| Revision as of 16:34, 27 August 2007 editItaliavivi (talk | contribs)2,551 edits I have taken just the site criterea, not the entire text.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:47, 8 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (40 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''Merged''' to ]. There was obviously no consensus at all to delete here, so the only decision was whether this should be kept as a separate article or merged. Given how short this article is and weighing the opinions below, I see a strong case for a merge at this point based on the strength of the arguments advocating that. The content can always be broken back out in the future if there is enough content and notability to merit a full article.--] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|W}} | |||
| {{Calm talk}} | |||
| :{{la|My.BarackObama.com}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|My.BarackObama.com}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| Blatant advertising and canvassing. An article advertising a website that's sole purpose is to garner support for a candidate in the 2008 presidential election. ] 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | Blatant advertising and canvassing. An article advertising a website that's sole purpose is to garner support for a candidate in the 2008 presidential election. ] 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''', and '''oppose merging'''. Abides fully by ]. Read the (many) references at the article. It was a first-of-its kind use of online ] by a political candidate, and (source: NY Times) toward online social networking. This article is not an advertisement, I created it after seeing which came out today from ]. ]<sup>]</sup> |
*'''Keep''', and '''oppose merging'''. Abides fully by ]. Read the (many) references at the article. It was a first-of-its kind use of online ] by a political candidate, and (source: NY Times) toward online social networking. This article is not an advertisement, I created it after seeing which came out today from ]. Also, participants in this discussion have ignored my comments about ], and here on the page through edit warring. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:48, 27 August 2007(UTC) | ||
| :: Links to all 3 of them are repeated several times on this page, none of them have been edited or removed. One man's edit war is another's correction of procedure. ] 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::], your accusations against participants and some of your edits during this discussion are closely resembling an attempt at ]. Please refrain from this behavior. Also do not remove valid comments of others. These are all forms of ] and are inappropriate. thank you--] 18:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Pointing out that I have been ]ed from unrelated content disputes is not disruptive editing. Endroit has used this discussion to accuse me of "obsession" with Barack Obama in another content dispute, and I am unapologetic in pointing out his activity. It is funny that Leuko is free to move my comments to the Talk page, but when I apply the same standard to others' comments it is "disruptive" and flogged on the Main (not Talk) page by you. You yourself have tried to pre-empt this AfD by removing MyBO mentions from other Misplaced Pages articles; who's disrupting ] and ] here? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Another attack, how predictable. Nevertheless, large Large chunks of unnecessary policy text are not appropriate on the main page, that is why it was moved to the talk page. Plenty of links to the appropriate policies exist, as I'm confident those participating have read and understood before commenting. Your lack faith and respect towards your fellow editors and the ] is disappointing. Why, under any circumstances, would you feel it necessary to <u>Insult everyone</u> by stating "'''''People who are participating on AfD's need to be force fed WP:N and WP:WEB.'''''"? Seems you have quite the plan on right on your user page. You are sliding down a very slippery slope--] 19:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::My User page ("What I learned from Misplaced Pages") is an observation of other users' tactics, such as yours. Someone who has tried to pre-empt AfDs by wiping out mentions of an article elsewhere on Misplaced Pages has no place lecturing anyone about disregard for the consensus process. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Spamming a link to an article that went straight to afd within a half hour of its creation, does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion required for that list. Sorry. If you hadn't ]'d the link, I wouldn't have found its AFD, thanks.--] 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' Clearly notable. --] 18:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Clearly notable. --] 18:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' I see nothing inherently spammy about the article. It's supported by multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't really understand the canvassing allegation. -] 18:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' I see nothing inherently spammy about the article. It's supported by multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't really understand the canvassing allegation. -] 18:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 11: | Line 26: | ||
| *<s>'''Keep''' or '''Merge''' as per ]. --] <sup>(], ])</sup> 18:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)</s> | *<s>'''Keep''' or '''Merge''' as per ]. --] <sup>(], ])</sup> 18:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)</s> | ||
| **'''Merge''' Having followed the discussion and pondered my stance, the more it seems to me that we should merge this worthwhile content into ]. --] <sup>(], ])</sup> 11:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | **'''Merge''' Having followed the discussion and pondered my stance, the more it seems to me that we should merge this worthwhile content into ]. --] <sup>(], ])</sup> 11:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' If this article is about the use of online social networking in political campaigns, then change the article name and focus on that. Otherwise, it appears to be an advertisement for a website which violates WP:SPAM. ] 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' or '''Merge''' If this article is about the use of online social networking in political campaigns, then change the article name and focus on that. Otherwise, it appears to be an advertisement for a website which violates WP:SPAM. ] 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **This article's composition is clearly not an advertisement for the website. The specific website -- My.BarackObama.com -- has been ''by that name'' discussed in multiple third-party, reliable, mainstream sources. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | **This article's composition is clearly not an advertisement for the website. The specific website -- My.BarackObama.com -- has been ''by that name'' discussed in multiple third-party, reliable, mainstream sources. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ***As far as I can tell, the reliable sources have discussed the trend of using online social networking as a campaign tool. I don't think the individual networking sites are notable or important enough to warrant their own articles. I would support a single article on the topic and it can reference the individual networking sites that are being used. I can't see the justification for setting up individual articles for each - it seems to border on advertising to me. Best regards. ] 18:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ***As far as I can tell, the reliable sources have discussed the trend of using online social networking as a campaign tool. I don't think the individual networking sites are notable or important enough to warrant their own articles. I would support a single article on the topic and it can reference the individual networking sites that are being used. I can't see the justification for setting up individual articles for each - it seems to border on advertising to me. Best regards. ] 18:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ****In its Page One business piece "," the ] discusses MyBO and only MyBO. Same with the CNet article. The Reuters piece overwhelmingly highlights MyBO. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ****In its Page One business piece "," the ] discusses MyBO and only MyBO. Same with the CNet article. The Reuters piece overwhelmingly highlights MyBO. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *****Maybe I'm misreading it, but the WSJ article clearly refers to multiple websites (Edwards' site gets significant coverage). Sorry, I don't agree with you. ] 19:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | *****Maybe I'm misreading it, but the WSJ article clearly refers to multiple websites (Edwards' site gets significant coverage). Sorry, I don't agree with you. ] 19:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *****Added support for merge per Metropolitan90. ] 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' as per ]: notable by citations <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 19:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' as per ]: notable by citations <strong>] </strong>|<small>]</small> 19:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| <s>*'''Redirect''' to ] (or to ]), while trimming the contents as much as possible. There's no need to have a separate article on this. See ]. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox.--] 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)</ |
<s>*'''Redirect''' to ] (or to ]), while trimming the contents as much as possible. There's no need to have a separate article on this. See ]. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox.--] 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)</S>(Changing vote, see below)--] 20:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::'''Note''': To the closing administrator, ] has followed me here from another content dispute (]) in which we disagree to ] . He is of course entitled to participate wherever he likes, but his participation and vote should be weighed with that in mind. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ::'''Note''': To the closing administrator, ] has followed me here from another content dispute (]) in which we disagree to ] . He is of course entitled to participate wherever he likes, but his participation and vote should be weighed with that in mind. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Italiavivi, please discuss the topic at hand, and can you please lay off on your ]? Can anybody give me an example of a similar article about any website, which only covers a single candidate in an election? Please give me examples.--] 23:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | :::Italiavivi, please discuss the topic at hand, and can you please lay off on your ]? Can anybody give me an example of a similar article about any website, which only covers a single candidate in an election? Please give me examples.--] 23:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 34: | Line 50: | ||
| (Un-indent) I do see where you're coming from (there was a recently deleted self-referential article solely on Kucinich.us), but I consider the flood of reliable sources on this particular site enough to stem off the possibility of slope-slipping. So long as we stick to ] and ], adverts won't be a problem, I don't think. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | (Un-indent) I do see where you're coming from (there was a recently deleted self-referential article solely on Kucinich.us), but I consider the flood of reliable sources on this particular site enough to stem off the possibility of slope-slipping. So long as we stick to ] and ], adverts won't be a problem, I don't think. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::::::I agree that it is notable for the ] in general, because the cited sources talk about the other candidates as well. However, I believe it is wrong to single out ] and to write an article about Barack alone based on these sources, due to ] concerns. Perhaps, if you changed the title to ] and expand the scope, it would be OK.--] 00:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ::::::::::I agree that it is notable for the ] in general, because the cited sources talk about the other candidates as well. However, I believe it is wrong to single out ] and to write an article about Barack alone based on these sources, due to ] concerns. Perhaps, if you changed the title to ] and expand the scope, it would be OK.--] 00:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Rename''' to ] (or something similar) and expand the scope to include other candidates, per what I just suggested.--] 00:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | * '''Rename''' to ] (or something similar) and expand the scope to include other candidates, per what I just suggested.--] 00:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC). If that cannot be done, then '''Merge''' per others.--] 20:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::I'd concur with that, it covers the notability angle and will allow WP to be impartial (implicitly or explicitly). ] 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ::I'd concur with that, it covers the notability angle and will allow WP to be impartial (implicitly or explicitly). ] 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Sounds more like an ] magnet to me. I oppose this novel article idea. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | :::Sounds more like an ] magnet to me. I oppose this novel article idea. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 50: | Line 66: | ||
