Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A More Perfect Union

--Loodog (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Previous non-admin close rationale below, AfD reopened per DRV request

The result was Speedy keep. Speedy as in fast. SNOW and IAR. Rationale. There is no real reason to delete. Article violates no policy, and is well sourced. Proper title so no merge. Stand alone so no redirect. Consensus has been reached thus far. No reason to prolong. Also, so this is 100% clear, and no one feels its necessary to provoke argument over this close, I will cite, albeit, and essay.

• Snowball clause closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible. Recommended criteria to use: (a) six or more participants have supported keeping the page;

Taken from Appropriate closures: bullet point three on NAC. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A More Perfect Union

A More Perfect Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I do not believe this speech is notable enough to warrant its own page. The relevant material could be merged into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, where it already receives substantial attention. Wikipedia is not a news source, and it is relatively likely the notability surrounding this speech is only temporary. The page should be deleted RWR8189 (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is premature to delete A More Perfect Union. Several commentators, including Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, have compared it to Martin Luther King Jr.'s I Have a Dream. Randi Rhodes on Air America thinks this speech might be one for the history books. Granted, such judgments are premature, but the deletion of the A More Perfect Union article is also more premature. Let's give it a few weeks and see if the speech makes a lasting impact. --Dr.enh (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

General comment on changes in article. Just a quick note to point out that the article has expanded considerably (including many more assertions of notability) from when this AfD was started. At that point the article looked like this, whereas as of now it looks like this (more discussion from media and pundits, response from academics and religious leaders, more than double the number of citations from reliable sources, etc.). Not trying to twist any arms here, but delete voters who commented soon after this was listed for AfD might want to take another look at the article and see if they still think it warrants deletion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Note to closer: If consensus is to delete, please copy the page onto a subpage of my userspace. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It is not clear that this speech is commonly known under this title, anyway, and the title has been used in other contexts as well due to its origins in the U.S. Constitution. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone in America and they have watched channels other than Nikelodeon and MTV, they know the speech by it's title. I've been bombarded with it almost constantly here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in America and watching channels other than Nickelodeon and MTV, and I know the speech by its title only because I participated in this AfD. Note that the New York Times transcript of the speech is titled "Barack Obama's Speech on Race", not "A More Perfect Union", and the introductory sentence says: The following is the text as prepared for delivery of Senator Barack Obama’s speech on race in Philadelphia, as provided by his presidential campaign. Note that the title is not identified as such. The NYT's main article about the speech doesn't mention the title at all. Maybe this speech will turn out to be historically notable, and maybe this will be the title under which it becomes historically known. But its title is not yet as famous as implied above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know it because it was being discussed on CNN as such while I was in the dining commons here on campus, the pdf available on our school's Promethus system is "amoreperfectunion-obama.pdf" with bold text at the top, there was a debate about it in the bookstore and library when I went to go pick up this quarter's textbooks. It was in the Wall Street Journal with the name. The consensus of the name is quite clear. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama's website calls it "A More Perfect Union". I think eventually more news outlets will pick up on that, especially after they look it up on Wikipedia and see that we've called it that. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Although most people do not know the speech by its title, it has still received an incredible amount of news attention, nonetheless. It is very likely, when looking at the very favorable news coverage, that the speech will have a lasting impact, especially if Barack Obama receives the nomination. Many in the news media are covering it as if it is a notable event, thus the article should be kept until it is proven otherwise. --damario0 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dr.enh. Yeah, I was very hesitant to create an article for this speech, but I also feel that this a very significant speech that needs to be chronicled in WP. You say this isn't notable? Turn on the TV! Google Obama in the news category. People all over are talking about this. It's all over the news. It's all over the Internet. I went to the grocery store and saw cashiers and customers talking about it. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT SPEECH. Again, yes I know it was probably too early for me to create the article, but I believe that over time, this speech is going to be a landmark for not only Obama's presidential campaign, but also the state of America heading into the election even if Obama doesn't make it. We should give this article time, and you will all see why this article is well deserving of an article on Wikipedia. As for Metropolitan90, this is the official title of the speech. It is referred to as this title on his official website listing, as well as all of the media coverage. I mean, come on, if an article like "Mel Gibson DUI incident" or "Posh and Becks" have their own Wikipedia articles, why is this being considered to be deleted? This is a lot more interesting, historic, and relevant than Mel Gibson and a one-time drinking binge and a burned-out soccer player that is married to a Spice Girl. KEEP THIS ARTICLE I don't mean to be offensive while defensive, I'm just stating my case. Thanks. conman33 (. . .talk) 04:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

ON THE OTHER HAND I hear cashiers and customers at the grocery store also talk about astrology read in "respectable" newspapers. These observations do not mean that I nor any reasonable person would ever find their comments adding weight WP:UNDUE to the "importance" of astrology or its analysis by non-astrologists. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, for now, at least. What's the rush? And this is the correct title for the speech: [1]. Zagalejo^^^ 04:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. If you read the notability guidelines, you will find that there is no such thing as temporary notability. Once something is notable, it's notable forever. I mean, I can't really think of many more things notable than this, to be honest. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The notability guidelines clearly state that a short burst of news coverage does not automatically confer notability. In the context of a nearly two year long political campaign, it is likely that this speech will be regarded as little more than a footnote or "flavor of the day" news coverage in the long-term.--RWR8189 (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is highly unlikely that, whatever happens in this campaign, this speech will be merely a "footnote." It is far more likely that passages from it will appear in future history textbooks, even if Obama loses the nomination.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hillary's "tears" were temporarily notable. They get no article. So much of political news in particular is fleeting.--Loodog (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Clinton's tears were not notable. For one thing, "she cried after a momentous primary/caucus" IS notable; however, it doesn't deserve it's own article unless a vast amount of analysis shows up around it enough to give it substantial prose beyond what appears in her campaign page. That is the case here; the speech is notable now, will continue to be so, and as an encyclopedia, it should be kept. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The absence of potential articles is no reason in itself to delete an existing article. Also, I believe the intention behind "not news" is to prevent every petty theft, rain shower, and campaign stop from getting its own article just because it was briefly mentioned in local or national media. It is not to prevent genuinely notable subjects from being written about. Joshdboz (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also to prevent Wikinews from being supplanted by Wikipedia. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment. WP:CRYSTAL.--Loodog (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This was an incredibly important speech that deserves its own article. Valadius (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. There's quite a bit of metacommentary showing up on this already all over both sides of the aisle: Salon, WSJ, Weekly Standard, etc... it seems quite unlikely that this won't be among the most important moments of the campaign, which seems like it should be suitable for notability. MMZach (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This speech is garnering much media attention, and is important to Senator Obama's campaign. (Yeah, I basically just said "me too" to the above comment; it's a valid point though.) Yonisyuumei (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Unfortunately we do not have WP:SPEECH, a policy on the notability of speeches, but I think we can use the general guideline at WP:N since notability is the only important question here. That guideline says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I believe this article easily passes that bar. The lead editorial in today's New York Times and Washington Post (the two major papers in the U.S.) are about that speech (and several columnists in both papers weigh in on it as well). In fact it will probably be the topic of editorials in most papers in the U.S. and indeed even in some other parts of the world. There has been an enormous outpouring of commentary all over the blogosphere, and every respectable news publication will discuss this in detail in the next day and indeed beyond (A Google News search for "Obama" and "A More Perfect Union" reveals upwards of 2,000 news stories). In short, the topic has already received (and indeed will receive much more) significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore is notable. Many are already comparing this to speeches by Kennedy, FDR, and Lincoln, and I can guarantee you this speech will be discussed in history classes in the future. Our article looks to be off to a good start, and a few years from now I'd bet we'll have enough material to turn this into a featured article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:CRYSTAL.--Loodog (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Linking to a policy without comment is not much of a comment. My discussion of the future is obviously not the rationale for why I think this should be kept, it was an additional thought I added at the end which I think is worthy of consideration though not the reason this is a keeper. As I clearly stated, the reason this should be kept is because it easily passes our notability guidelines at WP:N. Could you explain to me how it does not? That is the only thing at issue here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a speech that will transcend the presidential campaign that Obama is currently engaged in. The parts about the Rev. Wright might not be notable, and if the speech were focused on that controversy exclusively, I would support deletion. But the scope of Obama's speech expands beyond the controversy to capture a snapshot of race relations as they are today. This one will be remembered and looked back upon in the months and years ahead. - Cg-realms (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you everyone. I'm glad I'm not alone in this and that the article is "notable" to others. conman33 (. . .talk) 06:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cg-realms, I agree. I hope that we can expand and focus more on the speech instead of the controversy. So far, I'm really the only one who has substantially helped to beef this article up, so it's gonna take some more effort. conman33 (. . .talk) 06:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You used the future tense. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't include entries on the basis of expected notability, since there's no science to that kind of prediction. It's a bunch of news commentators trying to strike up interest in their story.--Loodog (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. It is certainly immediately notable, and I've heard many a commentator say they expect it to be memorable in the years to come. Until we're better able to determine that, we should at least give the article a chance to mature and develop before making premature judgments. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment What commentator would say that what he's talking about only has a temporary window of interest? The news is not an objective judge of notability.--Loodog (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - The only applicable guideline here, due to the topic at hand, is WP:NOTE - and this article satisfies it with aplomb. Absolutely no reason to delete. The references speak for itself. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NOTE says that a short burst of news reports is not good enough. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• A short burst? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that policy is intended to address the fact that any event will be followed by at least some news posts. Front-page editorials in multiple national papers aren't quite the Podunk Gazette, nor is this a "short burst" by normal media standards. MMZach (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. You've got to be kidding me. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You must be new to AfDs. :P Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Seems like news reporting to me, but WP:NOT#NEWS has not been rescinded. Probably far too soon to say whether this is of any significance or importance. Could well prove to be just another boring campaign speech. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. See my closing rationale at the top of this page. And if possible, someone speedy keep this. Time shouldnt matter when a keep is clear, and consensus is reached. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - I'm going to be frank here, and risk crossing the AGF line. The nominator's "list of articles I have proposed for deletion" shows very strong political tendencies, and I am not convinced of the good faith of this nomination. This speech is a major campaign event, and its contents and media prominence alone are a matter of historical precedent and importance. It has already received more coverage than any American political speech since, well, Obama's 2004 keynote address. I can't think of any good reason to delete the article - just political ones. Mr. IP (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - The media flares up over any new development in the Clinton-Obama race, inventing notability where there is none. Would we create an article for Hillary's "tears", which was also temporarily notable? When it comes down to it, it's just some politician's speech among countless others by countless other politicians, albeit moving. This is Obama's response to a controversy, not I Have a Dream.--Loodog (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Speeches worthy of coverage range from I Have a Dream to Checkers speech. This isn't some stump speech - this is a major and prominent address on race, given in terms of rare frankness, at a major turning point in a historic presidential campaign. My only concern here is a "crystal ball" violation, wherein we attribute historical prominence to a speech before history has passed judgment - but in this case, I think we are well served by having an article right now, and will almost certainly continue to be well served in the future. Mr. IP (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This !vote is based on opinion, not policy. The speech is clearly notable given our guidelines at WP:N and no delete commenter has been able to argue otherwise. Loodog may think "it's just some politician's speech among countless others by countless other politicians," but that is not at all what dozens and dozens of news articles, politicians, religious leaders, and political commentators who are commenting on the historic nature of this speech think. Those are reliable sources (a number of which are already cited in the article) and we base our decision on whether to keep this or not on the depth of coverage in those sources (which is incredibly extensive) not on the fact that a few editors here think this was just "some speech." They are entitled to that opinion, but it has no bearing on this discussion, which should revolve solely around the question of notability as described in our notability guidelines.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. IP's comparison to the Checkers speech is appropriate, I think. There is a precedent of including unique and notable campaign speeches. I would also draw comparisons to the Pound cake speech, since it is also regarded as a significant turning point in race relations in the United States. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep -Widely considered the most important speech of a historically significant campaign. Notability is well-established. That it feels awkward to title the article based on the title of the speech, that's only bc the article already does a good job of contextualizing the event. Balonkey (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• keep This is a well-written article about a major political speech that is still having repercussions. There is clearly too much material to reasonably merge. Mr. IP also brings up a serious issue which is made all the more troubling given the nominator's userpage. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• DELETE This is speech which, if it has any relevance at all, should be on the Obama bio --Fovean Author (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have been urging a greater degree of coverage of the Wright issue in the Obama article. Given the extent to which that article has already been given over to the Wright issue, it makes sense to have a separate page here in order to avoid bloat, no? Mr. IP (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#NEWS. My newspaper just has the speech as a minor aside in the daily campaign coverage - secondary to the rejection of Hillary's result in Florida. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think that's an anomaly. My newspaper has the entire speech printed, plus pages of commentary. The official video has already gotten over one million hits on YouTube. Frankly, Wikipedia is going to look silly for having a deletion template on the article while the speech is getting so much attention. Zagalejo^^^ 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• USA Today featured it as their cover story. My personal local newspaper covered the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War (which is today), and I suspect that story is the reason it's not on everyone's front page today. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• WP:UNDUE does not apply. The article can exist without putting undue political weight on the side of Obama. WP:SOAP is a desperate grasp at finding something to delete this under. As a presidential candidate, he has far more effective ways of getting his extremely notable speech to people other than sites that try to get it deleted simply because they have it on their site and don't believe it should be there. It's being covered by pretty much anything that does news. The only thing left is WP:NOT#NEWS, and it's already become something more than just a speech. Commentators are analyzing it to death, so it's more than just the speech in and of itself. Cheers. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's not news because commentators are analyzing it to death?--Loodog (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's not news because there's more significance attributed to it than it's delivery alone. That is, reports ON the speech have occurred, making it more notable than reports that just RELAY the speech. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep this subject has been the center of non-trivial coverage from hundreds of major and minor media sources around the world. Not only has this coveraged been focused on the event itself, but its effects on a major presidential campaign and a major subject of division in America. Not only that, but the amount of relevant and verifiable information with regard to the speech means it could not be fully included in any existing article. Joshdboz (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - A very notable speech, highly covered in the American Media. There is absolutely no reason to delete the article, only to improve the article as it is very base compared to the speech's notability. KV(Talk) 17:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- Are we to make an article for every flash in the pan?--Die4Dixie 17:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The question here is notability. Could you please explain how this speech does not meet our guidelines for notability? Because it seems obvious that it does, and the only real argument for deletion is that it does not. Could you please elaborate?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if the user is aware of it, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, WP:IDONTLIKEIT obviously come into play here. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- I haven't been following the election at all. But I heard that I am supposed to listen to the speech. And are we running out of hard drive space or something. I think we are too quick to delete articles here. --vossman (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy merge = ) --Camaeron (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Apart from this being just a vote, Speedy merge isn't an option unless it's a bad faith nomination (which it could be; see others above me) and it is abundantly obvious that it belongs within another article and no one disagrees with you. In this case, most everyone disagrees with you. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I'm on the other side of the atlantic, and I never even heard of this. Perhaps it appears notable depending on your politics and that is why there are two strong opinions being voiced here. For me, and I've no axe to grind either way, the closing admin should pay close attention to WP:SOAPBOX and the fact that a short burst of media attention does not make a speech notable. Bardcom (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It is notable because it has garnered wide media attention, not because of a given person's political leanings. I'm not even a member of a political party; heck, I didn't vote in our primaries because my party didn't front a candidate. WP:SOAP seems suspiciously like a desperate grab at trying to come up with something to delete this under. The candidate has much better ways to advertise himself politically. Also, apart from that, AfDs are not for deletions because of the content of an article unless it is unsourced negative information about a living person. For things with content that needs to be fixed, there are numerous tags that can be applied to the article. Or you can be bold and fix percieved errors yourself. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete the item is not historic in any way. On top of that, it may not even play any role. - User: Mojojojo69 11:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia does not require any of its articles to be "historic," only notable. hateless 19:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, undeniably notable. No other speech in this election cycle has had as much coverage as this one by far. hateless 19:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree, notable. Wonderful speach. Deserves it's own page. Fnsnet (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be better to organize arguments along main points:

1. Continued Notability after this election
2. WP:CRYSTAL being violated in assumption of relevance on the future (e.g. "historic")
3. WP:NOT#NEWS being violated
4. Possible US-centrism and assumption of relevance in the rest of the world

If people would reply along these points, we can get each to consensus maybe faster.--Loodog (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We've already done that, but for the sake of consensus, I'll coalesce everything here.

1. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. You can't say it will be less notable later, since you don't know that. It is, however, notable now, judging by the massive amount of media coverage and analysis.
2. See above point.
3. WP:NOT#NEWS is to prevent fleeting things like the news story about the woman with 12 cats who got evicted and is suing the landlord from becoming notable. It isn't intended for large-scale events like this.
4. WP does not know borders. If it is notable and relevant somewhere, then it deserves placement.

Cheers. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• • To expand on Celarnor's point, if we have a US-centric bias the solution is to add more similar articles about major speeches by major candidates in other countries, not delete this one. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Possible US-centrism and assumption of relevance in the rest of the world

• • • I'm trying to wrap my brain around this one comment. Why would Obama's speech need to be relevant outside the US in the first place? Are we to believe that his speech should cover other countries? He's not campaigning in other countries. Just one. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep -- This page makes no sense. The speech is historic; in fact, I went to Wikipedia to find a link to the text of the speech to add onto my own website. (However, I am boggled by the fact that the only method provided is to directly edit this 30KB document of prior comments !! Tried other links, such as Talk and they were blind alleys.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genordell (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, I thought about this one and it does seem that this speech will stay notable throughout the rest of the presidential election, and probably beyond. Especially if this does end up becoming the major turning point for the Obama campaign. (NOTE:I do not support the obama campaign) --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete -- This is proceeding down a slippery slope, where every speech made throughout the rest of the campaign can be claimed to be historic by supporters of that politician. Remember the rule is NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.72.194.79 (talk • contribs)

  Comment - Be mindful that this anon's comment represents his/her third contribution to wikipedia. Also, WP:NPOV is not an issue here. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  Comment - Also, the anonuser's only contributions have been criticisms of this article. I hardly think it's appropriate for him/her to be discussing NPOV. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: Don't bite the newbies. Respond on content, not editors.--Loodog (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  Normally, I don't, but considering that his entire body of edits is criticisim and advocating removal of material from Wikipedia, one has to wonder. In any case, this argument isn't a 'we should delete this' argument. It's a 'we should have more on other notable speeches as well' argument. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  How can you tell? IPs are often dynamic, and he could have thousands of edits under some other IP. At best you could say that he only commented on articles related to this subject during a pretty short timespan. Please assume good faith. - Bobet 21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you for your concern, I always assume good faith. Please assume good faith in doing so. The IP in question is not a dynamic IP. As you can see, the IP is not dynamic. It is, in fact, static, and is someone's workplace. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  Celarnor, just so this issue is clear to all of us invited to discuss on the linked article itself, is updating Wikipedia from the workplace against Wikipedia guidelines? Because I did not see that in my last review of the official guidelines. And I understand from your profile you did not start hardcore Wiki editing until after Spring Break 2008 (6 weeks ago?) so your understanding would be appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.153.162 (talk • contribs)

  No, of course there's nothing wrong with that. However, this is a controversial issue, and we have to think about single purpose accounts and anonymous editing. Most people don't like, just randomly start editing AfD's as their first edits, which kind of suggests that the person knows their way around WP. If the person is a regular contributor, why didn't he log in? Has he/she already !voted and trying to pad the page? Maybe not, but unfortunately, it's something that has to at least be considered. Of course, it may just be that this is the person's first contribution. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  The editing from a workplace was not a comment about anything other than that what the IP address was.

  Not to sidetrack the discussion, but your whois provides no indication that the IP is either static or dynamic. You can't tell them apart based on that. - Bobet 11:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, you can, actually. If it was dynamic, it would be listed only as a rangepool, not as an IP linked to a single room within a building. Also, it's not regular practice for US government domains to rotate their internal IPs. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Is the title official? If not, I would try to find a more neutral sounding title or merge until it does prove to be the title. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the title is official. It is so listed on his own web site. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I believe this should be merged with Obama's campaign article. The fact of the matter is, it's a part of a presidential campaign. To compare it to other notable speeches such as "I Have a Dream" is inappropriate and diminishes their significance. There have been many speeches made by presidential candidates in the past. This is just another. Nevertheless, if, after several weeks, it becomes apparent that this speech is significant both to his campaign and to history, then it should be made into it's own article. But currently this is not yet the apparent case, and therefore should be merged with Obama's campaign article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kye2789 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Chill, guys. I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm really favoring the idea of keeping for now and checking again in a week or so. This whole controversy is about whether or not it's notable yet, and both sides pretty well agree that it could be. But we don't know yet. So let's just leave it up for a week and then renominate it to test consensus. The WP:NOT#NEWS arguement is just as tied to the time factor as everything else, since we can't know yet whether or not this is going to be notable. I've got a feeling that this is something people are going to search for in the next few days, so it would be nice to keep it up for a while before we render a decision (also, the inclusionist in me is rearing its head). Chill, wait, and we'll see what happens. I mean, it's not like there's a time limit here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP: This speech is already being compared by many commentators to some of the great speeches in US history (example) -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  The question is, will it be compared to great speeches a year from now, or is it just people writing the news not coming up with any better stories. - Bobet 21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  Well it is certainly a more significant speech than racist crap like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Only the glaring systematic bias of our US-centric contributors would allow keeping this in clear violation of Not News. We don't write history here, we reflect it. If this is deemed notable in the longer term, then we can certainly justify having an article about it. But for the moment, this is a political speech and not deserving of an individual article. Let's get the cart back behind the horse. Eusebeus (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  As I've said elsewhere, WP does not know borders. It's not a clear violation of not news; it covers the speech itself, its' analysis, and its' effects. It is not a wikinews candidate (although the delivery of it is). Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment WP:N says it all: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability". The wealth of response to this speech is only characteristic of the media who hyperbolizes everything for ratings and buzz. People, you know how news works. Don't get caught up in the hype.--Loodog (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  That's what it says, but I think you're missing the intent. It's not a burst; it's more like a massive nuclear explosion of epic proportions. The only thing WP has to operate off is the news, and the news is saying that it is comparable to speeches given during the civil rights movement. That's notability if I've ever seen it. Not news is to prevent someone from creating an article about some beauty pageant that their kid participated in, citing a single local news article and declaring it valid based on that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  I beg to differ muchly. The size of the massive orgy of nuclear warfare is irrelevant. I read the above section I cited as saying "everyone's talking about it now does not guarantee notability". I again argue that just because some talking head has evoked the civil rights movement, does not make it equivalent. That's what people would say when they want you to pay attention.--Loodog (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  Several talking heads, with noted, established and reputable journalistic careers with worldwide and national syndication. By your logic, we should just ignore reliable sources altogether, since everything they say can just be "what they say when they want us to pay attention", and you can't objectively judge what articles from source foo aren't reliable and what articles from source foo are reliable. That's why we consider the sources rather than individual articles reliable. In any case, I really don't see NOT#NEWS flying here. In and of itself as a presidential speech, no, this is not notable. However, it has received coverage beyond it's mere delivery. It has received analysis and criticism as a speech and not just a campaign item. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  Not at all. You overgeneralized. My point was to not lift information from sources regarding ideas about which the source is not likely to be neutral. Here: grandiose MLK comparisons.--Loodog (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  The sources are as neutral as reasonably possible. The consensus of the sources together is what should be considered reliable, and several outlets have made the MLK comparisons. An editor's individual feeling that it may be grandiose doesn't matter; it's what is being reported by a considerable amount of the reliable sources out there. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: we can always delete it in six months if things look different from there. — ciphergoth 22:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep ^^^Just came here to say this. Trying to figure out the historical importance of a speech that happened yesterday is basically trying to tell the future. If no one cares about it in six months (unlikely imo) we can delete it then.P4k (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  Notability is not temporary. Something is either notable and will continue to be, or it isn't. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  And in the same paragraph, read "However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future."--Loodog (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  The countless sources that are available now aren't enough? I disagree that it requires anything additional to establish notability. It's 'meta-criticism' beyond the scope of the campaign should be more than sufficient now. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Notable beyond belief. 2 million youtube its in 24 hours? Plus all the media is talking abut it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.76.51 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. If the title is an issue, the you should be discussing a move, not a deletion. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  What would you propose, and how is the title an issue? The title is official. Maybe a disambig line at the top to the Constitution would be useful, but I don't see why the title should be changed now that we've established this is the official title. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This appears to be a "watershed moment" in the Obama campaign and the 2008 Presidential campaign. We're not a news site, but some news is instant history. <eleland/talkedits> 23:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's well written and properly source. Very notable, it's not just some regular political speech. HoosierState^Talk 23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Right now no one can tell how historically significant this speech will become -- it depends on whether it brings about real change, and on how elections turn out. Few people recall the speeches of Adlai E. Stevenson, although they may have seemed momentous at the time. It might seem like a shame to lose what's been written already, but all of this can be regenerated as needed in the future, and probably with better perspective. Gccwang (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for all the good reasons already mentioned. If this speech is all but foggotten six months from now, it is easy enough to delete it then... though it is unlikely. The speech addresses a fundamental issue, and it most certainly will make a lasting impact on the American society. AugustinMa (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This speech, since the time of its delivery, has been the principle item of discussion in the United States news since its delivery and it is even already being incorporated into academic curriculae dealing with race in America.[2] Tremendous public interest in the speech guarantees that this article will see a lot of traffic, and the afd notice is a little embarrassing, although that's probably not a reason to remove it. While it is possible that the speech might come to be known under a different name, that is a case for a future move, rather than a current delete. And I suppose it's possible that dramatic and unforeseen events may render the speech forgotten within a week, but since we lack a crystal ball, it would be better to wait before rushing to delete. --Peter ^Talk 03:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Massive news coverage can confer notability, there's no need for some nebulous time to pass. There might be a better name for the article, but that's not an issue of notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The arguments over this have already spun into an extension of the political debate itself. A certain user on this discussion page exemplifies for all that good faith arguments for deletion will turn into accusatory rhetoric that belongs in the political process itself, not Wikipedia. I count at least a dozen posts by this individual in this article itself. I see nothing historic about the speech other than editorials and political punditry, and neither meet the standard for references by Wikipedia guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.153.162 (talk • contribs)
• Delete What, every time he farts in an elevator, you want to make a Wikipedia entry? If it's so important, put it in his bio. If it THEN becomes an earth shaking even, it should be its own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.45.236.60 (talk • contribs)
• Comment on notability. Another source which speaks to notability is this article in the New York Times about responses to the Obama speech (which is now the top You Tube video apparently, for whatever that's worth). A relevant passage reads "Religious groups and academic bodies, already receptive to Mr. Obama’s plea for such a dialogue [on race], seemed especially enthusiastic. Universities were moving to incorporate the issues Mr. Obama raised into classroom discussions and course work, and churches were trying to find ways to do the same in sermons and Bible studies." An African-American preacher in Georgia remarked, "I don’t see how you can be an African-American preacher and not try to figure out how to have something to say this Sunday, even though it’s Easter." It's been a couple of days and we already have some schools (many are on break now) discussing the speech. So, 64.45.236.60, this is hardly a fart in the elevator - a rather disingenuous analogy if ever I've read one - since elevator farts (even from prominent people!) generally are not discussed in university-level speech classes (at least not where I went to school). Notability has already been demonstrated and this is almost certainly headed for a keep as it is, but I figured I'd provide a bit more evidence anyway. Also, just an interesting tidbit in terms of precedent even though "otherstuffexists" is not necessarily a valid argument, note that we have an article on I Got a Crush... on Obama - a considerably more trivial element of Obama's campaign, but one which passed an AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  A politician bringing up the racial debate is not the second coming of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement. Nor is it the second coming of Abraham Lincoln, despite how his campaign decided to name his speech. If the broader debate amongst the citizenry actually happens, and I think it should, then Obama's speech should then be noted as the impetus of said movement. However, comparing a random professor at one of the random thousands of universities as considering introducing it into a discussion group in one of his classes with MLK's "I have a Dream" speech, with hundreds of thousands in attendance, cheapens Martin Luther King's legacy. In the meantime, I think this should be worked into the Obama 2008 campaign page. Otherwise political supporters for Clinton and McCain will be able to accuse Wikipedia of bias in not publishing their own campaign speeches.

If speeches by McCain and Clinton get this level of coverage and discussion then we should by all means have articles on them, but so far this has not happened. And this is not about MLK so I don't know why people keep bringing that up. Who here has said this is the "second coming" of MLK or Lincoln? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. No one is saying this speech is as important as "I Have A Dream." I did not compare this speech to MLK's and thus cheapen MLK's legacy (what a strange thing to say). Those arguing for keep are simply saying it is a notable speech by our notability guidelines. References to Lincoln and Dr. King have no real bearing on this discussion so let's please stay focused on the issue of notability for this speech.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Who says we only include speeches of the importance of I Have A Dream? If a speech will be written about for decades into the future by political historians, why not include it? Why not have several such speeches per U.S. election cycle, depending on the coverage they receive? Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech already has an article-sized chunk of text devoted to it, and he's a losing candidate—but the speech is still notable. And whether Obama wins or loses—"A More Perfect Union" will still be notable.--Pharos (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  I would have no problem if this was referenced as part of Barack Obama's Racial Debate or Racial Component of 2008 Election or something similar. However, keep in mind that the speech you referenced with Mitt Romney was put in context of the broader issue of Mormon acceptance as Christianity within the Republican electorate, not from the mouth of Mitt Romney's political handlers, as this speech clearly is. I think the issue I most strenously object to is Wikipedia becoming the mouthpiece of a political campaign, regardless the candidate.

• Strong Keep - few speeches in the last few decades have been as widely discussed or viewed, or read, as this one has been and I believe it will have a lasting impact.The Moving Finger Writes (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Yesterday Google News had that Obama speech on its front page. Today it has a different one - Obama criticizes his rivals on Iraq - which relates to a speech he made in Fayatteville. It links to 1194 news articles relating to this and so one could no doubt claim that there is enough sources to write an article about that speech too. And I suppose there will be more speeches to come - he makes at least one a day, right? What's needed to justify an article is lasting coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that there is a related link on Google News. It is Obama pastor's words ring familiar in Chicago. It's seems that it is the pastor's words which are memorable, not Obama's apologia for them. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep WP:OTHERSTUFF in mind. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Other stuff "may form part of a cogent argument...". We get bombarded with lots of coverage of the primaries and campaigns every day but it is just a routine media circus. It would be a good policy to confine coverage of such campaigns to WikiNews and only create articles here when they are over and decided. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should we have to wait to give clearly notable material coverage? I can't link to it at the moment because it hasn't shown up on Google Scholar yet, but my school's journal search subscription already lists TWO scholarly articles regarding the speech by political science professors. Why throw out so much material just because it's current? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep — This is recieving worldwide coverage. Please keep American politics out of AfDs. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Time will tell if it's a truly notable speech, but as for now, that certainly seems to be the case. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep- It's notable, alright. Many news organization in the US and around the world reported on it. Title might need to be changed though. But that's easy enough. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The discussion below appears to present a reasonable cross section of arguments in favour of keeping for the moment and I think this is what should happen. I personally think this notability will be long lasting but that's not the point. I think it is in the interest of Wikipedia to act in favour of "potential historical significance". It is definitely NOT in the interest of Wikipedia to be accused of racist/political censorship. Imagine the BBC headlines "Racist Wikipolitics deletes article on Obama's race unification speech". As an aside, maybe there is some precedent : are there other recent (ie last 12 months) examples of speeches that have had their own entries almost immediately after delivery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.113.21.22 (talk • contribs)

• Yes, because all the arguments on the talk page say "No, Obama's too black for his speeches to be notable."--Loodog (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, keep, keep. This is an obvious keep. Notability bar met.Professor marginalia (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Added note: If there is an urgent need to delete this, to elevate the notability bar for this particular politician's article, any thoughts on these?  : President Forgets to Chew His Food ; US President Who Won't Speak English  ; President Tumbles Over Girl Friend's Dirty Laundry  ; Presidential Hopeful Commits Identity Fraud ; Presidential Hopeful's College Homework Censored. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Speech meets notability requirements for media coverage and newspapers, not for encyclopeadia coverage. This article's inclusion makes wikipedia look more like Wikinews and a soapbox WP:SOAPBOX instead of an encyclopeadia. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC).

  This would be true if the only notable thing regarding the speech was the fact that it was delivered as part of his campaign, but it's grown beyond that; it has been the subject of analysis outside of the campaign, and that makes it notable as an independent speech. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment In all seriousness - why didn't this article start off on Obama's bio, and then migrate as it proved itself? Isn't that a normal course of action here? Seems to me that supporters are trying to build up this person's words as scripture.--Fovean Author (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  It did; there's plenty of material about the speech itself rather than just it's delivery as part of the campaign; however, it seems like some people just don't want to hear that for some reason. Personally, I think politics should be kept out of deletion discussions; we are supposed to be objective, after all. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  This discussion is very much everything else, but to accuse it of being objective is laughable. Please explain how this speech is somehow outside of Obama's campaign for President of the United States. And then ask yourself if he delivered it two years ago, when he had stated he was not running for the highest elected office in the country, if it would have received the attention it did. It's important because he may very well be the next President, hence it belongs in his Presidential campaign area, until it sparks a movement whose goal is more than simply to get a candidate elected.

