Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of The Ingraham Angle: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:22, 6 April 2018

Boycott of The Ingraham Angle

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

This is an event that happened in the news about news. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Article has no encyclopedic value on its own and basically amounts to a gossip piece - essentially meets criteria for WP:COATRACK. Could be merged with David Hogg and/or Laura Ingraham but those articles already have content on this minor event. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT applies.--MONGO 18:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant parts to the Hogg and Ingraham articles. Per WP:NOTNEWS, the boycott is relevant to the people involved but does not have sufficient enduring notability for its own article. -- irn (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, as per above. One too many articles are being created about the gun violence protests now. Werehilly (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The peak of this article is the "List of advertisers in boycott" section. It currently contains only one source. If we merge this anywhere, I believe that this stand-alone list would not be included on any other article. wumbolo ^^^ 20:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced, with multiple points of view, and is not gossip, but a serious boycott of a nationwide television news show. Wasabi,the,one (talk)
- I blocked this user for violating WP:SOCK here. --Yamla (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge to The Ingraham Angle When there's a not-that-long, current controversy article that's about the same length as its parent, there's no need for two articles. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Hosts like her would have long list of such articles if every controversy (which they create whether intentionally or not) has its own article, and would have a separate article for the list (List of controversies involving Laura Ingraham). Acnetj (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are countless multi-sided sources on this topic that could much bolster the points, and make the article much larger. I will work to make it so. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NOTE Less than a few hours old single-purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This user is a WP:HAND of another user who voted here. Struck vote. --Yamla (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject has received significant coverage in major newspapers (Boston Globe, Seattle PI, The New York Times) and magazines (GQ, AdAge, Inc., Newsweek, Variety) across the US, and even internationally (Paris Match, The Guardian, Deutsche Welle, Sydney Morning Herald, Japan Times). It easily meets GNG and is an important part of historical impact of student activism following the watershed Stoneman Douglas shooting. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply since the subject is not routine reporting. The material is too long to be merged into another article without trimming essential information. Mysteriously, the OP recently voted strong keep, at an AfD for a far-less-notable subject.[1].- Mr X 🖋 21:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: feel free to renominate the other article at AfD. You say that it is "far less notable" but it was speedily kept per WP:SNOW, notability was demonstrated at the discussion, notability is still demonstrated in the article, the subject appeared in dozens of RS just like this event and you keep saying that article is non-notable and it wasn't even a week since the AfD you started. wumbolo ^^^ 22:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this article was never nominated for speedy deletion, but the aforementioned article was. It seems fit that if an article that was declared non notable gets kept, this article (which was never nominated for speedy deletion for being non notable) should get kept as well. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)~~— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]
NOTE Less than a few hours old single purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to my point of view on this article, I also believe that a case can be made that this entire AfD was made from a political motive. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NOTE Less than a few hours old single purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Assume good faith, and don't accuse someone of POV per WP:CIVIL. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 22:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 🖋 21:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 🖋 21:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 🖋 21:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poorly-contrived nomination that reeks of "I do not like it". The subject is well-sourced and the coverage continues through today (Ingraham's 'Celebrity' Sentiment Declines By A Third Post-Hogg Tweet, “YOU DON’T ATTACK A KID”: INSIDE THE LAURA INGRAHAM NIGHTMARE AT FOX NEWS. In particular, those two sources show an extension of the subject matter, beyond the boycott what is notable now is the effect this is having on Ingraham's reputation, show, and possibly her career. This material far exceeds what could be covered in either Ingraham's or Hogg's articles without creating issues of undue coverage. This is a slamdunk WP:SPINOFF. TheValeyard (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-Very little information is in this article which isn't already in the Hogg bio. It's important but I don't think it warrants a separate article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly multitudes of sources and the article can be expanded immensely. Merging the article will not allow for all of the relevant information that is out there to be in a supposed merger. Tronald-Drumpf (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)Tronald-Drumpf~~— Tronald-Drumpf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]