| ::I mentioned the Kucinich.us article above. Kucinich.us was an entirely self-referential article (based on its own content), and had no discussion in the media. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ::I mentioned the Kucinich.us article above. Kucinich.us was an entirely self-referential article (based on its own content), and had no discussion in the media. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Merge''' per above. ] 05:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Merge''' per above. ] 05:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *Is there a really good reason to have an article on everybody's campaign website? Anything worth mentioning can be mentioned in the campaign article. --] 06:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | *Is there a really good reason to have an article on everybody's campaign website? Anything worth mentioning can be mentioned in the campaign article. --] 06:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::This is not "an article on everybody's campaign site," it is an article on a social networking site used by a campaign which has met ]'s notability guidelines in every way. These are the most mainstream of mainstream sources -- NY Times, Reuters, Wall Street Journal. "Articles on everybody's web sites" won't appear because they will fail ] and ]. And greetings from the ] content dispute which you are involved in with me, B. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ::This is not "an article on everybody's campaign site," it is an article on a social networking site used by a campaign which has met ]'s notability guidelines in every way. These are the most mainstream of mainstream sources -- NY Times, Reuters, Wall Street Journal. "Articles on everybody's web sites" won't appear because they will fail ] and ]. And greetings from the ] content dispute which you are involved in with me, B. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''', notable. ] 08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''', notable. ] 08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 64: | Line 80: | ||
| *'''Merge'''. Existence and coverage is not the same as notability. ] 04:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | *'''Merge'''. Existence and coverage is not the same as notability. ] 04:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::You and I must be reading . ]<sup>]</sup> 05:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ::You and I must be reading . ]<sup>]</sup> 05:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' for all the reasons noted above. --<span style="color:#0000C0;">David</span> ''']''' 20:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Keep''' multiple independent reliable sources ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Merge''' per Metro90. Giving this web phenomena its own article is a fine example of undue weight. (goes and makes a profile) ] 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *After looking over the article (and trying to fix it up some), I think it should be '''merged''' to ]. Unlikely ever to develop into a featured article, undue weight, notability concerns, etc. all good arguments. Merge to the campaign article until section is too large to handle there. ''Then'' split into its own article. No need to get ahead of ourselves. We have plenty of time to split it back out if needed later. Mahalo. --] 20:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge''' The website isn't particularly notable, but it's highly relevant to Obama, who ''is'' most assuredly notable. The content of the website article could easily become part of the "Presidential campaign" section on Obama's article. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge''' into campaign article per the merge suggestions above. ] ] 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge''' into campaign article, for the reasons others have described above. This one seems pretty clear. <span style="font-family:serif;">—]✰]</span> 22:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''; sources establish notability for this website. Some of them could also be used to establish notability for social networking sites for other candidates. I see no reason why we can't have neutrally worded pages discussing each of these websites, as well as a general article discussing the use of social networking sites in political campaigns. This article complies with all Misplaced Pages guidelines; there's no reason to delete or merge it. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge''' into campaign article or keep. It's very short, and there's really not much to be said about it (it could even be reworded and be shorter, with the same amount of info). It's interesting, but I don't really see the concept expanding to a point where you can say anything more about it. I would not oppose keeping the article independent, but from an organizational standpoint, regardless of notability, I'd merge the topic. -- ] 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge''' the notability of the website if wholly derivative of the candidacy of Barack Obama, like a prior candidates 1-800 phone number that also got press. ] 00:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Merge''' The subject of several of the references is the broader campaign, or the entire web domain (barackobama.com, not the my. subdomain). Several editors have made excellent merge arguments, with which I wholeheartedly concur. ] 16:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
| ==WP:WEB== | |||
| ===Criteria=== | |||
| Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on ] to ], and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content<ref>Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, ] is a redirect to ]. On the other hand ] is a standalone page.</ref> is deemed notable based on the following criteria. | |||
| # The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. | |||
| #* This criterion includes ] published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.<ref>Examples: | |||
| * The webcomic '']'' has been reviewed by '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']''. | |||
| * The blog ] has been covered by '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']''.</ref> ''except'' for the following: | |||
| #** Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.<ref>Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be ''someone else'' writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See ] for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people ''independent'' of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.</ref> | |||
| #** Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or ]. | |||
| # The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.<ref>See ] for a partial list of notable awards. Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability.</ref> | |||
| # The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;<ref>Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, ] had a ] distributed by '']''. Such distributions should be nontrivial.</ref> ''except for'': | |||
| #*Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (], ], personal blogs, etc.) | |||
| The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an ''entire'' website meets the notability criteria, its ''components'' (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article. | |||
Latest revision as of 01:47, 8 February 2023
- 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 Merged to Barack Obama. There was obviously no consensus at all to delete here, so the only decision was whether this should be kept as a separate article or merged. Given how short this article is and weighing the opinions below, I see a strong case for a merge at this point based on the strength of the arguments advocating that. The content can always be broken back out in the future if there is enough content and notability to merit a full article.--Isotope23 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
My.BarackObama.com
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
- My.BarackObama.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Blatant advertising and canvassing. An article advertising a website that's sole purpose is to garner support for a candidate in the 2008 presidential election. WebHamster 18:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, and oppose merging. Abides fully by WP:WEB. Read the (many) references at the article. It was a first-of-its kind use of online social networking by a political candidate, and is a part of a notable trend (source: NY Times) toward online social networking. This article is not an advertisement, I created it after seeing this mainstream media coverage which came out today from Reuters. Also, participants in this discussion have ignored my comments about WP:WEB, and two editors have prevented me from providing the three notability criteria here on the page through edit warring. Italia 16:48, 27 August 2007(UTC)
- Links to all 3 of them are repeated several times on this page, none of them have been edited or removed. One man's edit war is another's correction of procedure. WebHamster 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- User:Italiavivi, your accusations against participants and some of your edits during this discussion are closely resembling an attempt at WP:POINT. Please refrain from this behavior. Also do not remove valid comments of others. These are all forms of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing and are inappropriate. thank you--Hu12 18:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Pointing out that I have been WP:STALKed from unrelated content disputes is not disruptive editing. Endroit has used this discussion to accuse me of "obsession" with Barack Obama in another content dispute, and I am unapologetic in pointing out his activity. It is funny that Leuko is free to move my comments to the Talk page, but when I apply the same standard to others' comments it is "disruptive" and flogged on the Main (not Talk) page by you. You yourself have tried to pre-empt this AfD by removing MyBO mentions from other Misplaced Pages articles; who's disrupting WP:POINT and WP:NOT#CRYSTAL BALL here? Italia 18:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Another attack, how predictable. Nevertheless, large Large chunks of unnecessary policy text are not appropriate on the main page, that is why it was moved to the talk page. Plenty of links to the appropriate policies exist, as I'm confident those participating have read and understood before commenting. Your lack faith and respect towards your fellow editors and the consensus process is disappointing. Why, under any circumstances, would you feel it necessary to Insult everyone by stating "People who are participating on AfD's need to be force fed WP:N and WP:WEB."? Seems you have quite the plan on How to make personal attacks on Misplaced Pages and get away with it right on your user page. You are sliding down a very slippery slope--Hu12 19:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- My User page ("What I learned from Misplaced Pages") is an observation of other users' tactics, such as yours. Someone who has tried to pre-empt AfDs by wiping out mentions of an article elsewhere on Misplaced Pages has no place lecturing anyone about disregard for the consensus process. Italia 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Spamming a link to an article that went straight to afd within a half hour of its creation, does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion required for that list. Sorry. If you hadn't WP:SPAM'd the link, I wouldn't have found its AFD, thanks.--Hu12 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- My User page ("What I learned from Misplaced Pages") is an observation of other users' tactics, such as yours. Someone who has tried to pre-empt AfDs by wiping out mentions of an article elsewhere on Misplaced Pages has no place lecturing anyone about disregard for the consensus process. Italia 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Another attack, how predictable. Nevertheless, large Large chunks of unnecessary policy text are not appropriate on the main page, that is why it was moved to the talk page. Plenty of links to the appropriate policies exist, as I'm confident those participating have read and understood before commenting. Your lack faith and respect towards your fellow editors and the consensus process is disappointing. Why, under any circumstances, would you feel it necessary to Insult everyone by stating "People who are participating on AfD's need to be force fed WP:N and WP:WEB."