  It's 'not' objective, which is the problem. People are letting partisan politics get in the way of improving Wikipedia. I'll grant you that the speech is part of his campaign, naturally, and it deserves mention and inclusion on the relevant page as such. However, as a speech--that is, a speech as a piece of literature--it has received analysis and discussion outside of it's relevance to the campaign. To include that kind of information in an unrelated article (i.e, the page on his campaign) would diminish the significance of both. Wiki is not paper, we can have as many articles as we want, and we should cover all topics deserving of coverage as deeply as possible; the deletion of this page would marginalize the coverage that the speech has received as a speech and not just as part of his campaign. I hope this helps to clear up some of the confusion that people seem to have about this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, with removal of certain data that makes it Crystal Ball material. It was a very relevant speech it seems. If not keep, then at least merge. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 17:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is my first contribution to an AfD page (and one of my first contributions to WP), but I have tried to educate myself on WP's policies and this article, and I do not believe this article should be deleted. This may not be a valid argument, but I came to WP this morning and typed in "a more perfect union" and it was helpful to find this article in educating myself on this speech. I believe that it is in the best interest of all wikipedia users that his article remain on it's own as it is quite notable. Drewtwo99 (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The speech is notable. Not only has it received extensive news and opinion coverage in the media, but is it beginning to be discussed by religious groups and is being incorporated into university classes. See Groups Respond to Obama’s Call for National Discussion About Race Dr.enh (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Article on historic speech. What's more notable than that? Wide press coverage, many reliable sources commenting on speech, creation of open debate on race, changes to college curriculm. Please.... Eleven Special (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I don't contribute much but I have to say this, one of Wikipedia's strengths is that it is now chronicling events as they happen. I am in London, and don't even have basic cable. I read about the speech, watched the speech, and the very next thing I did was go to Wikipedia. I typed in "Barack Obama speech" and hit go. Three clicks later, I was at the article we are debating. I loved this speech as did many, but where would I find out if he actually wrote it? Where else would I get a perfect snapshot of how the media received it? Where did I find this sort of info for "don't tase me bro!" and other similar flash in a pan events? Who cares if the speech is nothing next week? It surely won't be, but why does it matter? The context, the content, the speaker - all HIGHLY NOTABLE. I think we are confusing newsworthy and notable these days - in fact, I can't wait to see notable on a list of words that should be retired. Maybe it has already been on such a list? I'll check, on this website, as soon as I press save page. Travisritch (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep See Notability guidline: ": A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", this topic obviously meets this requirement. Tomgreeny (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. George W. Bush pretzel incident. 'Nuff said. --TexasDex ★ 05:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Obviously meets notability criteria. Surprised that the article doesn't mention that a journalist on MSNBC said it was "possibly the most important speech on race since I Have a Dream". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on article traffic. Not exactly a keep rationale per say, but according to this handy little tool this article was viewed over 4,000 times on March 19th. Just as a point of comparison, the Hillary Clinton article was viewed a little over 9,000 times that same day. Most articles are viewed far, far less than that - anything over a thousand in a day is pretty significant I would say. Though I'm not going on any policy here (those arguments have already been amply provided), the fact that this article got 4,000 views the day it was created suggests to me that it might be worth keeping.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• • comment on article traffic comment That isn't by itself that good an argument if one believes that this is a flash in the pan news item. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • comment In fact, it makes it appear even more like a flash in the pan since the traffic has disappeared from the chart for the most recent weeks... Bardcom (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply: Weeks? Please explain. It was 4.1k the 19th and 2.9k the day after, which was yesterday. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, as Celarnor says, there are only two days of traffic data and the second shows nearly 3,000 views. I'm not really trying to convince the "flash in the pan" argument editors of anything, I'm just trying to point out that there has clearly been significant interest in the article. It's not a rationale for keeping, I just thought it was worth pointing out. I'm sure in a few weeks there will only be a few hundred hits a day at best as is the case with the majority of our articles (which have that or far, far fewer hits).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, the nominator even says the material could be merged into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. A merge means no deletion. The article shouldn't have been brought to AFD unless the nominator thinks it should be deleted. Notability is not temporary. This article doesn't look like a news report to me. --Pixelface (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep With a large number of editorials written about the speech, and the amount - and kind - of news coverage it got, and the fact Richardson listed as a reason for endorsing Obama, I'll say this speech is indeed notable and not a news event. I would not be shocked to hear about this speech, or future Obama speeches, years from now. -Aknorals (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - certainly atleast the same notability as Ich bin ein Berliner. Grsz 11 16:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. In three days, the speech has been seen 2.5 million times on YouTube under this title and discussed on thousands of blogs 1. On that basis it qualifies for notability as an internet meme alone (and is more notable than many other such Wiki articles on viral videos in Category:Internet memes). It's been the subject of dozens (possibly hundreds) of newspaper articles and editorials. It may or may not go into history books (we can't predict that). But it seems likely that its notability will hold up alongside A Time for Choosing, Chocolate City speech, Two Americas, Pound Cake speech, Checkers speech, and the other articles in Category:Speeches. And I think we can all agree that it's more likely to appear in a history book than I Got a Crush... on Obama. This is a straightforward case. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I feel right now the true impact of this speech is not yet realized because it is overshadowed by the currently larger issue related to the speaker that is, the presidential campaign and I feel that the Wikipedia 'psychology' is too eager, or even paranoid at times to distance itself from acting as any publicty outlet for any certain individual. I believe that most of time the argument is about this main issue of 'Is Wikipedia is being used for publicity?' and NOT an argument about whether it is just an 'Encyclopedia of important events or topics occuring or occured'. I am sure once the presidential race is over, there would be no such argument of the deletion of this article whatsoever, and people discussing about this speech would be doing so solely because of its content, its linguistic delivery, and other reasons solely for historical and educational reasons. Most of the times people are forgotten but what they have done or said makes them remembered. Today there are 350 million google hits for the 'I Have a Dream' speech [3] and 20 million for 'Martin Luther King' [4] but only 2.3 million hits for 'I Have a Dream Martin Luther King' search, [5], suggesting that many people especially in non-American countries perhaps would know the speech but not even knowing who said it in the first place. By contrast there are only 1 million hits for 'A More Perfect Union Barack Obama' [6] 722 thousand hits for 'Barack Obama Speech on Race' [7], but 30 million hits for 'Barack Obama' [8]. My argument is that I implore Wikipedia users to please let go of this dilemna and constant debate of trying to keep Wikipedia non publicity and solely information, because by deleting articles some Wikipedia editors find is adding publicty to one person named Barack Obama, they are also deleting something which is so much potentially informational for many other billions of people who just want information on this particular speech. I say let the people decide how they filter their information, because the election only objectively affects 300 million Americans [9], but the race-issue affects everybody on the planet, and this speech IS a key speech on that matter.Msethisuwan (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously notable and verified with adequate reliable published sources. Published sources are the sole barometer of notability, and they cover the speech in-depth. Thus, we must acknowledge it's notable. VanTucky 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Secondary sources are a barometer of notability, but right now its content for Wikinews. In November, or possible sooner, if the speech has had some kind of massive effect, then it could be recreated. Otherwise, the notability we're conferring is WP:Crystal. Mrprada911 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, and optionally rename to A More Perfect Union (Barack Obama speech) or a similar title. Speech as received generous amounts of non-trivial coverage, far above and beyond the typical stump speech. Even if Obama fails to win the nomination or the Presidency; a similar precedent has been set by Nixon's Checkers speech--a speech which brought about a temporary reversal of Nixon's political fortunes, but did not win him the White House (at least not that year).--EngineerScotty (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good analogy, but I must (well, not really must, but I will!) point out in the interests of historical accuracy that Nixon was not running for president in 1952, the year of the "Checkers speech." The objective of the speech was to address accusations about financial impropriety and thus prevent Ike Eisenhower from removing him from the GOP ticket. In that regard Nixon was successful, and of course he served two terms as VP before losing to JFK in 1960.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep From the massive amounts of attention it is garnering from the media and general populace alike, it seems clear that this speech has crossed the notability threshold. Deleting the article first pending a long-term judgement of notability would deprive it of any current editing interest, and it would take more energy/effort/trouble to re-create the article after deletion. Even if it eventually fades with the rest of the 2008 US Presidential campaign speeches, why incur the greater costs? ZZninepluralZalpha (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Anyone with a trained political eye will understand that this speach is going to be historic whether Barack Obama wins the Presidential electino or not. It will be looked back on for generations, and I say that not as an Obama supporter but as a follower and scholar of American politics. --Jkfp2004 (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This speech is already being absorbed by academia. Some insist on its future historicity, and while I'm not sure that those declarations alone make it worthy of an article, I think that when considered with the immediate critical embrace in the media and warm reception from the majority of journalists, in addition to prognostications of its high standing in historical contexts, it most certainly deserves a Wikipedia article. It's Wikipedia. I mean Wikipedia has an article on "felching." Also, I heard Billy Bob Richardson say today that it strongly influenced him to endorse Obama for President of the US. Also, as a minority, I certainly think that it is important as he IS a Presidential candidate, and he is speaking directly on matters important to some. I think that, like myself, many other minorities are sort of poring over this thing. But in the larger context, I think people in general have been poring over it...It's what drew me to google the speech, and the Wiki page popped up on the 2nd page of results -btw, anyone wanna venture to explain how you do that cool little signy thing that leaves your date, time, IP address, etc?