NOTE Less than a few hours old single-purpose account has been indeffed for disruptive editing and trolling activity. Comments and !vote should be discounted per WP:DENY. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hogg and Ingraham. This is borderline but I don't think it was an important enough boycott for its own article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would someone please explain to Winkelvi that we do not strike through other editor's comments simply because they have been blocked?- Mr X 🖋 01:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's common practice in Wikipedia to strike the comments of brand new single purpose accounts that have been indeffed for vandalism and/or trolling to have their comments and/or !votes striken per WP:DENY. This is also typical of sock accounts, and, considering the amount of Wikipedia savvy the SPA demonstrated, this is likely the case in this situation. !Votes from socks and/or accounts that have been indeffed for trolling with their !votes/comments should be stricken as ineligible to contribute. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The user was blocked for violating WP:UPOL. That is not grounds for striking their good faith comments.- Mr X 🖋 01:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The indef is the result of a username complaint, however, the block notice reads: "Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior." The intent to not contribute positively as well as trolling behavior is evident in their comments here. WP:DENY applies. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser as this all looks familiar.--MONGO 01:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a specific suspicion, feel free to do that, MONGO. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, I struck out the comments from the Tronald account, just now. I did so because although the original block was not for sockpuppetry, I subsequently blocked the original account and left a comment on the sock account, showing the sockpuppetry. I can reblock the Tronald account if you wish. The closer is welcome to take the Tronald comments (and vote) into account if they wish, ignoring my strike-throughs, though I believe this would be inappropriate given the abuse of WP:SOCK and as per WP:DENY (DENY, of course, being an essay rather than policy). --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is more than a "not news" flash-in-the-pan. It's significance is only beginning and it may be seen as a watershed.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Dlohcierekim: "its significance is only beginning". Do you have a reference for that fact or did you look into a WP:CRYSTALBALL? wumbolo ^^^ 09:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete - per nom. This could be a textbook example for NOTNEWS. As an aside, I do wish people would quit adding every story about the Florida shooting to the school project. This boy has no more to do with schools than chalk does. John from Idegon (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As of April 6th, there are 20 references (ie sourcing: not a problem). Does WP:NOTNEWS apply? Point 2 says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events and this story has legs beyond one news cycle, not just a day or two, but weeks, with much back and forth (will Ingraham get fired? will advertisers go back to the show? -- these are ongoing developments). NOTNEWS discourages "routine news" such as announcements; the boycott isn't routine. NOTNEWS discourages original research; again, not the case. So NOTNEWS does not really apply here. It is not just a classic David and Goliath story, with the underdog (David Hogg) taking down the cyberbully (Laura Ingraham), but it has relevance for cyberbullying in general, for advertisers, as part of the culture war, and politics. Subject is notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC) About the nominator's WP:COATRACK argument; first COATRACK is not official policy; second, the gist of the coatrack complaint is that when an article ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely, that is, the article becomes a "rack" upon which other topics are hung like coats, obscuring the rack -- if so, in this case, what is the "coat" and what is the "rack"? For me, the subject and content match -- the subject is the boycott of Ingraham's show, the content matches, QED no coatrack.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomwsulcer: from how I understand the nomination, the coats are the continuous backward-forward Twitter exchanges between Hogg/Ingraham/Fox News. Regarding your points, we should talk about Ingraham's actions on her article (WP:POVFORK) and "as part of the culture war" is not an excuse (WP:CRYSTALBALL). Now let's get to the advertisers. If we remove all the coats from this article, what is left? That's right, advertisers. The point of this article is the "List of advertisers in boycott" section. So judge the notability of the boycott on that section, and not on the fight between Hogg and Ingraham/Fox on Twitter. wumbolo ^^^ 14:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo: You're saying this article is really about the advertisers? It's really about the boycott, specifically the effort to pressure advertisers to drop Ingraham's show; the content all focuses on this theme, including the back-and-forth exchanges (which I don't see as 'coats'). Like I said, WP:COATRACK isn't really policy regardless. That said, the argument about WP:POVFORK is a stronger argument for deletion, that is, is the subject matter of this article really about Laura Ingraham or her show The Ingraham Angle, and this article a fork to try to avoid achieving consensus on either? And here's where I see this boycott as a rather new and notable phenomenon, bigger and different from simply Ingraham or her show. It's the real power of social media and moral force to bring about substantive change in the marketplace of ideas. A test of this: could anybody have predicted, in advance, after what Ingraham said, that a student-turned-activist would bring down a cyberbullying talk show host? With a tweet? This is new stuff, different from any standard boycott.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Determining enduring notability in the moment is an inherently subjective and speculative exercise. When I consider the enduring notability of an event, I imagine how it will be viewed in the future (like the ten year test). Yes, this has legs beyond one news cycle, but I don't think that's enough. (But, again, that's pretty subjective.)

