- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Magic negro. I see a clear consensus to merge here. Drmies ( talk) 03:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Barack the Magic Negro
- Barack the Magic Negro ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In my view this is a derogatory article about a living person. There is already discussion of this topic under "parody song" within
Magical negro which is about a term that criticizes/exposes the racism of American culture, as opposed to the topic of this article, which twists that into racism and snickers over it. That we actually have an article called this, is extremely messed up, not to mention a BLP violation. I will be clear that I stumbled across this article while thinking about standards for articles about political figures based on
Short-Fingered Vulgarian which is in the process of being overwhelmingly deleted by the community
here. This article was never put up for AfD and was even on the front page of Wikipedia via a DYK. Hard to reckon. There are going to be all kinds of arguments about "well sourced" - well that is not the point, as I understand it. Derogatory intent trumps multiple independent sources. Some may call this filing POINTy; my intent is not to be disruptive but rather to understand how this article about racist mocking with its racist title can exist, a) when the topic is discussed in another article and b) while
Short-Fingered Vulgarian cannot when both are sourced out the wazoo. I really don't get it. So let's see what kinds of arguments are brought, and if the article survives. (It should not; when I came across it I wanted to AfD it but I held back to avoid accusations of POINTy. But my question is authentic, not ironic, so here we go)
Jytdog (
talk) 07:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC) (redact to clarify
Jytdog (
talk) 18:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC))
- keep It's an article on a derogatory topic about a living person. However I also believe it to be a notable derogatory topic, and that's what matters here. The magical negro trope already has its own article, it's a topic that deserves serious consideration. This song is what happens when some people with a clear political agenda find that trope and use it against their favoured target of the time. I have sympathy for Obama over this, and I recognise Jytdog's point here, but it's tough at the top - one of the costs of running for President is becoming a target for this sort of abuse.
- BTW - when his term's up and he can't constitutionally run again, can you please send him over this way to the UK? We have a vacancy for a new Prime Minister and we could really use his abilities here. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, Delete if no changes to the tone of article are made. Keep if some more cites can be included that highlight the derogatory tone of article, so it can be neutralised a bit more. I find the subject discomforting even-though it's notable. Gongwool ( talk) 10:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- On that topic, I've restored the comments by Peter Yarrow. The author of the original song didn't like this parody. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I support keeping this. But I can see no reason to delete it - if it's judged that it shouldn't be kept as a standalone article, how about merging it into magical negro? Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge with Magic N*gro article, yep I'd support that, it's already a section at the M.N. article, and more from here could merge OK. Gongwool ( talk) 11:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge into Magical negro. Binksternet ( talk) 14:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete . It is not encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian for a similar article. It is already discussed at Magical_Negro#Barack_Obama. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge into Magical negro. I fail to see the 'derogatory article' of the proposer, Sharpton seems more crudely maligned than Obama and white voters the ultimate target. The song itself may have been cruelly derogatory but it was also notably derogatory and the article is reporting, not 'snickering'. This article is different from the Trump AfD, there the subject is little more than a periodically regurgitated snipe with a high infantile snigger-factor. I'm not US, and I find this informative both for the attempt to discredit Obama/his supporters, and for how it partly backfired. Though the term is a crude way of satirising the fact, it is hardly a state secret that Obama was able to appeal to white voters because he was black, but not 'too black'. Pincrete ( talk) 22:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC) Amended, since on reflection, this is insufficiently notable for 'stand-alone'. Pincrete ( talk) 11:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not encyclopedic and not notable. VanEman ( talk) 22:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The deletion arguments strike me as inherently designed to censor Wikipedia. Beyond this, they misunderstand that nature of the song, which is inherently mocking the extreme grievance culture cultivated by Al Sharpton, including his aiding and abbetting the lies of Tawana Bradley. One has to understand how fabricated racial outrages cause people to react to such issues. The song has had demonstrated impact on some who have used it in various campaigns. Wikipedia is not censored, which means that we do not delete articles on impactful songs merely because the title is unpopular to some people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- By this line of reasoning we are censoring Wikipedia by deleting
Short-Fingered Vulgarian. This makes no sense.
Jytdog (
talk) 06:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- We already have, as short-fingered vulgarian is a fraction of the size it was, mostly because "too many refs make it less notable" [ sic].
- Mostly though, as is blatantly obvious, the 4chan-generation of WP is fine with attacks on black liberals, but Trump is their favourite candidate.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 10:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Andy Dingley, bad faith comment. There are other substantive differences between the two 'incidents' and personally I'm UK and voted 'merge' for both, though 'vulgarian' would likely end up as a single sentence (he has been called it?
but only denied the adjective ?self-striking through WP:Synth). Pincrete ( talk) 11:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Andy Dingley, bad faith comment. There are other substantive differences between the two 'incidents' and personally I'm UK and voted 'merge' for both, though 'vulgarian' would likely end up as a single sentence (he has been called it?
- By this line of reasoning we are censoring Wikipedia by deleting
Short-Fingered Vulgarian. This makes no sense.
Jytdog (
talk) 06:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- merge very briefly. -- NOT NEWS. The principle is NOT NEWS, and this type of article is one of the reasons why we have and need that policy. I would apply it not just to this article, but to almost all similar, except those with actually proven historical or literary significance. Almost all political insults have -- and are intended to haver -- only an ephemeral significance, and the middle of an election campaign is not the place to judge the permanent value. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge into Magical Negro and redirect, per Pincrete.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 18:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete is disparages a living person, it totally fails based on that alone! KoshVorlon 18:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Merge This should easily fit within the Magical Negro article. Whats there is poorly formatted so a correctly done merge should improve that article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.