| Revision as of 00:25, 20 July 2012 editDreamGuy (talk | contribs)33,601 edits →Barack Obama on Twitter: strong delete← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:13, 20 July 2012 edit undoDarryl from Mars (talk | contribs)330 edits →Barack Obama on TwitterNext edit → | ||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
| :::It's not a disrupive nomination, and to even call it that is in itself trying to be disruptive. ] (]) 00:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC) | :::It's not a disrupive nomination, and to even call it that is in itself trying to be disruptive. ] (]) 00:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong delete''' -- There is ] that any X on Twitter article is wholly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. This whole thing is a massive violation of ]. The idea that you can find sources that mention the words together means there must be an article about it is one of the most ludicrous arguments ever made on Misplaced Pages. By that same logic we should have articles on ], ], ], ] and so forth and so on. This needs to be deleted, and I suppose anything noteworthy should be merged elsewhere but if there were indeed anything noteworthy it would already be in the main article, so we can very easily just delete this whole thing and lose nothing of any value. ] (]) 00:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC) | *'''Strong delete''' -- There is ] that any X on Twitter article is wholly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. This whole thing is a massive violation of ]. The idea that you can find sources that mention the words together means there must be an article about it is one of the most ludicrous arguments ever made on Misplaced Pages. By that same logic we should have articles on ], ], ], ] and so forth and so on. This needs to be deleted, and I suppose anything noteworthy should be merged elsewhere but if there were indeed anything noteworthy it would already be in the main article, so we can very easily just delete this whole thing and lose nothing of any value. ] (]) 00:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
| **Firstly, let's refine your statement. The opinions find the articles inappropriate in general, this does not mean -any- article is inappropriate. Indeed, upon reading, many of them allow for such an article if there are very good sources which focus primarily on the topic. I reiterate that the "most ludicrous" argument outside the nomination is the idea that the main article can be used to determine notability more effectively than actual sources. ] (]) 04:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:13, 20 July 2012
Barack Obama on Twitter
AfDs for this article:- Barack Obama on Twitter (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 article is a perfect example of what Misplaced Pages is not (Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles.) and is full of WP:TRIVIA and WP:DIARY and WP:BADIDEA information, it should be deleted or merged/moved into an article that covers Communication of Barack Obama but just his twitter accounts are not independently notable of Mr. Obama and notability is not inherited, however his use of the media and in particular social media is significant so a new article based on his communication strategy would be of historical significance but Twitter account are not notable, not for Ashton Kutcher, Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber all of whom have had more followers. And remember just because something can be sourced does not make it deserve an article, per common sense public figures minutiae are over-publicized to the point that the Personal Life of Jennifer Lopez, Fashions of Kanye West, or Marijuana Usage of Snoop Dog are all verifiable and referenceable, nevertheless they do not meet the editorial standards of a Misplaced Pages article and should be incorporated and summarized into the parent topic article or if forked merged into an article on a broader topic. Also attempts to be bold and change the name and incorporate his YouTube, Facebook, and personal social network were met with fierce protectionism from an overzealous editor with OWN issues and page protection so community discussion was the only option, nevertheless this specific topic is not notable not matter how much you love Barry or Twitter cross referenced articles are not of note.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- it passed the Good Article criteria Talk:Barack_Obama_on_Twitter/GA1. It seems unlikely that an article could do that and be NOT an article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Justin Bieber on Twitter
and Lady Gaga on Twitterpassed Good Article criteria... and still got either merged or deleted. --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC) - Agreed, that is neither here nor there, lot's of articles including ones tangibly identical to this one have been GA or DYK articles as have others and they still have been deleted. Do you have an opinion as to whether this article is notable or not?LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- as the article stands, it is missing the most encyclopedic view of the content. the meta-analysis of how Obama and the campaign have made twitter/social media work for them and the influence on how other politicians and campaigns use it. but there are plenty of sources that could do so: . Thats just the first page of google.books hits, theres plenty of stuff in the news as well. Obama's use of social media might be the better framing of the topic rather than the focus on individual twits and stats. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Red Pen here. I'm not saying it would be guaranteed to pass WP:NOT, but it is an arguably broader (and more interesting) topic that potentially touches on politics rather than trivia. That topic could likely be turned into a valid article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Red Pen, I think that you, since you looked at the matter in some detail, should have a look at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment and maybe start something. I also think there are issues with GA in general, but that's for another time. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Red Pen here. I'm not saying it would be guaranteed to pass WP:NOT, but it is an arguably broader (and more interesting) topic that potentially touches on politics rather than trivia. That topic could likely be turned into a valid article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- as the article stands, it is missing the most encyclopedic view of the content. the meta-analysis of how Obama and the campaign have made twitter/social media work for them and the influence on how other politicians and campaigns use it. but there are plenty of sources that could do so: . Thats just the first page of google.books hits, theres plenty of stuff in the news as well. Obama's use of social media might be the better framing of the topic rather than the focus on individual twits and stats. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Justin Bieber on Twitter
- note to closing admin - if the result of this discussion is "delete" i would request that the article be userfied into my space. I think this version and perhaps some others in the history along with the sources I listed above and analysis and commentary in news articles would allow this to be converted into something encyclopedic, interesting and informative. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete (!!)/merge (?) - Well, Communications of Barack Obama can be created anytime, while this article is... not well-standardized, not easy to discuss encyclopedically, and not interesting. The stats themselves are not interesting. Look at the sandbox of User:Luciferwildcat/sandbox/Communications of Barack Obama; when everything about Twitter is trimmed down, the result is less than staggering... and painfully more than unsatisfactory. --George Ho (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Do not confuse a trimming for a buzzcut. I would not hold that up as a comparably good article as it stands, though I understand you may have very particular personal preferences. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This seems fairly silly to renominate so soon after it closed. This is the same nominator no less.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, we re-list to encourage discussion if there is no consensus but not normally if so many people have already commented. Perhaps unless there is a sudden change in consensus the nominator ought to hold an RfC on the matter. S.G. ping! 21:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. WIkipedia is not paper. As long as there are fans of the topic which can fill it with verifiable information from secondary sources, there is no reason to delete the pqage, all the more to mewrge it somewhere. I fail to see why twitter of POTUS is less notable than some obscure pokemon or porn actors. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it not not paper but it is also not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "it has fans" is a perfect reason to delete not keep, and this is not a vote.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Careful, I've voted "delete"/"merge" on this article. Even Ty Russell is obscure and somehow notable, and even Pokemon creatures are more worth reading. Use of sources do not indicate significance but just retelling of what the news says about Twitter activities of one high-profile person. --George Ho (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Here are the reasons that speedy keep is applicable for, 1. nom withdrawn 2. the nom is disruptive 3. the nom is banned, per WP:KEEP. None of these reasons apply. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think this could qualify as disruptive, considering LWC's probably only doing this (again) because we didn't agree with the hack and slash move and rewrite they attempted, repeatedly. Rather than use their sandbox and/or propose a change and try to find consensus, this seems to be a somewhat petty response. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Ah, now I see that this already came up at ANI, and IRWolfie made his voice heard. Fair enough, we'll try this again, I suppose.
