Deletion of Niggers in the White House

Comment: per nom.  And yes, this is what I meant to say: the nominator's given multiple reliable sources that cover this poem sufficiently — the nominator's tone, together with the "hurry let's get it down immediately" tone of the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=573183198#Can't_start_AfD WP:AN thread that brought me here, make it appear as if the nominator's ultimately motivated by dislike.  Citations such as #9 are from established news media, and unlike WP:NOTNEWS-violating stories on the latest events, this article uses news media from years later to demonstrate that the poem remained a topic of interest decades later.  "'''Datedness'''" is no reason to reject a source, unless it's something scholarly that's later been shown to be wrong; this would have passed our notability criteria eighty years ago, so |it remains notable now.  Meanwhile, the nominator's making irrelevant objections about certain sources not discussing the subject at all: they're given for background purposes, and they don't hurt the article.  We have enough coverage to write about the poem itself, and we have enough background information to place it in context, so let's allow it to remain a separate article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP)

Comment: Weak delete''' While notability is not temporary, I don't see how article meets the lasting effects, geographical scope, depth and duration of media coverage criterias from  guideline. It seems to be century old . Article has serious issues with sources, including citations to material that does mention the subject matter at all. Unless refimprove'd, I'm inclined to delete per nomination
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT||WP:SENSATION)

Comment: If Anthonycole is right that what he has tabulated is the sum total of the coverage of the text, what it amounts to is a number of mentions, but nothing that constitutes an analysis of the text as such. Today's (Sept 27, 13) Featured Article Whaam! is a classic example of what an actual analysis of a work consists of: sections dealing with the background and the history, a description of the work, its reception, a thorough analysis and interpretation of the work AS SUCH, and a discussion of its legacy. Niggers in the White House has apparently never been the object of such a study of the text IN ITS OWN RIGHT, and therefore clearly fails to meet the |notability guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:IDONTLIKEIT is never a valid rationale for deletion. (I don't like it either.) If it didn't meet  at the time of this nomination (which I believe it did), it certainly meets it now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: or '''merge''' into an article discussing the dinner. Clearly doesn't meet . "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria... 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." Coverage is trivial. No "keep" voters have addressed this fatal flaw, and none has given a reason to ignore the guideline. It doesn't surprise me in the least that so many here would vote to keep an article with this title that clearly fails GNG. yuk! Awesome! heh heh! Niggers in the White House! Woah! heh heh! NOTCENSORED! Yay! "Nigger nigger nigger!" "We can so we will
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as is a notable item, |Despite not liking the name It deserves an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: WP:N requires that the ''subject'' of the article be notable; per , this means that the ''subject'' have received detailed coverage in multiple independent sources. As Silverseren has clearly pointed out, this subject (the poem) has ''not'' been discussed in detail in multiple independent sources. It's been mentioned a few times, and even reprinted, but that is not itself sufficient per our notability rules. Of course, should some of the editors looking into this dig up more sources with significant coverage of the poem (i.e., not the dinner), then this could be kept or recreated
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)