Deletion of 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech

Comment: Major speech from an incumbent president. |Is very noteworthy for its own article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: there has been a recent thread of discussion that support deletion stating it should be deleted because of the editors who support the keeping, and/or renaming of this article. The notability of this article is not related to who created this article, or who edits it, see 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:ADHOM)

Comment: clearly meets  per several thousand google news hits, as long as it meets that threshold, I see no reason to delete it. It is extremely well-sourced
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:SPINOFF "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not POV forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary, conform to |Neutral Point of View." The speech article covers all  viewpoints, satisfies  and is not a . If anything, the Obama campaign  article has POV problems due to 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:RS||WP:NPOV||WP:POVFORK||WP:OWN)

Comment: The numerous |reliable sources which have covered this topic establish that it clearly satisfies .  '''If editors are using this article as a oatrack''' (and I'm not saying that they are), oatrack is just an essay, and even if it's legitimate concern, this can be addressed through '''normal editing of the article'''.  I see no policy-based reason to delete the article.  Indeed, the nomination makes no policy-based reason for deletion.  Instead, the nomination argues that the article should be deleted not because it doesn't satisfy , but because "'''Republicans are trying to use as an attack'''".  Since when do we care whether a particular political party likes (or dislikes) an article?  Again, this nomination has no bearing in Wikipedia policy as far as I can see
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:C||WP:GNG)

Comment: as  for the quotation—also, . If kept or recreated, a rename to You didn't build that is appropriate; let the topic stand or fall on its own merits instead of burying it with another topic. The analogy to JFK's inaugural is spurious, as that event had lasting significance and notable passages besides just "Ask not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: per Carrite and Purplebackpack89.  Notable it is, but it is also a |shameless content fork.  FWIW, I also felt the same recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India and state sponsored terrorism, which ended up being deleted, so that |should be a precedent. Now, if, and only if, it becomes a major issue in the campaign, then, it could be re-created later
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK||WP:OUTCOMES)

Comment: to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012. At this point, it is not known whether this will prove to be a case of |recentism or if it will be of lasting significance beyond this campaign. What we do know is that the incident has received considerable coverage in the short term and is a notable event within the 2012 Obama campaign. So for now let's limit it to the campaign article and see how it plays out long term. The article can be recreated if persistent coverage over time proves it notable beyond 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENTISM||WP:1E)

Comment: article clearly passes , has https://www.google.com/search?q=%222012+Roanoke+Obama+campaign+speech%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1#q=%22You+didn%27t+build+that%22&hl=en&tbm=nws&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=mdQpUI_QFYrPigKGz4HwBg&ved=0CCYQpwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=2d16df18ddb8d915&biw=859&bih=853 14K google news hits, and  https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%222012+Roanoke+Obama+campaign+speech%22&num=50#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22You+didn%27t+build+that%22&oq=%22You+didn%27t+build+that%22&gs_l=serp.3..0l4.87102.90829.0.91103.23.21.0.0.0.0.190.2398.4j17.21.0.les%3Bcesh..0.0...1.ZHspZA7G10s&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=8171fb77536c4765&biw=859&bih=853 12.8 million general google hits; this clearly means that the speech received ''significant coverage''. Although one can argue that the content of this newly created article can be merged and redirected to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, the content about the speech there was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2012&diff=506968851&oldid=506966707 deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The article is certainly |notable and qualifies for a page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: let us look at -REASON. The article does not meet any speedy deletion reasoning, the article does not have any copyright violations, the article is not vandalism, advertising, or spam
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)

Comment: This is an obvious content fork and |Coatrack. One can look at the discussions on the Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012|Obama 2012 Presidential campaign Talk page(as well as the article in question) and see this is an obvious attempt to deceive and use Wikipedia. Thanks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: As regards the  objection, it's clear that the Romney campaign is making "you didn't build that" a continuing rallying point of their campaign. For example, see "you '''did''' build that" in Paul Ryan's http://washingtonexaminer.com/paul-ryan-comes-out-swinging-if-you-have-a-small-business-you-did-build-that/article/2504641 speech as newly-minted VP candidate. For better or worse, this incident's legacy is sticking around
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERSISTENCE)

Comment: I don't believe  applies in this case.  If editors are saying the article is biased, the obvious solution is to fix the bias.  If the case is that the article is mostly about the reactions to the speech rather than the speech content itself, that's pretty common; look at Reagan's Neshoba County Fair "states' rights" speech (where almost the entire article is about the reception to the speech - and correctly so IMHO) as an example.  Speeches are measured by their impact.  If the speech didn't have much of a reaction, then it wouldn't be notable.  Whether the reaction is negative or positive is not relevant when judging notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: Per Dave Dial; this is clearly an |inappropriate content fork. There doesn't seem to be much support for including the speech at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 (see talk page). When the discussion there goes against you, you can't make an end-run by creating a standalone article - but that's what appears to have happened here. Delete this inappropriate content fork, |trout-slap the people who created it, and direct them back to the presidential campaign article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:TROUT)