? Seems you have quite the plan on How to make personal attacks on Misplaced Pages and get away with it right on your user page. You are sliding down a very slippery slope--Hu12 19:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Pointing out that I have been WP:STALKed from unrelated content disputes is not disruptive editing. Endroit has used this discussion to accuse me of "obsession" with Barack Obama in another content dispute, and I am unapologetic in pointing out his activity. It is funny that Leuko is free to move my comments to the Talk page, but when I apply the same standard to others' comments it is "disruptive" and flogged on the Main (not Talk) page by you. You yourself have tried to pre-empt this AfD by removing MyBO mentions from other Misplaced Pages articles; who's disrupting WP:POINT and WP:NOT#CRYSTAL BALL here? Italia 18:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- User:Italiavivi, your accusations against participants and some of your edits during this discussion are closely resembling an attempt at WP:POINT. Please refrain from this behavior. Also do not remove valid comments of others. These are all forms of Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing and are inappropriate. thank you--Hu12 18:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Links to all 3 of them are repeated several times on this page, none of them have been edited or removed. One man's edit war is another's correction of procedure. WebHamster 17:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable. --Alksub 18:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I see nothing inherently spammy about the article. It's supported by multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't really understand the canvassing allegation. -Chunky Rice 18:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As-if this person actually needs free advertising. Burntsauce 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and/or Merge. It is referenced several times by traditional media sources so seems to meet the notability criteria, but the article could be merged into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 if push comes to shove. --Bobblehead 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge as per Bobblehead. --Mark H Wilkinson 18:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)- Merge Having followed the discussion and pondered my stance, the more it seems to me that we should merge this worthwhile content into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. --Mark H Wilkinson 11:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge If this article is about the use of online social networking in political campaigns, then change the article name and focus on that. Otherwise, it appears to be an advertisement for a website which violates WP:SPAM. Jogurney 18:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- This article's composition is clearly not an advertisement for the website. The specific website -- My.BarackObama.com -- has been by that name discussed in multiple third-party, reliable, mainstream sources. Italia 18:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the reliable sources have discussed the trend of using online social networking as a campaign tool. I don't think the individual networking sites are notable or important enough to warrant their own articles. I would support a single article on the topic and it can reference the individual networking sites that are being used. I can't see the justification for setting up individual articles for each - it seems to border on advertising to me. Best regards. Jogurney 18:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- In its Page One business piece "BO, U R So Gr8," the Wall Street Journal discusses MyBO and only MyBO. Same with the CNet article. The Reuters piece overwhelmingly highlights MyBO. Italia 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm misreading it, but the WSJ article clearly refers to multiple websites (Edwards' site gets significant coverage). Sorry, I don't agree with you. Jogurney 19:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Added support for merge per Metropolitan90. Jogurney 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- In its Page One business piece "BO, U R So Gr8," the Wall Street Journal discusses MyBO and only MyBO. Same with the CNet article. The Reuters piece overwhelmingly highlights MyBO. Italia 18:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the reliable sources have discussed the trend of using online social networking as a campaign tool. I don't think the individual networking sites are notable or important enough to warrant their own articles. I would support a single article on the topic and it can reference the individual networking sites that are being used. I can't see the justification for setting up individual articles for each - it seems to border on advertising to me. Best regards. Jogurney 18:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- This article's composition is clearly not an advertisement for the website. The specific website -- My.BarackObama.com -- has been by that name discussed in multiple third-party, reliable, mainstream sources. Italia 18:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per Chunky Rice: notable by citations Tvoz |talk 19:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
*Redirect to Barack Obama (or to United States presidential election, 2008), while trimming the contents as much as possible. There's no need to have a separate article on this. See WP:NOT. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox.--Endroit 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)(Changing vote, see below)--Endroit 20:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: To the closing administrator, User:Endroit has followed me here from another content dispute (WP:STALK) in which we disagree to make a point . He is of course entitled to participate wherever he likes, but his participation and vote should be weighed with that in mind. Italia 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Italiavivi, please discuss the topic at hand, and can you please lay off on your personal attacks? Can anybody give me an example of a similar article about any website, which only covers a single candidate in an election? Please give me examples.--Endroit 23:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how that is relevant. The webiste is notable, per Misplaced Pages's notability criteria. It's written in an NPOV manner. There's no reason to delete it. -Chunky Rice 23:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, a first-of-its-kind candidate web site wouldn't have other examples of Misplaced Pages. Endroit is well aware of this, Chunky. See this content dispute for why Endroit has followed me here. He is a partisan Republican who is trying to sandbag an unrelated content dispute with claims I am "obsessed" with Sen. Obama because I created this new article. Italia 23:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am here on my independent awareness. And I am entitled to my opinion here, which is: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for advertising any single candidate for an upcoming election.