Deletion of Barack Obama Joker poster

Comment: Per . Encyclopedias do not have articles for every individual political attack. Do we have an article about how http://www.bushorchimp.com/ people compared George W. Bush to  a chimp, or how opponents compared Lincoln to an "http://scribalterror.blogs.com/scribal_terror/2005/06/who_was_the_ape.html Ape Lincoln?" Many presidents have been ridiculed, and in general the attacks are unencyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The article clearly satisfies |notability requirements. Multiple |reliable sources have covered the poster's controversy. OTNEWS does not apply to this article because a) The poster is not an event; it's a form of political "art", and b) The controversy surrounding the image's removal from flickr and the poster being used by anti-Obama protesters demonstrates periodic news coverage. Although some may find the image distasteful, the article meets necessary criteria and is in no way an endorsement of the poster's message
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This is the moral equivalent of .  For pity's sake, do we have articles on every media blip a politician ever has?  Is there an article on the (then) notorious Jimmy Carter rabbit incident?  (No.)  Is there an article on George Bush bicycling into a tree and cracking his arm?  (No
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: though we may wish to consider a protected redirect to a section of another article afterwards. This is scurrilous nonsense that is a textbook example of . Past precedent indicates we don't cover "internet memes" when they reflect unfairly and negatively on living people. As someone else said, this will probably be forgotten in a year; if not, we can always reconsider it then. We don't have an article on George W. Bush chimpanzee comparisons and we shouldn't have this either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This is about as notable as giving Stephen Harper's picture where he holds a kitten it's own article. (http://broadcastthis.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/stephen-harper-kitten.jpg). It's been used in countless facebook groups to laugh at Harper, and many online campaigns and so on. Notability doesn't mean "mentioned on the interwebs", see  (and replace "person" with "anything
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: it's |verifiable and reasonably well-written. Notability is not policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:N)

Comment: It seems odd to me that people are voting delete based on  considering the amount of press coverage it http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/pop-20438-anti-posters.html continues to get. This really isn't a "smattering" of coverage like the nom. suggested
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Blatantly against WP:NOT#NEWS with a lot of  in the mix. Brief spurts of media coverage unfortunately fool some people into the illusion of long-term historical significance. The same user also creating Barack Obama fly swatting incident, Michelle Obama's arms, and Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion is a testament to an inability to separate Wikinews-type material from encyclopedia entries with long-term historical notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM)

Comment: Meets the general notability guideline, as can be seen from all the reliable sources at the bottom of the article. Even if this turns out to be a negligible blip in the course of history, |Wikipedia is not paper and has plenty of room for such information
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: suspected article, also 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)