Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/My.BarackObama.com: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:43, 27 August 2007 editItaliavivi (talk | contribs)2,551 edits I am unable to quote relevant criteria due to its formatting, so I am leaving it at the bottom. Thanks.← Previous edit Revision as of 16:45, 27 August 2007 edit undoWebHamster (talk | contribs)18,133 edits Undid revision 153981068 by Italiavivi (talk)Next edit →
Line 64: Line 64:
*'''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)



==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.

Revision as of 16:45, 27 August 2007

My.BarackObama.com

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)

*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)

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)

(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)
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?
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 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)
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)
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)
You and I must be reading different versions of WP:N. Italia 05:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Categories: