240:
Is there any relevance to this article? Despite the numerous references, this is nothing but a bunch of vulture journalists jerking each other off. What was the "controversy" here? Some people didn't like his fashion choice on one day. That's hardly a controversy. This deserves maybe one sentence in
655:. How can we vote "delete" when this was widely covered in reputable media outlets? We shouldn't decide "notability" on subjective or other arbitrary criteria. We may not want to believe this is notable, but the various good/primary sources prove that it is, concurrent with wikipedia standards.
819:. They made it such a yuuuuuuuge issue. Now, with tens of thousands of Americans dying, it seems trivial, which of course it was. That's the point of the article: the media attacks a black man or a women over their attire. It was headline, above-the-fold news for weeks, and remains a popular
706:
A prime example of how a "dumb" subject, even one primarily notable for how dumb it is, can be an encyclopedically valuable article. In this case, the importance comes from the ongoing polemic reference to this nothingburger, by Trump critics, to rhetorically contrast Obama's "scandal-free"
567:, yet that hasn't led to Knowledge being dismissed as a tabloid or the sort -- concerns over reliability are what people usually have over Knowledge, not over the subjects it covers. I ought to clear up a COI though, as I contributed a good deal to the Obama tan suit controversy article.
724:
423:
What is there to say about this topic? Obama wore a tan suit. Some people didn't like it. Others did. Some people thought the controversy is frivolous. That's all. Everything else in the article is merely providing context. I think it makes sense to
584:
Probably the dumbest dispute to have graced the moldy minds of right wing talk show hosts, and I think the article gives far too much weight to the people who had a problem with it, but it is a topic that passes GNG and NEVENT.
209:
420:
Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season"
634:. Maybe a silly topic for some, but Knowledge explores plenty of similar minutiae of all types, so long as the sources are there and the article is in compliance with Knowledge policy. I think there is an element of
459:
If we keep these types of articles, Knowledge will soon turn into one of those sources considered inappropriate per it's own guidelines. Absolutely unworthy subject. Here it's more about common sense then
707:
presidency with Trump's constant norm-flauting. This use, and the conservative push-back against it, makes this an important story to record with detailed context. Certainly this is not a case where
338:
of notability. As the nominator put it, this topic is only covered because "a bunch of... journalists jerking each other off", not because suitghazigate (thoughts?) had any impact whatsoever.
672:
Even reputable media outlets still air a lot of junk news to fill airtime and column space that doesn't deserve later consideration, thus my vote! here. I'll say no more besides that.
203:
602:
per Hog Farm; this article makes us look absolutely awful and has only continued to have any kind of fleeting N thanks to AM talk radio 'remember when?'ing this non-troversy.
638:
with this one. There is nothing wrong with this article. It's rather illustrative of
American political and popular culture, it can inform the reader and does no damage.
162:
268:
287:
135:
130:
139:
122:
109:
786:
story has sources and is clearly noteworthy, but it is too much to say that it is deserving of a standalone encyclopedia article, as others have stated.
94:
169:
530:
Not a fair comparison with Eden or
Eisenhower, because those were about lasting trends, while this was about a one day's wardrobe choice controversy.
392:. Yes, you may personally think that it was a dumb controversy (I also hold this opinion), but it happened. I'm thinking this is a case of
224:
191:
741:
Specifically, the ongoing at-least-annual "remember when" analysis of this event and contrast with indicates notability under the
126:
89:
82:
17:
185:
865:
840:
795:
766:
736:
696:
664:
647:
626:
594:
576:
539:
521:
472:
447:
405:
376:
347:
322:
299:
279:
260:
64:
441:
254:
779:
181:
742:
103:
99:
488:. The topic has had enduring coverage and seems comparable with our other articles about the dress of VIPs such as
295:
118:
70:
231:
882:
590:
517:
40:
708:
393:
860:
343:
878:
643:
635:
572:
497:
468:
291:
197:
36:
639:
812:
808:
791:
762:
755:
national impact and very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards
732:
586:
535:
513:
318:
750:
687:
617:
310:
not an encyclopedia worthy subject in spite of the references. If we must: redirect or merge it to
217:
509:
505:
401:
372:
418:
notability. This article falls into trivial or sensational information as described in NEVENT:
853:
836:
783:
660:
563:
about it hurting the quality of the encyclopedia because
Knowledge is known for covering some
493:
435:
339:
272:
248:
78:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
877:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
712:
568:
560:
556:
489:
485:
464:
389:
364:
804:
787:
758:
728:
531:
314:
675:
605:
481:
55:
849:
824:
552:
501:
461:
425:
397:
385:
368:
360:
356:
331:
827:. Even a Chad or a Karen knows that. Future readers yet unborn need to know how the
832:
828:
656:
564:
429:
311:
242:
747:
cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down
156:
817:
to this very day it was and is a huge problem for many media types on the Right
367:
somehow, but deleting this makes the encyclopedia better. Completely trivial.
