Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niggers in the White House
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
— User:Nyttend, 18:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NTEMP (Wikipedia:Notability)