Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Short-Fingered Vulgarian

Short-Fingered Vulgarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Trivial recentism. Imagine how many articles you can create for every nickname every celebrity has been called. The term 'unencyclopedic' has been used loosely before but it clearly applies here. Spellcast (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
30 years isn't "recent". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, Spellcast isn't saying that the original use of the phrase was recent, but rather that its attention in popular culture and the media is recent. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere – Of course, this is rather silly, but perhaps the mention can be merged to an appropriate article, as per WP:PRESERVE relative to the decent coverage the topic has received. North America1000 14:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, it is not encyclopedic at all, and it does indeed verges on harassment. I understand that is easy to view D. Trump negatively, but wikipedia should include comedic insults? Specially as a separate article? A lot of details form Trump's past are dug up, including "sensations" like "my date with Trump, " or "I showered with Trump" etc. This 30 years old expression would probably be forgotten if wasn't refreshed already, and soon will be forgotten by the media. Bialosz (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect. Per Northamerica1000. The notoriety and duration of the comic "feud" and the pervasiveness of the nickname are substantial. It should be borne in mind that although right now Trump is primarily being viewed in political terms, he's also had a long career in the entertainment world, and this content is thoroughly appropriate in that context. (At some point it may be appropriate to spin off a separate article or articles on Trump's career in entertainment and his media profile.) In the meantime I think this material, written in an appropriately NPOV tone, is appropriately included. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I live (thankfully) an ocean away. I'm already familiar with this term. Some political insults are trivia, some stick. Some become defining of particular politicans: Nixon and Clinton, sweaty and unshaved or cigars - you all know instantly which goes with which. This term was coined thirty years ago and it's still in use. I can hear references to Trump's "dimensions" on my national evening news broadcast in a whole different country. This is a notable term with legs (I have no idea if he has short legs). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "sweaty and unshaved (Nixon)" thing related to a history-changing event/public reaction when presidential political debate was newly broadcast on TV versus the radio. The "cigar" thing related to Bill Clinton's impeachment proceeding, again having significance relating to a historic event. Do you have any similar historic significance to offer re the "short-fingered" thing? (If not then I'd say your comparison argument breaks down.) IHTS (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't work by historical significance here, we work by the independent attention paid to it. This issue has garnered attention - fanned substantially by Trump himself. It also matters less if Nixon was unshaved or was even seen as looking unshaven - what matters is that the newspapers discussed it the day after. Clinton didn't smoke a cigar in the hearing, I don't even know if cigars were mentioned, but they were certainly mentioned in the press. The finger issue has received that same attention. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your two examples (do you even know what the cigar reference you made is about?; it appeared you did, then subsequently that you don't) had some historical import/significance, so was reasonable to assume you chose them in whole/part for that reason. Now you're saying historical significance is irrelevant to notability, and the only basis you give for notability is the thing got "attention". If I tell you that being in print or generating attention and therefore references isn't sufficient for WP:Notability, it just might just kill me by boredom. (So I won't.) That apparently is your single argument, without qualification towards editorial judgement (save the element of some degree of historical significance, which you said is a ghost). IHTS (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, is there a separate article on Nixon's beard-stubble? On Clinton's cigar? On any/all of the various alleged Presidential/Presidential-candidates' peccadilloes through the years? Shearonink (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
well, we do have Barack the Magic Negro, Barack Obama "Joker" poster, Shut up your mouse, Obama, You didn't build that. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But nothing on the cigar or its close relative, The Blue Dress, or the stubble... Shearonink (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have established beyond any reasonable doubt that extremely derogatory memes can have articles in Wikipedia. We can have this kind of raw racist shit but somehow Trump's short fingers are immune? Makes zero sense - apparently the NOTABILITY standards for political memes are far more flexible than any of the "deletes" here are aware of. Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Binders full of women, Miss Me Yet?, and Series of tubes, but as far as I am concerned this conversation ended with Barack the Magic Negro. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does someone really need to do the cliche thing and link you WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Maybe those subjects merit an article, maybe they don't. But the fact that they exist right now is not an argument that this one should. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fyddlestix if you actually read what I wrote here I have explicitly said that I am not making an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. What I said was that the community standards for NOTABILITY and what constitutes an "attack article" seems very low in this topic area. You are surely aware that various topic areas have their own tweaks on the basic NOTABILITY standards. People can disagree but do not distort what i am saying. Just don't do it. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - First, it was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. While other editors have edited the article, the entirety of the content was contributed by a user who has been persistently promoting a comparison of Trump to Hitler. Even if none of that were true, the article should not exist independently of Mr. Trump's main biography, if at all. I suppose WP:DUEWEIGHT suggests that some mention should be given in the biography, but WP:NOTSCANDAL suggests that this type of content falls short of our goal of being a serious encyclopedia. Technically, the article should be deleted because Acroterion has removed the attribution required by WP:CC BY-SA, although I don't fault him for it.- MrX 17:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure the attribution chain is any more compromised by the removal of the originating username than if intervening usernames are redacted. I'd propose starting over again if that's an issue, though it's a bit bureaucratic. I have no view on the actual notability issue here. Acroterion (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Article is not encyclopedic in the least.CFredkin (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - If this material is worthy of including in an encyclopedia at all (which I seriously question) it can be dealt within the main Trump article. Obvious troll is obvious, we shouldn't be giving crap like this the time of day. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Rayukk and Spellcast's arguments—at most, this might deserve a single sentence in the article Donald Trump, if that. Moreover, if, as MrX says, the content of the article was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, it should be deleted for that reason as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'strong keep i saw the posting at BLPN about this and came here just to check it out, thinking "hoax" or something but the number of legit sources that discuss this in depth was surprising to me. Meets GNG by a mile. About the G5 speedy tag, this has been worked over extensively (by MrX, ironically) and so the tag was no longer applicable - I am the one who removed it. That said, given the overwhelming "delete" response, i would of course accept a merge to the main Trump article. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC) (modify, after seeing what other kind of political memes we have articles for; paying mind to the genre standards for NOTABILITY is important Jytdog (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)) (striking Jytdog (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
    I think it's worth mentioning that my work on the article consisted of removing the most glaring WP:BLP violations and using Refill to fill in references.- MrX 20:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, which constitutes a review and acceptance of the content added by the banned user. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm pretty sure that's not how it works, but in case there's any question, I do not accept the content added by the banned blocked user.- MrX 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the Trump article need a sentence on this? It seems like it certainly doesn't need this kind of non notable attack material added to it. --Malerooster (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be because you've just deleted half the sources Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was mainly an attempt to remove sources and strengthen the argument that the article has notability. If you go through my edit history, I have done the same for other pages as well, and after three sources that say the same thing, nothing is really gained when you have ten sources that all state the same fact. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"an attempt to remove sources and strengthen the argument that the article has notability. "
That's not an argument, that's nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excess sources always impress that the case for notability was weak to begin with. So to weed them is productive & helpful towards making any case of notability. What's nonsense is your accuse of nonsense. IHTS (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or better Merge. As Jytdog says, remarkably well sourced over a period of years. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is to be kept at all, it should either redirect to Spy Magazine or to Graydon Carter's article. This seems to mostly center around a "feud" between the two that includes the phrase but isn't limited to it. Most of the coverage on this specific phrase is relatively recent despite it being used in the 80s, as it's from the past few months with the exception of a handful of articles written in October of last year like this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
recent sources doesn't mean WP:RECENTISM. This is an almost thirty year old meme and of the 33,000 google hits of which many are low quality, here is one from 1989, one from 1990, the cover article from 1999 Jewish Weekly, Newsweek in 2004 completely just tossed in, a nice 2006 NYT piece by Christopher Buckley, 2004 Globe and Mail in the headline of a review of the Apprentice when it first came out, slate in 2006 again in reference to goings-on on The Apprentice, Gawker in 2008 picking up the gawntlet, national post in 2006 remarking contemporaneously with Trump making his quote about "In fact, my fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body." " which he did away back then in 2006. And there are many, many over the decades. It has been a touchstone since it was coined and hammered on by Grayson. Jytdog (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bishonen apparently for politicians the NOTABILITY standard is much lower and BLP is more lax. See Barack the Magic Negro, Barack Obama "Joker" poster, Shut up your mouse, Obama, You didn't build that, Binders full of women, Miss Me Yet?, and Series of tubes. Not to mention Macaca (term). And we do it for brits, apparently: Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph. I am not making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; I am saying that for this genre of articles, these are the community standards. This article is way more strongly sourced than almost any of those. Jytdog (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(My god, hasn't the Ed Miliband bacon sandwich article been deleted yet?) OK, I expect you're right; this actually is the US- + GB-pedia, not an "international encyclopedia" at all. However, I don't understand why you and other keep !voters argue per "well sourced", as the nomination is nothing to do with sources. I don't see a single delete !vote complaining about sources. Massively sourced doesn't help if something's undue, trivial, and insulting to a living person. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I hear you kind of. But again it seems that for politicians that standard is very very low. Again, Barack the Magic Negro which has never been AfDed and was even on the front page as a DYK. That is WP's standards for this sort of thing. (as for the global thing, Trump is likely going to be the republican candidate and the world media is very aware of that) Trump has spent most of his career in the tabloids and this description stuck to him then and is still stuck to him. I cannot see how it is even close to being as demeaning as Barack the Magic Negro. I am baffled - really baffled - by anyone freaking out on "Short-Fingered Vulgarian" in light of the standards we have. Jytdog (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in BLP that says "this stuff doesn't apply to politicians." Trump is clearly the victim of a crude verbal attack and we should WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The other rubbish should go too.Talk to SageGreenRider 11:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we went through this nonsense in 2012 (and probably 2008 and before), and I argued for deletion for pretty much every one of these things last time around too. Wikipedia should make an effort to stay above the fray and not act as a proxy battleground for these politicians and their supporters. I know; it's hard to type that without laughing. —Torchiest talkedits 12:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't funny or cute to me, and this is why I don't edit about politics. This phrase is sourced out the wazoo by multiple people (not just Grayson) for nearly 30 years, and people are having a cow. But Barack the Magic Negro is just fine and hey DYK worthy. Barak. The... Magic. Negro. A proud, proud, Wikipedia article indeed. A good reminder for me to stay the hell out of topics where there are poor sources and active online communities. There is no reason here. Ya'all will do as you will do. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Per your comparisons in this discussion, don't forget about Piggate. North America1000 13:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm that article is so long! and exists. oy. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's cute or funny, I'm saying these articles are ridiculous. What's funny is the suggestion that WP will somehow not get sucked into political battles. I knew it was impossible when I said it, but it's still something to strive for. If it makes you feel any better, we did manage to delete Obama Eats Dogs. —Torchiest talkedits 15:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an attack page. I'm no fan of Trump at all, but that's straight-up an attack page from a non-reliable source who's only purpose is to deride Donald Trump. Delete and salt ! KoshVorlon 15:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BLP states that we can't say critical things without sourcing that they already have an independent notability outside WP. This does. It has had such for thirty years. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consesnsus is against a merge. My proposal is a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE notes that Wikipedia should not give more prominence to a concept inside Wikipedia than it receives outside. Mentioning the concept in Donald Trumps article would be in line with the relative importance of this. Dedicating an entire, stand-alone article is a BLP violation of its own self because of the undue level of prominence it gives to a minor issue. --Jayron32 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not simply delete. A selective merge would be a reasonable compromise. There's ample RS to demonstrate that the phrase has notability and is not just a recent creation. Tricky Dick is likewise a redirect to Richard Nixon, with a single sentence and cite for this usage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge and I'm noting that even some editors voting Delete are saying that they'd be okay with including a sentence or two on the main Trump article (under media coverage?) about this. I don't think the subject warrants a stand-alone article (and deletion of those Obama articles should be considered, too) but the fact is that this reference to short fingers comes up and it could be an element of the Trump campaign that readers are looking for clarification of. It would be BLP violation if Wikipedia stated Trump had these fingers while I think it's fine to include a mention of Grayson's term to indicate Trump's frosty relationship with NYC papers and magazines over the past three decades. It's part of his public profile, it's a feud that Trump brings up himself. It's the feud that is notable, not what Trumps fingers are like that matters. So, I vote for a neutrally worded, explanatory statement on the Trump bio would benefit readers, whatever their political leanings. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Salt Breaks BLP rules, entirely non encyclopedic, frivolous, has little informational value, and breaks the Letter and Spirit of Wikipedia. scope_creep (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not independently useful as a separate article. Created for shits and giggles.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at most this deserves a line in the main article, but I don't even thing that it deserves that. I am sure there are lots of nicknames for Mr. Trump, but we are not mandated to include every single one. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at most this deserves a line in the main article. Although the reference may have 'gone round in circles' for umpteen years. It has not been the subject of any significant events/coverage etc. Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is a real thing, it has been talked about for over 30 years, there are abundant sources. It is now relevant to current events. It is true and it is verifiable. While it may not justify an article I don't think the content of this article should go down the memory hole. It should find a home in another article. HighInBC 14:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as an attack page on a living person; echoing MelanieN. Fylbecatulous talk 14:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing more than a symptom of the ridiculously long election process in the USA. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 ) 01:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Short-Fingered_Vulgarian&oldid=1095474774"