52:. Perhaps the merger option could be further explored on the talk page.
815:! Look, I'm not so old that I'm not the only person who knows that
384:
The Obama Tan Suit controversy caused enough noise to have it pass
820:
873:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
715:
policies. I added some material clarifying this importance
330:. First, I note that this topic probably, somehow, passes
359:
as a reason to delete this. Somehow it manages to pass
716:
152:
148:
144:
216:
723:Note also that a recent biography of Obama devotes
496:. The worst case would be merger into one of the
823:on social media to this day. Of course it passes
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
885:). No further edits should be made to this page.
780:Public image of Barack Obama#Personal appearance
500:that we have about Obama per policies including
286:Note: This discussion has been included in the
267:Note: This discussion has been included in the
428:here if this really qualifies for an article.—
269:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
230:
8:
288:list of Fashion-related deletion discussions
110:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
285:
266:
782:, where it would find a good home. This
754:
746:
551:It's a dumb controversy but it passes
7:
334:. That said, GNG only establishes a
24:
95:Introduction to deletion process
414:As Mdaniels5757 said, GNG only
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
85:(AfD)? Read these primers!
902:
711:should trump the relevant
355:I'm going to have to pull
119:Obama tan suit controversy
71:Obama tan suit controversy
65:07:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
866:15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
841:01:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
796:20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
767:01:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
737:01:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
697:22:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
665:10:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
648:04:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
627:02:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
595:23:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
577:17:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
540:21:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
522:12:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
473:10:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
448:01:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
406:00:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
377:23:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
348:22:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
323:22:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
300:21:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
280:21:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
261:20:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
875:Please do not modify it.
813:O, the audacity of taupe
32:Please do not modify it.
83:Articles for deletion
743:WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
749:, which clarifies
559:. I disagree with
241:another article. —
709:WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC
694:
624:
494:Eisenhower jacket
394:WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT
302:
282:
100:Guide to deletion
90:How to contribute
63:
893:
863:
858:
695:
690:
684:
683:
678:
625:
620:
614:
613:
608:
561:User:Less Unless
490:Anthony Eden hat
426:ignore all rules
292:Lord Bolingbroke
277:
235:
234:
220:
172:
160:
142:
80:
62:
60:
53:
34:
901:
900:
896:
895:
894:
892:
891:
890:
889:
883:deletion review
861:
854:
809:Devonian_Wombat
727:to this event.