--Endroit 23:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Are you asserting that it lacks notability or that the article is not written in a neutral manner? Because otherwise, I don't see how you can cite WP:SOAP for this article. -Chunky Rice 23:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- As unpleasant as that is, I actually agree with Endroit that there's really no need to drag it in here. The article is capable of standing purely based on its own merits. Whether Endroit has some sort of agenda is irrelevant as to the strength of the arguments presented. Right now, I would say that the keep argument is much stronger, and consensus seems to concur. -Chunky Rice 23:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It isn't a first of it's kind. It's just a variation on a theme. It's just a social networking website that's been fine tuned for the adoration of one person, sort of MySpace Lite. WebHamster 23:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether it is first or a varaiation, it's notable, given the media coverage. -Chunky Rice 23:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, a "MySpace Lite" which has been the subject of considerable independent, third-party, reliable discussion in multiple high-profile mainstream media sources. No one has argued that it is not a social networking site like MySpace; such is clearly stated in the article's introduction. Italia 23:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt it would have garnered any attention if it wasn't for the subject matter, it certainly wan't for the technology. It's the candidate who is notable, not the website.WebHamster 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- The website is notable because of the coverage of the website. That's how notability works on Misplaced Pages. Our personal opinions as to whether or not there should have been coverage is irrelevant. -Chunky Rice 00:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- The editors of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and CNet all seem to disagree with your assessment. The involvement of Chris Hughes alone has drawn specific attention to MyBO the site, distinct from Barack Obama the candidate. Whether or not you consider the coverage warranted is irrelevant. Italia 00:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I can also see this as an opening for all candidates to flood WP with all manner of advertising. It's a slippery slope. (ps, I'm running out of colons!)WebHamster 00:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt it would have garnered any attention if it wasn't for the subject matter, it certainly wan't for the technology. It's the candidate who is notable, not the website.WebHamster 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am here on my independent awareness. And I am entitled to my opinion here, which is: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for advertising any single candidate for an upcoming election.--Endroit 23:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, a first-of-its-kind candidate web site wouldn't have other examples of Misplaced Pages. Endroit is well aware of this, Chunky. See this content dispute for why Endroit has followed me here. He is a partisan Republican who is trying to sandbag an unrelated content dispute with claims I am "obsessed" with Sen. Obama because I created this new article. Italia 23:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how that is relevant. The webiste is notable, per Misplaced Pages's notability criteria. It's written in an NPOV manner. There's no reason to delete it. -Chunky Rice 23:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Italiavivi, please discuss the topic at hand, and can you please lay off on your personal attacks? Can anybody give me an example of a similar article about any website, which only covers a single candidate in an election? Please give me examples.--Endroit 23:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: To the closing administrator, User:Endroit has followed me here from another content dispute (WP:STALK) in which we disagree to make a point . He is of course entitled to participate wherever he likes, but his participation and vote should be weighed with that in mind. Italia 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
(Un-indent) I do see where you're coming from (there was a recently deleted self-referential article solely on Kucinich.us), but I consider the flood of reliable sources on this particular site enough to stem off the possibility of slope-slipping. So long as we stick to WP:RS and WP:N, adverts won't be a problem, I don't think. Italia 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it is notable for the United States presidential election, 2008 in general, because the cited sources talk about the other candidates as well. However, I believe it is wrong to single out Barack Obama and to write an article about Barack alone based on these sources, due to WP:NPOV concerns. Perhaps, if you changed the title to Social networking websites in the 2008 US Presidential election and expand the scope, it would be OK.--Endroit 00:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to Social networking websites in the 2008 US Presidential election (or something similar) and expand the scope to include other candidates, per what I just suggested.--Endroit 00:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC). If that cannot be done, then Merge per others.--Endroit 20:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd concur with that, it covers the notability angle and will allow WP to be impartial (implicitly or explicitly). WebHamster 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds more like an original research magnet to me. I oppose this novel article idea. Italia 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV concerns linger with the current title (and coverage).--Endroit 00:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Endroit, what is POV about the way this piece is written? The piece is not "about Barack", it is about a ground-breaking website, and it is written in a neutral manner. I am still in agreement with Chunky Rice's comments. Tvoz |talk 00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- As an encyclopedia article, it gives undue weight to a single website My.BarackObama.com. In real life the independent cited sources consider this to be a phenomenom in the 2008 elections, one started by My.BarackObama.com, but imitated by other candidates to different degrees. The cited articles talk about the other candidates objectively. Why doesn't Misplaced Pages do so as well?--Endroit 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please clarify: Are you alleging that this article has any problems lacking accordance with WP:WEB whatsoever?