- Here are the reasons that speedy keep is applicable for, 1. nom withdrawn 2. the nom is disruptive 3. the nom is banned, per WP:KEEP. None of these reasons apply. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I understand we have in our midst at least one editor with a PhD in this field; perhaps if he/she could unleash some of his/her analytic sophistication it might be easier to convince other users that there's some merit in this; also, a while ago over on the dyk template there was a suggestion to widen this out a little, and consider this particular medium alongside YouTube etc; Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As noted, full of WP:Trivia and thoroughly un-encyclopedic in nature. Also opens a Pandora's Box of nonsense for similar articles. Is every celebrity who's active on Twitter now going to get an article for their account? Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, and lets talk about why 'per nom' isn't a great idea. Firstly, the article is in no way a long and sprawling list of statistics, I wouldn't even argue there's an undue amount of statistics, considering how much polling goes on surrounding everything political. BADIDEA, how does that even relate? The information is more than just miscellaneous and disjointed statements which include both the words 'obama' and 'twitter', if you see specific instances of trivia, I don't deny that as a possibility at all, but that's what the editorial process is for. Point something out, and I'll see if I can fix it. Mentioning things that happen in a roughly chronological order is far from making something a diary; and I suspect you're beginning to throw policies you've heard of at it until something sticks. If you want an article that covers all the communications comprehensively, that's a noble goal, and probably worth writing, but that has nothing to do with deleting this article. As to the rest of the nomination, which is now an extended litany against
fearTwitter, I should just point out that being bold works as justification once; when you get reverted, the next step is Discuss, and no, "this is bullshit" is not discussion. As it stands, this specific topic, is, in fact, specifically notable, since there are specific sources which give substantial discussion/treatment of the topic. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)- Not disjointed!? There is a whole section and even a picture reserved for an unrelated MTV VMA Kanye West Taylor Swift fight over a microphone and Obama's irrelevant commentary on the subject, this is UNDUE weight and NOT in no undue terms.LuciferWildCat (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- While overexcited, I'll give you this one, that section doesn't actually involve Obama using Twitter. Although there may be a way to address it if there's a source that treats it in that context later, I think I'll go ahead and remove that section as essentially unrelated. This is how we WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Now, per nom is that much less an appropriate justification. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not disjointed!? There is a whole section and even a picture reserved for an unrelated MTV VMA Kanye West Taylor Swift fight over a microphone and Obama's irrelevant commentary on the subject, this is UNDUE weight and NOT in no undue terms.LuciferWildCat (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strong delete Twitter is basically used the same way by everyone - nothing special except the content. Even then, it's not all that special either. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT. If anything in the content of any individual Tweet (which is likely not done by him anyway....) was really earthshattering, surely it would already be in his main article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Reading the article would tell you a little about when he's actually tweeting and when he isn't (although if you're assuming even that's a lie, perhaps you're right, the article just reports what the sources say), but you underestimate the amount of Wiki-worthy content surrounding Barack Obama, the main article is not an exhaustive list of the sufficiently notable subject matter related to him. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- If the article was on the topic of Barak Obama and the media, and covered a great deal of media interactions with different sources and outlets, and provided some context as to why this was a notable topic, I might be more persuaded. If Barak Obama was very active on Slashdot, would Barak Obama on Slashdot pass WP:NOT? I think not. To say Twitter is more important than Slashdot only implies that notability is inherited, and not everything on Twitter is important. Quite the opposite. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- ...That is a thing no one has said but you, you realize? Anyways, regardless of what you think or think not, if there's an article on Twitter and not Slashdot, it's because a) there are reliable third-party sources on the use of Twitter and b) someone wrote the article for it. As is, though, mentioning Slashdot seems like a non-sequitor. Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- If the article was on the topic of Barak Obama and the media, and covered a great deal of media interactions with different sources and outlets, and provided some context as to why this was a notable topic, I might be more persuaded. If Barak Obama was very active on Slashdot, would Barak Obama on Slashdot pass WP:NOT? I think not. To say Twitter is more important than Slashdot only implies that notability is inherited, and not everything on Twitter is important. Quite the opposite. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Reading the article would tell you a little about when he's actually tweeting and when he isn't (although if you're assuming even that's a lie, perhaps you're right, the article just reports what the sources say), but you underestimate the amount of Wiki-worthy content surrounding Barack Obama, the main article is not an exhaustive list of the sufficiently notable subject matter related to him. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Four days since the last discussion and I am seeing nothing new being brought to the table here. It appears the nominator tried to move the article and instead of continuing discussion or starting a WP:RFC brought it straight back here. I don't really care whether these articles exist (they pass WP:GNG, but possibly fail WP:NOT) and the result will likely come down to how many people feeling strongly either way turn up. However nominating this so soon after the last one closed with no new arguments is a bad idea. AIRcorn (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This renomination is completely inappropriate, as the last AfD closed four days ago and this nomination is also bringing nothing new to discuss. It is just the nominator badgering the issue because they disagree with the article's existence. As I pointed out in the last discussion, sources like this show that the subject is completely valid. Expansion of the article's scope or renaming the article is something that should be done via talk page consensus and not by renominating the article for deletion. This should just be closed now. Silverseren 02:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:TRIVIA and trivial. If Obama ever says anything encyclopedic that's 140 characters or less (and that's undeniably from him) it can go into his existing article. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - there are better places for the content of this article. Jauerback/dude. 03:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Barack Obama - again, everything that is notable has independent references, but not everything that has independent references is notable. This is IMHO yet again a case of Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, vs. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, vs. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. There is nothing, nothing in this article that is independently and inherently notable separate from Barack Obama (and maybe a one-point mention in Twitter). --Dirk Beetstra 05:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- By this argument, you would have us 'merge and redirect' everything in every article on Barack Obama and anything, unless you can be more specific. What exactly are you looking for to consider something 'independently' notable? Is Chlorophyll independently notable of Plants? Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Incidentally, even without notability guidelines of any sort, 'sun is hot' would not be an article title. Solar luminosity, on the other hand... Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is very little that is notable about Obama on Twitter. What criteria do you use that makes statements made on Twitter more notable than statements made by Barack Obama on Facebook or Barack Obama on CNN or Barack Obama in the White House Press Room, etc? This series of articles (xx on Twitter) is meta-reporting, which is not what this project is about. Twitter is a communications platform; and while sometimes the use of a platform is notable, those instances are rare and belong either in the article about the platform or in the article about the subject. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- True, ideally this article wouldn't include statements where 'tweeted' could be just as easily replaced by 'said'. However, while I don't see how being more notable than any of those things come up, a variety of sources do treat the subject of Obama on twitter, as in using twitter to a specific end, particularly in the context of both campaigns and in advocating particular political things. Does suit what you're looking for, or is it not quite the right direction? There's a variety of others already in the article, and more that aren't, I imagine there's something that would fit your criteria? As an aside, though, we should get over having it in the main Obama article; it's full, and the content is more closely related to the articles on the campaigns and public image. Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- There is very little that is notable about Obama on Twitter. What criteria do you use that makes statements made on Twitter more notable than statements made by Barack Obama on Facebook or Barack Obama on CNN or Barack Obama in the White House Press Room, etc? This series of articles (xx on Twitter) is meta-reporting, which is not what this project is about. Twitter is a communications platform; and while sometimes the use of a platform is notable, those instances are rare and belong either in the article about the platform or in the article about the subject. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Darryl from Mars, the fact that we have the article Solar luminosity and not Sun is hot is exactly the point why we should not have articles like Barack Obama on Twitter, Lady Gaga on Twitter and Justin Bieber on Twitter - 'Solar luminosity' is talking about all sun-like bodies and their temperature effects - which would be like an article talking about all celebritites and their use of social media. --Dirk Beetstra 06:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm saying it wouldn't be a title because it's not a noun phrase, it doesn't prove anything in connection to this article, and, frankly, isn't much different from if I tried to argue 'other crap exists', since you don't give the reasoning as to why this subject falls into the category of 'things with sources that should be excluded', you just say it. Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - This article is an unnecessary fork where everything that is notable is in the lede (and much of the lede is trivia). Reporting on reporting on comments (articles about reporting about unsourced and unverified comments) is Synthesis no matter how it is presented. Any remaining material of note is already in either the Twitter article or the BIO article. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment/Question Can you guys tell me how sources like Communicator-In-Chief: How Barack Obama Used New Media Technology to Win the White House or Yes We Did: An Inside Look at How Social Media Built the Obama Brand or this book section don't support an article existing about Obama's use of social media? Silverseren 07:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- This is about Twitter, not about social media in general. The case for the latter article (something along the lines of Barack Obama's use of social media) may be a whole other case than Barack Obama on Twitter. --Dirk Beetstra 08:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Renaming the article isn't an issue. In fact, the nominator clearly wants it to be renamed anyways (though "Communication" is too broad, imo). Silverseren 08:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- renaming the article is page-move vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dirk, do you mean to suggest that while the book, 'communicator in chief' in particular, is support for an article on that subject, the chapter in the book relating to Twitter is not? Or would you reject both? Darryl from Mars (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm .. WP:CRYSTAL .. I don't know. --Dirk Beetstra 08:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, perhaps that's a fair response. Anyways, although this wasn't the way you emphasized it, does that chapter, at least, present information/analysis you'd consider being appropriate for the topic of 'on Twitter', and not just Barack Obama in general? The link is just a preview, but if you search 'BarackObama' as one word in the side box it takes you to an appropriate section. I admit I'm still not sure what makes something 'independently' notable, e.g, are any Beatles songs 'independently' notable of them? If it's just specific treatment, it doesn't get much more direct than 'Barack Obama's continued use of Twitter', the title of a section in the book. Darryl from Mars (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it is a concept that I am now starting to wrestle with. Never really thought about subjects which have significant media coverage, general use, whatever, but which are not notable by themselves. As you say above, Chlorophyl has an article, Green has an article, Grass has an article, but we do not have Grass is green (or Greenness of grass or whatever) - whereas the latter has many sources, it is mentioned in proverbs, songs, movie-titles (all notable by themselves, many have Misplaced Pages articles). Which ones are in the white area, which ones are in the black area, and which are in the grey area? To me, Barack Obama is in the white house, Barack Obama's use of social media w/could be grey, and Barack Obama on Twitter IMHO shoots through to the black area. --Dirk Beetstra 12:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, I think the problem with Grass's greenness is, you've chosen an idea so ubiquitous that, no one has considered it worth discussing formally, indeed, that's what the idiom is for (not the one about it being greener on the other side, just the one claiming it as an obvious truth). Indeed, if there was something by Aquinas on grasses and the cause of their greenness (spoilers: it's the divine), that might become something worth mentioning in its article, cf. Planet. The fact's mentioned, but not discussed; we don't use proverbs and titles of movies as sources. The sources you get for Obama on Twitter are of a fundamentally different nature, I suspect. Still, I'm far from having the leverage to discount a humble opinion, just to disagree. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it is a concept that I am now starting to wrestle with. Never really thought about subjects which have significant media coverage, general use, whatever, but which are not notable by themselves. As you say above, Chlorophyl has an article, Green has an article, Grass has an article, but we do not have Grass is green (or Greenness of grass or whatever) - whereas the latter has many sources, it is mentioned in proverbs, songs, movie-titles (all notable by themselves, many have Misplaced Pages articles). Which ones are in the white area, which ones are in the black area, and which are in the grey area? To me, Barack Obama is in the white house, Barack Obama's use of social media w/could be grey, and Barack Obama on Twitter IMHO shoots through to the black area. --Dirk Beetstra 12:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, perhaps that's a fair response. Anyways, although this wasn't the way you emphasized it, does that chapter, at least, present information/analysis you'd consider being appropriate for the topic of 'on Twitter', and not just Barack Obama in general? The link is just a preview, but if you search 'BarackObama' as one word in the side box it takes you to an appropriate section. I admit I'm still not sure what makes something 'independently' notable, e.g, are any Beatles songs 'independently' notable of them? If it's just specific treatment, it doesn't get much more direct than 'Barack Obama's continued use of Twitter', the title of a section in the book. Darryl from Mars (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm .. WP:CRYSTAL .. I don't know. --Dirk Beetstra 08:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Dirk, do you mean to suggest that while the book, 'communicator in chief' in particular, is support for an article on that subject, the chapter in the book relating to Twitter is not? Or would you reject both? Darryl from Mars (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per WP:NOT, WP:FART, WP:POPCRAP, WP:HOGWASH. PumpkinSky talk 12:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- WP:NOW you're WP:JUST being WP:SILLY. Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Misplaced Pages is not about political ephemera which nobody in ten years is going to care beans about. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Notability is not temporary Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- That argument goes both ways, Darryl - maybe it was not notable in the first place? --Dirk Beetstra 13:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, which is why you and I are discussing your requirements for notability/inclusion, since a variety of reliable sources strikes you as insufficient, right? What we think of it in ten years is irrelevant on the face of things. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think in 10 years and far beyond people will still be analysing and commenting upon Obama's use of twitter and other social media - as the First Social Media President his twitting is going to keep getting dragged out just like the Nixon Kennedy First TV presidential debate is the standard by which all others are measured. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Quick, what network carried that debate? What channel was it on? What time? I imagine I can find the answers here on WP, but I bet they aren't in John F. Kennedy on NBC. If I pull out my crystal ball, what I see in 10 years is that the BO article says "Barrack Obama was one of the first US presidents to make extensive use of social media in public communications". --Tgeairn (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am not saying the current article in the current status is worth defending, just that there is probably something here that could be used as a basis to build into something that would be an appropriate article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that there are facts and sources here, and that someone(s) could use some of those facts and some of those sources and create some kind of article; but I don't see how combining those facts and sources together makes this article useful in an encyclopedia. As I mentioned above, it's meta-reporting on the reporting instead of using the reporting as sources about a cohesive topic. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you could possibly mean by 'meta-reporting on the reporting' that isn't exactly what a tertiary source should be. Are you saying the sources used don't have any analysis or commentary, and are just re-printing tweets? Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that there are facts and sources here, and that someone(s) could use some of those facts and some of those sources and create some kind of article; but I don't see how combining those facts and sources together makes this article useful in an encyclopedia. As I mentioned above, it's meta-reporting on the reporting instead of using the reporting as sources about a cohesive topic. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am not saying the current article in the current status is worth defending, just that there is probably something here that could be used as a basis to build into something that would be an appropriate article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Quick, what network carried that debate? What channel was it on? What time? I imagine I can find the answers here on WP, but I bet they aren't in John F. Kennedy on NBC. If I pull out my crystal ball, what I see in 10 years is that the BO article says "Barrack Obama was one of the first US presidents to make extensive use of social media in public communications". --Tgeairn (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think in 10 years and far beyond people will still be analysing and commenting upon Obama's use of twitter and other social media - as the First Social Media President his twitting is going to keep getting dragged out just like the Nixon Kennedy First TV presidential debate is the standard by which all others are measured. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, which is why you and I are discussing your requirements for notability/inclusion, since a variety of reliable sources strikes you as insufficient, right? What we think of it in ten years is irrelevant on the face of things. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- That argument goes both ways, Darryl - maybe it was not notable in the first place? --Dirk Beetstra 13:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Notability is not temporary Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I see that my meaning wasn't entirely clear. What I mean is that there are two separate possible article topics here:
- First, there are the communications from Obama and others (the "tweets"), which are being delivered through a communications medium (Twitter). We can treat those as any other PRIMARY source, and sometimes do. Of course, as simple communications that are not subject to editorial review and are by their nature SPS, they wouldn't get a separate article from the subject(s) or author(s) of the communications.
- Second, there is the reporting on the communications. Reporting on how they are novel or new, reporting on tactics and reach (audience), etc. The subject of these sources is the communications and the platform, in this case Twitter.
- Having established the possible article topics, we then have our role as an encyclopedia. It is pretty well established that we wouldn't have an article about the first subject area (the tweets themselves), and I'm not trying to say that this article is that. We could theoretically have an article about the second subject, but only with RS about that second subject. In other words, we need multiple reliable sources independent of the subject providing objective commentary on the subject. The subject in this case is the reporting on the communications and the platform. We don't have those sources yet. In time, there may be - but they almost certainly won't be about the reporting on one entity and their tweets. They will likely be about the role of twitter in politics or the role of social media in elections or something similar.
- For example: Assume Jane Doe is a notable figure, with her own BIO article, who has a verified twitter account @JaneD. One day @JaneD tweets that she "Got engaged to John Smith today". That tweet is PRIMARY, but since it's a verified account we would likely allow it as a source for her BIO article. When various media outlets (independent reliable sources) report on the engagement, we would update the BIO to reflect those new and better sources for the engagement. The media at this point is still only sourcing the fact (Jane Doe got engaged to John Smith). If an expert in media or engagement or some related field notes that @JaneD was the first notable person to use twitter to announce an engagement, they might then write an article or paper on the impact of social media (or twitter) on marriage announcements. The fact that Jane was the first would likely be mentioned in their writing, but the subject of that article is now something other than "Jane Doe on Twitter". The communications platform is separate from the fact, and the notable use of the platform is separate from the individual.
- Another example: If John F Kennedy had kept a journal (diary), we would use those entries in their relevant places (Race, election, civil rights, missle crisis, cold war, trip to Dallas, etc). They would be self published thoughts, ideas, and opinions and we would treat them as such. If that diary were published daily (in real time) in the New York Times, it would not change our treatment of it. If that daily publishing started a trend where other public figures also published their diaries daily in the NYT, someone would probably write about the trend and how it was affecting relations or politics or travel in Texas or something. We might then have an article about that (the trend or impact). At no time in that scenario would we ever have an article about JFK in the NYT, as that topic would not be inherently notable (even though he is, NYT is, and the subject of his entries is).
- This is getting too long for an AfD, maybe it's time for me to try to put this into an essay. I believe that this an important point, and that it is being missed in many of the responses to this and related AfDs. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hm, that makes rather more sense. Although I feel like in this instance you may be forcing a distinction that isn't strictly necessary (for example, how do our 'Correspondence/Letters of...' articles fit into this dichotomy?), I understand how the sources used could develop into a 'Twitter Campaigning' article or something of the sort if we purposefully took a more general view of it. But even if this article as it stands isn't the ideal framework for discussing the phenomenon; it is, almost undeniably, how the sources discuss the issue. They are not (yet) taking an abstract look at the techniques and general trends, they focus specifically on Barack Obama's use. If, under the diary entry of the day, there were a series of articles discussing how JFK's diary entries in the NYT are affecting the Cuban Missile crisis and got us to the moon; that would be the notable topic, because that's what the sources are taking note of. Few things are inherently notable. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - IDONTLIKEIT, I really don't like it, but I'm not going to put my personal preferences infront of policy. The article subject is very clearly notable as witnessed the numerous quality references in the article and hence the appropriate response is to Keep. I would be happy for a merge to 'Communication of Barack Obama' or similar. Regards, SunCreator 13:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete--I agree with Tgeairn and Dirk. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - well-sourced, well-documented, and well-written. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep since it has significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, satisfying WP:N, and since the coverage is not about one event at one instant in time, thus not being a mere news report. Also, the renomination is too soon. I do not see how several of the nominator's rationales apply at all, since it is not a "diary" and not just a listing of statistics. Also, it passes the "not inherited" hurdle, since it has its own coverage, and is not just "This hat is notable because Obama wore it" or equivalent cases. Being associated with a world-famous person is absolutely not an impediment to achieving independent notability, if it has been noted in sufficient depth by multiple reliable and independent sources, as has this topic. I would applaud creation of Barack Obama's use of social media and the merger to it of this along with his use of Facebook, Youtube, and other social media in his efforts to attain and keep the US presidency, since a comprehensive