The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Unlike with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016, there are no editors here advocating deletion. Since Cunard makes a good point (without opposition) that the proposed merge target is not suitable (or rather a merge at all is not the correct way to go), there is no consensus whether to merge at all and if so, where to. But a merge can be discussed at any time and this AfD does not create a precedent to keep this article in the current form. SoWhy 10:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008[edit]

Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This speech is not notable on its own. The election victory was notable. There is incredibly little in this article in terms of actual analysis of what was said, or that wouldn't be better off discussed at the appropriate articles, such as United States presidential election, 2008 and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016 for a comparable discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008; not independently notable and much of the content is uncited and / or original research. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history (if at all). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. For the same reason I voted to redirect Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016: most sources are about the victory itself and not the speech. The speech is not sufficiently notable; the victory is. κατάσταση 20:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Speeches of Barack Obama with a mention at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. As above. Neutrality^talk 20:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to speeches of Barack Obama per nom. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was an event rather than a speech.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. I think this victory speech was probably more notable than most during presidential campaigns given the broader cultural implications of the first African-American president, but the speech on its own might not be able to stand. South Nashua (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Merge per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016 immediately below. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016 and Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 or delete both or redirect both, because both have approximately the same amount of WP:RS and seem of equal significance/insignificance. I think it would make us look unfairly biased to keep one and not the other. I am open to changing my mind if I can be convinced the Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 was more significant than this one. I personally don't think either speech was significant or worth the time it takes to listen to, but we have to decide based on the WP:RS and not our own opinions, so I'm going more with the comparable WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of significance: Richard Nixon's "I am not a Crook" speech has to be more significant, and we do not have an article on that. We do have Richard_Nixon's_resignation_speech. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't understand why this is even an issue. There are 25 sources on the article, most of them from top news sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, ABC, CNN, and so on. It was obviously covered everywhere, and the fact that this was the first time a person of African descent had been elected the leader of the US (or, indeed, any major majority-white nation) is significant. Perhaps the article doesn't have in-depth analysis, but why does it need to? It covers what was deemed worth reporting at the time, such as the references made and the context. When the lack of articles for other speeches is brought up, it just makes me think that, yeah, there should be a page for the "I am not a crook" speech and such. Brettalan (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Brettalan: "the fact that this was the first time a person of African descent had been elected the leader of the US (or, indeed, any major majority-white nation) is significant" Yeah, and that's all covered at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and United States presidential election, 2008 and is quite separate from his victory speech, which received a little coverage, but not enough to justify an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is everyone urging for deletion so old (or so young) that they can't recall the widespread, ongoing coverage? Bearian (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bearian: We all remember the election coverage, but we don't see evidence of "widespread, ongoing coverage" of the speech. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the speech received widespread coverage, so it meets notability criteria. The article is a non-stub, with 24 cited references from good quality sources. This article cannot be merged without losing material. Maintaining a low-level detailed article on the speech as well as higher-level articles on the 2008 election and Obama's speeches is in keep with Wikipedia's summary style. I don't see a rationale for deletion other than deletion for deletion's sake.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Berry, Mary Frances; Gottheimer, Josh (2010). Power in Words: The Stories Behind Barack Obama's Speeches, from the State House to the White House. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 080700104X. Retrieved 2017-03-05.

     The book notes:

     When CNN flashed the news over giant video screens in Grant Park, the crowd erupted in cheers. A television camera caught a glimpse of Oprah Winfrey and Jesse Jackson; both had tears running down their cheeks. Within minutes, at around eleven, Obama received congratulatory calls from Senator McCain and President George W. Bush. In the New York Times, Adam Nagourney wrote, "People rolled spontaneously into the streets to celebrate what many described as ... a new era in a country where just 143 years ago, Mr. Obama, a black man, could have been owned as a slave." He called Obama a "phenomenon" and referred to his election as "a national catharsis".

     Obama's acceptance speech was a stem-winder. The Obama writers had outdone themselves—and they'd done it as a team. Favreau penned the first half, and the entire group, including Adam Frankel, Sarah Hurwitz, and Ben Rhodes, wrote the remainder together.

     It was a sober statement. Given the grave economic crisis, Obama did not want pageantry and bombast. He didn't want to spend those sacred minutes crowing. So, despite the evening's $2 million price tag, there were no fireworks, as some had hoped for, and no recount of the landslide. Instead, Obama framed the moment and discussed its significance. He reached out to those who hadn't voted for him—and let them know that he would be their president, too. Obama knew that would be the key to his success as commander in chief; he was now the president of all Americans.