- As an encyclopedia article, it gives undue weight to a single website My.BarackObama.com. In real life the independent cited sources consider this to be a phenomenom in the 2008 elections, one started by My.BarackObama.com, but imitated by other candidates to different degrees. The cited articles talk about the other candidates objectively. Why doesn't Misplaced Pages do so as well?--Endroit 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Endroit, what is POV about the way this piece is written? The piece is not "about Barack", it is about a ground-breaking website, and it is written in a neutral manner. I am still in agreement with Chunky Rice's comments. Tvoz |talk 00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV concerns linger with the current title (and coverage).--Endroit 00:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds more like an original research magnet to me. I oppose this novel article idea. Italia 00:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd concur with that, it covers the notability angle and will allow WP to be impartial (implicitly or explicitly). WebHamster 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or
RedirectMerge to Barack Obama. WP:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. Should be at most be a section on the Barack Obama. Sadly only Notable as a result of Barack Obama's election run. Short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. I see no evidence predating 2007 that long term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated for Notability.--Hu12 02:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sources range from February 2007 (when the site went online) to present. That's six months of streaming coverage, hardly a "short burst." If half a year is not evidence of long-term coverage, I wonder what your definition of "long-term" is, and how anything with less than half a year's coverage could be included in the encyclopedia. 75.23.42.170 02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Personally I'd go for at least 6 months... after the presidential election when the press feeding frenzy is over. At the moment the press are looking for all sorts of angles on candidates. This I believe is the reason for the press interest in the web site. This sort of media attention is hardly an indicator ot notability, I'd say notoriety is a more accurate term. WebHamster 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Notability concept should be distinct from "fame". Barack Obama seems to be the notable subject of the articles, not My.BarackObama.com. What news there is, does seem to be mainly trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. A sub domain of a 2008 presidential campaign website, with trivial mentions is expected, but fails WP:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary--Hu12 02:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would counter that the Wall Street Journal article is clearly discussing the website and those involved in its implementation, not Sen. Obama himself. Also, would you please cease underlining so much of your text? It is becoming an distraction. Italia 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- A fine example of the subject not being about "My.BarackObama.com. Chris Hughes (founder of Facebook Inc), is the subject of the article, "How a young tech entrepreneur...". Facebook is mentioned 19 times as opposed to My.BarackObama.com which has trivial mentions only 3 times. A clear imbalance. As WebHamster stated the press is only looking for angles. --Hu12 03:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would counter that the Wall Street Journal article is clearly discussing the website and those involved in its implementation, not Sen. Obama himself. Also, would you please cease underlining so much of your text? It is becoming an distraction. Italia 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Notability concept should be distinct from "fame". Barack Obama seems to be the notable subject of the articles, not My.BarackObama.com. What news there is, does seem to be mainly trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. A sub domain of a 2008 presidential campaign website, with trivial mentions is expected, but fails WP:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary--Hu12 02:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Personally I'd go for at least 6 months... after the presidential election when the press feeding frenzy is over. At the moment the press are looking for all sorts of angles on candidates. This I believe is the reason for the press interest in the web site. This sort of media attention is hardly an indicator ot notability, I'd say notoriety is a more accurate term. WebHamster 02:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sources range from February 2007 (when the site went online) to present. That's six months of streaming coverage, hardly a "short burst." If half a year is not evidence of long-term coverage, I wonder what your definition of "long-term" is, and how anything with less than half a year's coverage could be included in the encyclopedia. 75.23.42.170 02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Although this article does have some citations to news coverage, the text of this article is only 5 sentences long and could easily be merged into the main campaign article. The web site is not that notable outside the context of the campaign. Keep in mind that Www.kucinich.us was just deleted and salted a couple of days ago per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Www.kucinich.us, which is not exactly a favorable precedent. --Metropolitan90 03:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I mentioned the Kucinich.us article above. Kucinich.us was an entirely self-referential article (based on its own content), and had no discussion in the media. Italia 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per above. Leuko 05:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a really good reason to have an article on everybody's campaign website? Anything worth mentioning can be mentioned in the campaign article. --B 06:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is not "an article on everybody's campaign site," it is an article on a social networking site used by a campaign which has met WP:WEB's notability guidelines in every way. These are the most mainstream of mainstream