The other relevant guideline here is WP:NEVENT. I think it falls into the “may or may not be notable” category, and then to the subpoints, I’d say there is at best a weak argument that it meets all of the coverage criteria, but it meets neither of the event criteria. Yet. That could change if Ingraham loses the show or if this turns into a template used by others (like Kyle Kashuv's attempted copycat boycott of Eichenwald), but we're just not there yet.

Regarding its relevance for cyberbullying, advertising, culture wars, and politics, that could be a compelling argument, but I don't see it being discussed that way in the sources. If you have sources that attest to its relevance in that regard, I’d invite you to post them here. -- irn (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ten year test is not an official guideline. The WP:NEVENT is an official guideline, but it says The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded and I think this clearly applies in this case: the boycott is significant, interesting, unusual and has attracted sufficient attention. If you need more sources talking about the relevance of the boycott, check out GQ and Morning Joe and Hollywood Life and Daily Kos and many others. Like, even Republican strategist is weighing in why the boycott has been successful, that is, there are ramifications for talk show standards, political discourse, and the power of media (ie Twitter versus Fox is akin to David versus Goliath). It's a qualitatively new type of boycott, noteworthy. Overall, the strongest of the delete arguments I think is the POVFORK one, and that's open to interpretation, but my sense is the article should still stay for reasons mentioned above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John from Idegon. Flash in the pan. NOTNEWS. 2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Ingraham Angle. Useless fork. — JFG ^talk 14:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: do you think the list of advertisers in boycott wouldn't create WP:UNDUE weight upon that article after the merge? wumbolo ^^^ 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. The list should be trimmed anyway, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of information. We should also take care not be perceived as advocating for or against the boycott, per WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, and I feel that naming all participants accomplishes exactly that. Noting a few of the most notable brands in the prose should be well enough. — JFG ^talk 14:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here, all we decide is whether to keep, delete, merge or redirect. If the latter two, where. What gets merged is a topic for the target's talk page, not a factor in whether we merge it. Frankly, since there isn't any consensus on where to merge, if you don't want the article to stay, a delete !vote is all that makes sense. John from Idegon (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and other delete comments (single event, not news, etc) HunterM267 ^talk 15:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 ::Regarding its relevance for cyberbullying, advertising, culture wars, and politics, that could be a compelling argument, but I don't see it being discussed that way in the sources. If you have sources that attest to its relevance in that regard, I’d invite you to post them here. -- [[User:Irn|irn]] ([[User talk:Irn|talk]]) 15:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 :::The [[WP:10YT|ten year test]] is not an official guideline. The WP:NEVENT is an official guideline, but it says [[WP:NEVENT|The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded]] and I think this clearly applies in this case: the boycott ''is'' significant, interesting, unusual and has attracted sufficient attention. If you need more sources talking about the relevance of the boycott, check out [https://www.gq.com/story/boycott-laura-ingraham-patriotic GQ] and [https://www.thewrap.com/morning-joe-annihilates-laura-ingraham-we-cant-have-animals-on-the-air-attacking-children/ Morning Joe] and [http://hollywoodlife.com/2018/03/29/laura-ingraham-bullying-david-hogg-immoral-boycott-parkland-shooting-survivor/ Hollywood Life] and [https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/29/1752993/-Cyber-Bullying-is-a-bit-new-But-Lauren-Ingraham-was-a-real-bully-long-before-the-internet Daily Kos] and many others. Like, even Republican strategist is [https://apicciano.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2018/03/30/steve-schmidt-republican-strategist-nails-why-david-hogg-got-to-laura-ingraham/ weighing in why the boycott has been successful], that is, there are ramifications for talk show standards, political discourse, and the power of media (ie Twitter versus Fox is akin to David versus Goliath). It's a qualitatively ''new'' type of boycott, noteworthy. Overall, the strongest of the delete arguments I think is the POVFORK one, and that's open to interpretation, but my sense is the article should still stay for reasons mentioned above.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 16:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
-*'''Delete''' per John from Idegon. Flash in the pan. NOTNEWS. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109|2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109]] ([[User talk:2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109|talk]]) 13:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC){{spa|2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109}}
+*'''Delete''' per John from Idegon. Flash in the pan. NOTNEWS. [[Special:Contributions/2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109|2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109]] ([[User talk:2A02:4780:BAD:25:FCED:1FF:FE25:109|talk]]) 13:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * '''Merge''' to [[The Ingraham Angle]]. Useless fork. — [[User:JFG|JFG]] <sup>[[User talk:JFG|talk]]</sup> 14:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 ::{{re|JFG}} do you think the list of advertisers in boycott wouldn't create [[WP:UNDUE]] weight upon that article after the merge? <span style="background-color:#cee">[[User:Wumbolo|<span style="color:#066;font-family:Symbol">w</span><span style="color:#066;font-family:Segoe Script">umbolo</span>]]</span> [[User talk:2Wm|<span style="color:#37C;font-family:webdings">^^^</span>]] 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)