688:
681:
676:
673:
618:
611:
606:
603:
587:Devonian Wombat
273:
177:
168:
133:
117:
114:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
899:
897:
888:
887:
869:
868:
856:Blue Rasberry
843:
798:
772:
771:
770:
769:
720:
719:
701:
700:
699:
650:
636:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
629:
597:
579:
545:
544:
543:
542:
525:
524:
498:numerous pages
475:
453:
452:
451:
450:
409:
408:
379:
350:
325:
304:
303:
283:
238:
237:
174:
113:
112:
107:
97:
92:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
898:
886:
884:
880:
876:
871:
870:
867:
864:
859:
857:
851:
847:
844:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
799:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
774:
773:
768:
764:
760:
756:
753:'s language:
752:
748:
744:
740:
739:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
721:
717:
714:
710:
705:
702:
698:
693:
691:
680:
679:
671:
668:
667:
666:
662:
658:
654:
651:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
630:
628:
623:
621:
610:
609:
601:
598:
596:
592:
588:
583:
580:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
547:
546:
541:
537:
533:
529:
528:
527:
526:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
476:
474:
470:
466:
463:
458:
455:
454:
449:
445:
444:
439:
438:
433:
432:
427:
422:
417:
413:
412:
411:
410:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
380:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
324:
320:
316:
313:
309:
306:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
284:
281:
278:
276:
270:
265:
264:
263:
262:
258:
257:
252:
251:
246:
245:
233:
229:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
183:
180:
179:Find sources:
175:
171:
167:
164:
158:
154:
150:
146:
141:
137:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:
111:
108:
105:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
87:
86:
84:
79:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
874:
872:
855:
845:
831:used to be.
829:silly season
816:
800:
775:
751:WP:EVENTCRIT
703:
685:
674:
669:
652:
631:
615:
604:
599:
581:
565:wacky topics
548:
477:
456:
442:
436:
430:
419:
415:
381:
352:
340:Mdaniels5757
335:
327:
312:Barack Obama
307:
275:CAPTAIN RAJU
274:
255:
249:
243:
239:
227:
221:
213:
206:
200:
194:
188:
178:
165:
76:
57:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
745:guideline:
640:Zloyvolsheb
569:Apathetizer
510:WP:PRESERVE
506:WP:NOTPAPER
465:Less Unless
336:presumption
204:free images
805:FourViolas
788:StonyBrook
759:FourViolas
729:FourViolas
532:StonyBrook
512:, &c.
421:reporting.
315:Lightburst
58:Sandstein
879:talk page
725:a sidebar
713:WP:NEVENT
557:WP:NEVENT
486:WP:CENSOR
390:WP:NEVENT
365:WP:NEVENT
37:talk page
881:or in a
443:contribs
416:presumes
398:Amielkpo
369:Hog Farm
256:contribs
163:View log
104:glossary
39:or in a
848:Passes
833:Bearian
689:chatter
670:Comment
657:Nic T R
619:chatter
482:WP:NPOV
431:Naddruf
332:the GNG
244:Naddruf
210:WP refs
198:scholar
136:protect
131:history
81:New to
862:(talk)
850:WP:GNG
825:WP:GNG
600:Delete
553:WP:GNG
514:Andrew
502:WP:ATD
462:WP:GNG
457:Delete
386:WP:GNG
361:WP:GNG
357:WP:IAR
353:Delete
328:Delete
308:Delete
182:Google
140:delete
778:with
776:Merge
225:JSTOR
186:books
170:Stats
157:views
149:watch
145:links
16:<
846:Keep
837:talk
821:meme
807:and
803:per
801:Keep
792:talk
784:news
763:talk
733:talk
704:Keep
677:Nate
661:talk
653:Keep
644:talk
632:Keep
607:Nate
591:talk
582:Keep
573:talk
555:and
549:Keep
536:talk
518:talk
484:and
480:per
478:Keep
469:talk
437:talk
402:talk
388:and
382:Keep
373:talk
363:and
344:talk
319:talk
296:talk
290:. –
250:talk
218:FENS
192:news
153:logs
127:talk
123:edit
516:🐉(
492:or
232:TWL
161:– (
852:.
839:)
811:.
794:)
765:)
757:.
735:)
663:)
646:)
593:)
575:)
538:)
520:)
508:,
504:,
471:)
446:)
440:~
404:)
396:.
375:)
346:)
321:)
298:)
271:.
259:)
253:~
212:)
155:|
151:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
129:|
125:|
835:(
790:(
761:(
731:(
718:.
692:)
686:(
682:•
659:(
642:(
622:)
616:(
612:•
589:(
571:(
534:(
467:(
434:(
400:(
371:(
342:(
317:(
294:(
247:(
236:)
228:·
222:·
214:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
184:(
176:(
173:)
166:·
159:)
121:(
106:)
102:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.