sources -- NY Times, Reuters, Wall Street Journal. "Articles on everybody's web sites" won't appear because they will fail WP:N and WP:WEB. And greetings from the Talk:Fred Thompson content dispute which you are involved in with me, B. Italia 14:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, notable. Everyking 08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per Metropolitan90. --ElKevbo 08:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per Metropolitan90. Thin Arthur 08:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment regarding Metropolitan90's point Merging is better than deleting, but that it is presently only 5 sentences long should not be a reason for that action now - it is clearly identified as a stub, and as such editors should be given an opportunity to expand it. Tvoz |talk 00:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge One article per candidate is quite sufficient. Misplaced Pages should avoid becoming just another tool in political campaigns. Beorhtric 11:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages has never only had "one article per candidate." Please assume good faith instead of implying that other editors are using Misplaced Pages as a campaign tool. Italia 14:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- What makes you presume that the accusation is that you are using it as a tool? Please use your own repeated mantra "assume good faith". The website itself is a tool in the campaign, as such any mentions of it or references to it are also tools to the same end. WebHamster 14:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need to make accusations of bad faith back and forth on this - there are actually facts we can look at: the substance of Beorhtric's comment is not consistent with the reality of Misplaced Pages - just about all of the major candidates have multiple forked off articles, so I don't follow the logic of that "merge" position. Tvoz |talk 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Tvoz. A reminder per WP:AGF. Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack.--Hu12 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need to make accusations of bad faith back and forth on this - there are actually facts we can look at: the substance of Beorhtric's comment is not consistent with the reality of Misplaced Pages - just about all of the major candidates have multiple forked off articles, so I don't follow the logic of that "merge" position. Tvoz |talk 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- What makes you presume that the accusation is that you are using it as a tool? Please use your own repeated mantra "assume good faith". The website itself is a tool in the campaign, as such any mentions of it or references to it are also tools to the same end. WebHamster 14:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages has never only had "one article per candidate." Please assume good faith instead of implying that other editors are using Misplaced Pages as a campaign tool. Italia 14:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable and well made short article. Turtlescrubber 16:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. Existence and coverage is not the same as notability. Vegaswikian 04:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- You and I must be reading different versions of WP:N. Italia 05:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for all the reasons noted above. --David Shankbone 20:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep multiple independent reliable sources Will 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per Metro90. Giving this web phenomena its own article is a fine example of undue weight. (goes and makes a profile) Kyaa the Catlord 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- After looking over the article (and trying to fix it up some), I think it should be merged to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Unlikely ever to develop into a featured article, undue weight, notability concerns, etc. all good arguments. Merge to the campaign article until section is too large to handle there. Then split into its own article. No need to get ahead of ourselves. We have plenty of time to split it back out if needed later. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge The website isn't particularly notable, but it's highly relevant to Obama, who is most assuredly notable. The content of the website article could easily become part of the "Presidential campaign" section on Obama's article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into campaign article per the merge suggestions above. Friday (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into campaign article, for the reasons others have described above. This one seems pretty clear. —ptk✰fgs 22:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep; sources establish notability for this website. Some of them could also be used to establish notability for social networking sites for other candidates. I see no reason why we can't have neutrally worded pages discussing each of these websites, as well as a general article discussing the use of social networking sites in political campaigns. This article complies with all Misplaced Pages guidelines; there's no reason to delete or merge it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into campaign article or keep. It's very short, and there's really not much to be said about it (it could even be reworded and be shorter, with the same amount of info). It's interesting, but I don't really see the concept expanding to a point where you can say anything more about it. I would not oppose keeping the article independent, but from an organizational standpoint, regardless of notability, I'd merge the topic. -- Ned Scott 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge the notability of the website if wholly derivative of the candidacy of Barack Obama, like a prior candidates 1-800 phone number that also got press. Carlossuarez46 00:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge The subject of several of the references is the broader campaign, or the entire web domain (barackobama.com, not the my. subdomain). Several editors have made excellent merge arguments, with which I wholeheartedly concur. UnitedStatesian 16:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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.