article would avoid duplication and fragmentation. . Edison (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - Without citing any Misplaced Pages policies, this article seems to be useless, a fan effort, and better suited as a trimmed down version on his main page or at the proposed "Communication of Barack Obama." Information regarding his campaign should be merged to the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 page, and the 2008 campaign if there's information regarding it as well. Citing Misplaced Pages policies, I agree that it should be deleted as per WP:TRIVIA. WP:BADIDEA, and WP:NOT. JDC808 (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus passing the threshold of notability by easily passing Misplaced Pages's General notability guideline. Furthermore, this article is a very reasonable spin-off from the main Barack Obama article. As the use of online communications, both by the public and by the leaders of nations continues to increase globally, aspects of its usage will only continue to receive significant coverage in reliable sources, which Misplaced Pages articles are typically based upon. Another idea is to merge the article into a new "Communications of Barack Obama" article. Northamerica1000 22:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep – I agree with Northamerica1000 --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT, especially WP:BADIDEA. This article also suffers from a general notability problem. If you pare the lede down per WP:INDISCRIMINATE removing and summarizing all of the unnecessary statistics, you end up with a basic statement that such a twitter account exists, has a lot of followers and is being used. So, what? Where is the lasting notability? These simple statements belong in other articles and the twitter article itself does not rise to the level on its own -- it is trying to inherit its notability from the biography. WTucker (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your reading seems to have conveniently elided the second paragraph of the lead. And, you shouldn't just stop at the lead if you want to make that sort of judgement. In fact, upon some review of the sources, you'd note that the last thing this article has trouble with is passing notability requirements. Check the sources mentioned a few comments up first, and we can discuss the issue of notability in more depth. And as an aside, is the citing of WP:BADIDEA just a way of saying 'nothing else on this page fits, but I still want to say it doesn't belong'? Because that's really starting to mystify me. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I can't think any other type of website that would pass WP:WEB or WP:GNG but would be deleted under WP:NOT. I don't see the point of Twitter-hate--if this were an article about Obama's (or Justin Bieber's) blog it would clearly stand or fall on the notability guidelines alone and not provoke this level of drama. If there's a trivia/indiscriminate info issue it's with article content, not with the mere existence of this article. I don't oppose merging into a broader article, however. Also, I thought that immediate renomination was banned, even with a "no consensus" result. 169.231.53.116 (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep All the ubiquitous shit on Misplaced Pages, and someone nominates a GA for deletion? Joefromrandb (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment this opinion should be ignored since it is a misuse of speedy keep and also presents no argument in any policy or guideline.LuciferWildCat (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy keep does apply as it is clearly a disruptive nomination. What I'm fairly sure will be ignored is your oppose-badgering. Besides, it's going to be kept; the faster this is closed, the faster you can open a 3rd AfD! Joefromrandb (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's not a disrupive nomination, and to even call it that is in itself trying to be disruptive. DreamGuy (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy keep does apply as it is clearly a disruptive nomination. What I'm fairly sure will be ignored is your oppose-badgering. Besides, it's going to be kept; the faster this is closed, the faster you can open a 3rd AfD! Joefromrandb (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Strong delete -- There is strong community consensus that any X on Twitter article is wholly inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. This whole thing is a massive violation of WP:NOT. The idea that you can find sources that mention the words together means there must be an article about it is one of the most ludicrous arguments ever made on Misplaced Pages. By that same logic we should have articles on Obama and sports, Obama and food, Obama in Washington DC, Obama and terrorists and so forth and so on. This needs to be deleted, and I suppose anything noteworthy should be merged elsewhere but if there were indeed anything noteworthy it would already be in the main article, so we can very easily just delete this whole thing and lose nothing of any value. DreamGuy (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, let's refine your statement. The opinions find the articles inappropriate in general, this does not mean -any- article is inappropriate. Indeed, upon reading, many of them allow for such an article if there are very good sources which focus primarily on the topic. I reiterate that the "most ludicrous" argument outside the nomination is the idea that the main article can be used to determine notability more effectively than actual sources. Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)