic NOTABILITY standards. People can disagree but do not distort what i am saying. Just don't do it. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure the attribution chain is any more compromised by the removal of the originating username than if intervening usernames are redacted. I'd propose starting over again if that's an issue, though it's a bit bureaucratic. I have no view on the actual notability issue here. Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, which constitutes a review and acceptance of the content added by the banned user. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm pretty sure that's not how it works, but in case there's any question, I do not accept the content added by the banned blocked user.- MrX 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the Trump article need a sentence on this? It seems like it certainly doesn't need this kind of non notable attack material added to it. --Malerooster (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be because you've just deleted half the sources Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was mainly an attempt to remove sources and strengthen the argument that the article has notability. If you go through my edit history, I have done the same for other pages as well, and after three sources that say the same thing, nothing is really gained when you have ten sources that all state the same fact. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"an attempt to remove sources and strengthen the argument that the article has notability. "
That's not an argument, that's nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excess sources always impress that the case for notability was weak to begin with. So to weed them is productive & helpful towards making any case of notability. What's nonsense is your accuse of nonsense. IHTS (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
recent sources doesn't mean WP:RECENTISM. This is an almost thirty year old meme and of the 33,000 google hits of which many are low quality, here is one from 1989, one from 1990, the cover article from 1999 Jewish Weekly, Newsweek in 2004 completely just tossed in, a nice 2006 NYT piece by Christopher Buckley, 2004 Globe and Mail in the headline of a review of the Apprentice when it first came out, slate in 2006 again in reference to goings-on on The Apprentice, Gawker in 2008 picking up the gawntlet, national post in 2006 remarking contemporaneously with Trump making his quote about "In fact, my fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body." " which he did away back then in 2006. And there are many, many over the decades. It has been a touchstone since it was coined and hammered on by Grayson. Jytdog (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bishonen apparently for politicians the NOTABILITY standard is much lower and BLP is more lax. See Barack the Magic Negro, Barack Obama "Joker" poster, Shut up your mouse, Obama, You didn't build that, Binders full of women, Miss Me Yet?, and Series of tubes. Not to mention Macaca (term). And we do it for brits, apparently: Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph. I am not making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; I am saying that for this genre of articles, these are the community standards. This article is way more strongly sourced than almost any of those. Jytdog (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(My god, hasn't the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich article been deleted yet?) OK, I expect you're right; this actually is the US- + GB-pedia, not an "international encyclopedia" at all. However, I don't understand why you and other keep !voters argue per "well sourced", as the nomination is nothing to do with sources. I don't see a single delete !vote complaining about sources. Massively sourced doesn't help if something's undue, trivial, and insulting to a living person. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I hear you kind of. But again it seems that for politicians that standard is very very low. Again, Barack the Magic Negro which has never been AfDed and was even on the front page as a DYK. That is WP's standards for this sort of thing. (as for the global thing, Trump is likely going to be the republican candidate and the world media is very aware of that) Trump has spent most of his career in the tabloids and this description stuck to him then and is still stuck to him. I cannot see how it is even close to being as demeaning as Barack the Magic Negro. I am baffled - really baffled - by anyone freaking out on "Short-Fingered Vulgarian" in light of the standards we have. Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in BLP that says "this stuff doesn't apply to politicians." Trump is clearly the victim of a crude verbal attack and we should WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The other rubbish should go too.Talk to SageGreenRider 11:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we went through this nonsense in 2012 (and probably 2008 and before), and I argued for deletion for pretty much every one of these things last time around too. Wikipedia should make an effort to stay above the fray and not act as a proxy battleground for these politicians and their supporters. I know; it's hard to type that without laughing. —Torchiest talkedits 12:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't funny or cute to me, and this is why I don't edit about politics. This phrase is sourced out the wazoo by multiple people (not just Grayson) for nearly 30 years, and people are having a cow. But Barack the Magic Negro is just fine and hey DYK worthy. Barak. The... Magic. Negro. A proud, proud, Wikipedia article indeed. A good reminder for me to stay the hell out of topics where there are poor sources and active online communities. There is no reason here. Ya'all will do as you will do. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Per your comparisons in this discussion, don't forget about Piggate. North America1000 13:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm that article is so long! and exists. oy. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's cute or funny, I'm saying these articles are ridiculous. What's funny is the suggestion that WP will somehow not get sucked into political battles. I knew it was impossible when I said it, but it's still something to strive for. If it makes you feel any better, we did manage to delete Obama Eats Dogs. —Torchiest talkedits 15:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BLP states that we can't say critical things without sourcing that they already have an independent notability outside WP. This does. It has had such for thirty years. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consesnsus is against a merge. My proposal is a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE notes that Wikipedia should not give more prominence to a concept inside Wikipedia than it receives outside. Mentioning the concept in Donald Trumps article would be in line with the relative importance of this. Dedicating an entire, stand-alone article is a BLP violation of its own self because of the undue level of prominence it gives to a minor issue. --Jayron32 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 5 April 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.
More