Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senator Murphy gun control filibuster

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.36.105.25 (talk) at 22:20, 17 June 2016 (Keep for now?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Senator Murphy gun control filibuster

Senator Murphy gun control filibuster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ansh666 04:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ansh666 04:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the inherent pointlessness of the words. They're designed to waste time, so summarizing them (if even possible) just wastes space. The thing they're stalling is often meaningful, and the results can be, too. But everything about the thing itself is nothing. If it wasn't against the rules, they could hum the same tune (or even not). Can't hum a real speech. It's why Wikipedia has a ton of those. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, June 17, 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge. I don't think Wikipedia needs new filibuster pages, although mentioning it briefly as part of describing some historical filibusters of note on the main page for the US Senate filibuster could be worthy, I would leave it up to the editors for that page. Honestly I would be just as supportive of doing so for the one filibuster page older than this one, but I am not so motivated as to nominate doing so. I think the majority of the content about this filibuster specifically that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and ongoing editorial review process should be merged with Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and further added there after the lifetime of this article. I even made a statement about how such a merger is one of the examples for why we actually need to keep that page, which is facing its own AfD, on its AfD page. Sumstream (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge- I don't think we need a separate article for an individual filibuster, and that this topic can be adequately covered in other existing articles including Chris Murphy (Connecticut politician) and the Filibuster in the United States Senate. articles.--TommyBoy (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now There is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument here which should be avoided as there is nothing stopping anyone from creating articles for other notable events. This leaves WP:NOTNEWS in the argument, I think we should wait and see before outright deletion. If this filibuster accomplishes anything notable then WP:LASTING would apply. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand it correctly, WP:OSE, it most is saying to avoid comparisons based solely on the existence or lack thereof of articles that are similar in some way. It mentions how it can be appropriate to consider, as only one factor, the total consistency within a category on the encyclopedia, here it would be "filibusters" while in WP:OTHERSTUFF its example is Star Wars main characters. That was all I was trying to do and my delete and merge suggestion was based on this having its own article seeming to be recentism when all of its good information (I am not actually meaning anything currently on it would or should need to be trimmed) could be located between the US Senate article the Chris Murphy article the shooting reactions page or the shooting page itself if the reactions page does not survive. If this event became so notable and with an actual lasting impact such that the information for it could not fit on those pages, then even I would not mind it being kept either. I don't feel like the information is lost or hidden by this not having its own article and the information can be as readily accessed in those other locations, potentially even better so. Strom Thurmond's filibuster is described in detail on all three analogous pages, his Biographical one, the US Senate one, and the article for the Civil Rights Act of 1957. I think all of what Wikipedia needs to know about his filibuster can be satisfied on those three pages, and I feel it would be most appropriate to do the same with Chris Murphy's filibuster here. Sumstream (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article on shooting, or to article on Chris Murphy. No lasting impact has been demonstrated here, and this filibuster wasn't even that long. Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The impact of this filibuster is still unfolding. AS CNN noted in response to this AFD (kidding, just kidding), The changing politics of gun control [1] , this filibuster "forced a vote" on gun control measures that was unthinkable before Murphy stood up. This, moreover, is not the sort of "routine" event that falls under NOTNEWS. Here's some post-game analysis from Brookings Institute [2], Politico [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I created the article; with a really short stub. Almost instantly, experienced editors arrived and built a solid, unbiased, well-sourced article. I regard their edits as a kind of tacit endorsement of notability. And urge editors new to this page not to allow the AFD to discourage you from improving the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly want to support this kind of initiative. My only concern is that I would want Wikipedia's coverage to be focused on factual descriptions and sourced relationships between events. I worry about something that could be more viewed as an "Agenda Timeline" when articles are created to group events by long term intent, like the described "Gun control in the United States since 2012" when the inclusion criteria starts to involve messier motivations and associations internally on the parts of the individuals involved. I similarly wouldn't want a "Ongoing efforts to fully repeal the USA PATRIOT Act" page even if I would be fine with all of the same information that would be put on that page being on Wikipedia spread across the relevant events and parties involved that were described. Sumstream (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you wrote what you meant to say at the end? It's cool if you did, just a bit absurd. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:45, June 17, 2016 (UTC)
I would ask what is the WP:RUSH here? If there was no potential for growth then yeah but I do not see this as a lost cause. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to rush, just understand why we'd rather consider deleting something after it becomes notable than before. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:03, June 17, 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Senator_Murphy_gun_control_filibuster&oldid=725792955"