Deletion of You didn't build that

Comment: although this article has had issues AFD is about whether a subject is notable or not. The subject clearly passes  and its notability is far greater than that normally prescribed to  as the coverage of the subject went far beyond the standard X went to Y, or the weather is Z at A on day B
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech kept it in August and |Notability is not temporary. The nominator is trying to get a second shot at deleting the article by recycling old arguments. Scjessey and Mastcell  ed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2012&diff=508334625&oldid=508315269http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2012&diff=508335544&oldid=508335111http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2012&diff=508337099&oldid=508336790http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2012&action=historysubmit&diff=510155551&oldid=510147312http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2012&action=historysubmit&diff=510486941&oldid=510374934http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2012&action=historysubmit&diff=512434073&oldid=512432847http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2012&action=historysubmit&diff=512460608&oldid=512455612 to whitewash all mentions out of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. Their  is all over Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 and Talk:Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2012/Archive_2. The same thing happened on the Romney campaign article Talk:Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012/Archive_2#You_didn.27t_build_that. If this article is merged, supporters on each side will remove unfavorable coverage from their articles until none is left
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:TAGTEAM||WP:EDITWAR||WP:OWN)

Comment: Having stood on the floor of the Republican National Convention while they played video after video about this comment (I missed the song about it unfortunately), I can't see how the fact that it was blown way out of proportion makes it somehow non-notable.  Yes, this was made notable by a partisan media machine, but that doesn't somehow erase the fact that it was made notable.  My one objection is the name:  It's a violation of  as the quote, in and of itself, has a partisan connotation.  Let's change it to something like "'You didn't build that' remark meaning controversy," "Barack Obama 'You didn't build that' remark meaning controversy" or even "Dispute over Barack Obama's usage of the phrase 'You didn't build that'" or something really clunky with that - the tendency with political topics is to choose long, boring names over more accessible, familiar ones
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article titles (WP:POVTITLE)

Comment: If Wikipedia is to conform to , consistency is important.  We have articles promoting left-wing memes such as the Todd Akin "legitimate rape" and Seamus Incident articles.  This would appear to fall in the same category, with a broadly similar level of notability, but in the opposite direction.  I wouldn't mind deleting all such articles from both sides, but deleting this while keeping those would be grossly unfair
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: As with similar US political memes, the fact that something got a lot of media coverage means that it ''may'' have an article, not that it  ''must''. Covering political campaigns at this minute level of detail is the job of newspapers, not (per ) the job of an encyclopedia. Appropriately condensed coverage in the articles about the election, the campaign or the candidate suffices entirely
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Easily passes GNG, plus 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: I think this is about an event, not a meme, for the reasons I mentioned above &ndash; it's mostly narrative and not as much about, for instance, all the different ways this comment was used in the campaign or how there was some popular you-didn't-build-that tumblr or something.  I don't think this is an event with a lasting impact per .  Insofar as this actually ''is'' about a campaign strategy/theme or meme, it seems to belong more in the 2012 presidential election article than it warrants its own article here.  I don't think that Wikipedia should have separate articles on all the different campaign themes of US elections unless the themes are ''particularly'' notable or influential, which I don't think this is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENTS)

Comment: This is based on a single news event, and is not notable as a whole to be an encyclopedia article. Keeping the article is subscribing to . Wikipedia is not a news site, nor does it function as a repository or forum for s
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:NEWSEVENT)

Comment: because Wikipedia is not a directory for campaign minutiae, which have a place in the campaign article, which exists. It's an example of ecentism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R)

Comment: It clearly has sufficiant sources to pass , although it would probably be better without some of the blogs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per nomination, Wikipedia is not news and is not a newspaper. Subject is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Fails vent as well as there is no claim or evidence to lasting significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:E)