     Obama declared, "It's been a long time coming, but ... change has come to America"—an allusion to the Sam Cooke song "A Change Is Gonna Come." He spoke about Ann Nixon Cooper, a 106-year-old African American woman, who voted that day in Atlanta, as representative of that change. In her lifetime, Cooper had seen Pearl Harbor and Selma, but she never thought she'd see a black president. Just minutes before Obama declared victory, Favreau hid underneath his desk to find a quiet spot and called Cooper. She couldn't believe her ears when he told her that the president-elect would talk about her experience in his victory speech. Change had come.

     Obama also spoke of the travails ahead, acknowledging the onerous challenges he was inheriting. Too many Americans had lost their jobs, their savings, and their homes; millions more were without health care. Brave soldiers were risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama knew that "our union [could] be perfected." But it wouldn't be easy. Echoing Martin Luther King's "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech, Obama insisted, "The road ahead will be long, our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year, or even in one term—but America, I have never been more helpful than I am tonight that we will get there."

  2. Alter, Jonathan (2010). The Promise: President Obama, Year One. New York: Simon & Schuster. pp. 38–39. ISBN 1439154082. Retrieved 2017-03-05.

     The book notes:

     It was time to give his speech. Barack Obama summoned Axelrod, who jogged to catch up to him in the tunnel as he strode toward the stage. "I just wanted you to know," Obama said, "there was a good fireworks display planned, but I killed it. Too frivolous for the times."

     Within minutes he and his family stepped forward, separated from the entire world by two-inch-thick bullet-proof glass. He began by savoring the historic "defining moment":

     If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founds is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. ...

     It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

     But he made a point of emphasizing the long struggle to come:

     I know you didn't just do this to win an election and I know you didn't do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime—two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.

     Out in Grant Park 250,000 people were more interested in the history than the challenges ahead. They celebrated with no arrests, which was almost unheard-of on festive occasions in the city. For older Chicagoans the location had a special resonance. In 1968 police had clubbed antiwar demonstrators across Michigan Avenue from the Conrad Hilton Hotel, the same area of Grant Park where Obama now gave his victory speech. The violence at that year's Democratic National Convention split the Democratic Party and helped elect Richard Nixon, who came to personify an ugly chapter in the American story. Forty years later the party's wounds seemed finally healed and some of Chicago's tortured racial history joyously transcended, at least for one night. Retired cops and long-ago hippies and their children and grandchildren all gathered in the park, this time on the same side of the barricades.

  3. Maxon, Seth; Stahl, Jeremy (2017-01-10). ""Hell Yes, I Remember That Moment". In 2008, hundreds of thousands gathered in Chicago's Grant Park for Barack Obama's victory speech. Here's how a few of them felt about Obama then, and feel about America today". Slate. Archived from the original on 2017-03-05. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
  4. Rahman-Jones, Imran (2016-11-09). "Trump v Obama: How their victory speeches compare". BBC. Archived from the original on 2017-03-05. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
  5. Snowdon, Kathryn (2016-11-09). "Barack Obama And Donald Trump Acceptance Speeches Seen Side-By-Side, Eight Years Apart". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2017-03-05. Retrieved 2017-03-05.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose a merge per Wikipedia:Summary style. There is sufficient material in the article to justify a standalone article. It would be undue weight to merge everything in Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.

  Cunard (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article contains numerous 2008 news sources already in the article. I have provided news articles from 2016 and 2017 that discuss Obama's 2008 victory speech. I have also provided two 2010 book sources that discuss it.

  Cunard (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, in my opinion, an undisputedly notable, speech of the first African American President's election victory. Sources do in fact highlight this as a specific speech. It is independently notable of his election campaign. The speech has been analyzed by academics and is therefore notable as well. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I and others have disputed that, so it's not "undisputed". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is my opinion. AfD votes are opinions based on the guidelines created to determine whether or not a subject is notable for independent coverage. I believe speeches which have been analyzed by linguists and academics are notable. When specific segments of a speech are compared to others it may by notable. I believe that the first victory speech of the first African American president should be clearly notable for independent coverage. I hope that clarifies any misunderstanding. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's verifiably false this is "undisputed" as I and others have disputed it. But this is a digression I will not continue. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.