  You put four tildes after your post, like this: ~~~~ Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

-I will say that it needs to undergo a serious overhaul in terms of the organization and presentation of its contents, though.

• What would you suggest? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

keep - possibly revisit in 6 months, but this speech has received much attention nationally and internationally. Deletion would be premature. c'mon Tay Zonoday rates to get a page on his song (not released, but only a youtube phenom, mind you) Chocolate rain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_Rain, which I would submit, is of much less historic significance and notability. --Boscobiscotti (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. WP would be remiss not to extend its coverage to both the underlying issues, Obama's speech, and the "pro" and "anti" commentary. The underlying issues---essentially Obama and race---Obama's speech, and the extensive commentaries and political analyses require too detailed of coverage to confine within the Obama campaign article. Just as there need be an Obama campaign endorsements article and an Obama campaign positions article, there needs to be this one. Although this article should eventually come to give a broadened treatment of the contentious issues concerning race in America as it relates to Obama's campaign, certainly Obama's speech, along with all the pro-Obama commentary (regarding Obama's success via the speech) as well as all the anti-Obama commentary (about his failures to address certain issues within it) all pass the threshhold of notability. --Justmeherenow (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The large number of media opinions/analyses/etc talking about the speech give us enough to work with. This isn't primarily about whether it will be considered a major event or a footnote in a few decades (too early to say about that), but it is first and foremost about whether there are enough sources to produce a good article. Kingdon (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Per Above --The Emperor of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  This AfD is over. The Emperor is here. :P Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I believe that this speech is notable enough to qualify a wikipedia entry on two grounds. First, it is an important current events story. Currently, thousands of published news articles are discussing this speech. On youtube, the speech has been viewed more 3 million times, in less than a week. Second, the speech will likely become a historical noteworthy, regardless of the outcome of the present US election cycle. Only time will be able to prove this, but deleting this speech as un-notable at this time is premature; this speech shows all the potential of being an important, historical address.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.58.117 (talk • contribs)
• Speedy keep per many of the arguments above; this is obviously notable and encyclopedic. —Nightstallion 23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Richardson's acknowledgement that his endorsement was swayed by this speech further underlines the influential nature of this speech. It is definitely premature to delete.
• Strong Keep per Nightstallion. Also I point out that the nom has a user page that boasts of trying to get articles on left-wing subjects deleted. Kuralyov (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per all the excellent arguments. Surely this is a WP:SNOW candidate. Porterjoh (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment WP:SNOW: "If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause."--Loodog (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge - whilst the speech itself is recieving considerable press coverage, it has yet to receive sufficient independent analysis of any social impact, and as such doesn't assert the notability of, for example, Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. The material may warrant inclusion, but at this stage, probably simply within Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

By what notability standards in our policies is a speech, or anything else, required to have received "sufficient independent analysis of any social impact?" And how is the fact that this speech is not as notable as "I Have A Dream" relevant to whether or not we keep it? We do not have special notability standards for speeches, and you don't seem to disagree that the speech has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, which is our general standard for notability.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, this would be true if and only if the speech's notability was not independent of the campaign; if it was just received and analyzed as a campaign speech, it's place would be on that page. However, it has notability independent of the campaign, as it has analysis and coverage beyond the campaign itself, analyzing the speech as a speech and not as a campaign item. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per coverage. Dance With The Devil (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per media reaction to the speech, such as the New York Times editorial comparing it to Lincoln and FDR's inaugural addresses, as well as Kennedy's 1960 speech on religion. --Mass147 (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)