Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People

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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People

George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The first line of
  WP:NSONG says "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". The parts about songs topping charts and being covered is basically an addendum to that proposition. A quick scan of Google Books shows that this song clearly meets that test, with discussion of the song still being made ten years after its debut. bd2412 T 00:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@BD2412: All the sources I can find are about the quote by Kanye West, not about the song. Can you provide a few specific examples? ― Padenton|✉   00:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added reference to two at Talk:George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People: Mary Ruth Marotte, ‎Glenn Jellenik, Ten Years after Katrina: Critical Perspectives of the Storm's Effect on American Culture and Identity (2014), p. 102-103; and David Caplan, Rhyme's Challenge: Hip Hop, Poetry, and Contemporary Rhyming Culture (2014), p. 51-52. bd2412 T 01:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found another ref in another book, [1] The Poetics of American Song Lyrics by Charlotte Pence, also found an article at the denver post about the song itself, [2] --Compn (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to a New York Times article, "Cultural Politics Art Born of Outrage in the Internet Age",

New York Times (September 26, 2005), which is almost entirely about the song, and establishes coverage as a notable work. bd2412 T 14:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep most the notability is about the quote not the song but I still think the single hits notability by itself. Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:
  WP:COATRACK for bitchin' 'bout dubbya. Pax 07:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep or merge to article on quote itself. Enough sources to show it's notable.Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, regardless about my opinion on the quote made by Kayne West, I must evaluate this AfD based on its merits. Based on the
  WP:NOTCLEANUP. Whether the content can be merged into a larger subject, is a matter of opinion that can be discussed on teh subject's talk page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This is a coatrack and attack article that should have no place in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coatrack for what? For criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina? It's not as though that is a secret that this article reveals to the surprised reader. It is more likely that this article will inform the reader about details of a song that was significant enough to get a few paragraphs of discussion in several books and reliable newspapers. bd2412 T 02:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @BD2412: None of those books have more than brief coverage of the song. As you quoted above, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". The song isn't the subject of these works. The Glenn Jellenik book relegates the song to a single paragraph. The Caplan book also covers it for no more than a few paragraphs, as does the Pence book. The song is not the subject of any of these, and the sources are listed in these books, and they're all sourcing the information from websites made by the 'artist'.― Padenton|✉   02:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The New York Times piece, however, is entirely about the song. With respect to the books, you are misreading what it means to be "the subject of" something; it does not mean that the entire book has to be about the one song, but merely that it must be addressed in the book in a non-trivial way (i.e., discussed, not merely named on a list of songs or the like). It is unusual for even a highly notable song to have a substantive book written entirely about that one song. bd2412 T 03:20, 20 April 2015 (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.