Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneybomb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete per consensus of established users. Coredesat 04:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Overturned to no consensus. --Coredesat 21:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moneybomb

DELETE Its is complete propaganda and has POV problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.0.175 (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because someone asked you to, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, or making your opinion known here, no matter how new you may be. We welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion.
Remember: This is not a vote. It is an attempt to reach consensus.

(However, please note that in discussions of Wikipedia-related matters (such as policies and guidelines), the opinions of newer contributors may be weighted less than the opinions of established editors.)

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Moneybomb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Numerous problems with this page, primarily the fact that Wikipedia is not for articles on neologisms. Serious point of view issues as well: the article seems to lionize Paul and his campaign and speaking nothing but good things about it. Synthesis issues as well, as the article claims that the term is a widely-used neologism and then immutably associates it with the Paul campaign. Delete this and maybe include relevant information on the article about the Paul campaign. Chardish 17:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete (and/or Merge with Ron Paul). I've noted a number of these articles popping up recently as WP:COATRACK articles created in order to laud this particular political candidate in the US 2008 presidential election race. In this case, the references don't seem to have anything much to do with the protologism, so doesn't meet WP:Verifiable and I suggest that the usage is largely self-generated by the campaign staffers. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment After reading all the way through all of the references in the article, and correlating them with what was said about them in the text, I think this neologism is somewhat more widely used than I would have thought from my first examination. I've withdrawn my recommendation -- I'm now neutral -- and I would ask everyone to read this stuff carefully and make up their own minds. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like I see another place to hang up my jacket as well. Delete, on the account of WP:COATRACK. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: I've been working on this page since it was listed on 3O, but now that I read COATRACK, I have to agree. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: As the 3O provider on the original content dispute, which is still unresolved, HelloAnnyong may be pushing the limits to make such a nonneutral recommendation. John J. Bulten 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. [see my Neutral 20:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) post below. —A.] Merely inflates a small amount of information. Merge that small amount unless it would merely serve as a magnet for further disruptive and tendentious editing from the coi spa. See also: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Moneybomb. — Athaenara ✉ 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: As the admin who blocked me on the alleged WP:DE immediately after writing this (see also unanswered question here), Athaenara also has a vested interest here that was not disclosed straightforwardly. Athaenara, what do you propose to do with the media coverage of moneybombs for Thompson, Huckabee, Kucinich, etc.? John J. Bulten 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • SAVE: If you actually read Wikipeida's policy on neologisms, you will see this article does not violate the policy. The policy does not outright ban articles on neologisms. It says sometimes it is appropriate to remove articles on neologisms, and gives two specific criteria for removing the article. The moneybomb article does not meet either of these criteria for deletion. The neologism argument is invalid. Byates5637 17:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Save: I concur that this article does make the cut for a legitimate article on a neologism. It also doesn't meet the coatrack criteria since the term money bomb was coined by Ron Paul supporters and has been popularized mainly through their fundraising drives, especially the November 5th donation drive. So it is legitimate to bring up it's widespread use by Ron Paul supporters as they coined the term and popularized it's usage. Also, while I certainly agree the article is weighted down by bias that is something that can be removed through editing. Isn't that why Wikipedia exists? Anyone who has objections to the content should just find a few sources and edit the content themselves to make it neutral.—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Devil's Advocate (talk • contribs) 19:35, December 2, 2007
  • Comment: if the notability of this neologism is in fact tied to the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, it seems to me that it would be most sensible to merge the content appropriately in that article [and others: see Elonka's post below] and redirect Moneybomb to it [Addendum below]. — Athaenara ✉ 19:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum: I think Elonka's suggestions below in re where it is appropriate to merge specific content and for the redirect to go to Google bomb are more encyclopedic solutions. — Athaenara ✉ 21:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: While the term originates there and has been used a lot specifically by Ron Paul supporters it has been used significantly by the media and on a smaller scale by other candidates' supporters. The term has not been used as much by other candidate's supporters because there has been a lower level of success and there's also less enthusiasm behind their candidate. However, while it was coined by Ron Paul supporters the media has picked up on the term and in one instance used it to refer to a Fred Thompson donation drive that is cited in the article on the money bomb. It's actually being used a lot by Kucinich supporters for their planned December 15th drive: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=ApF&q=kucinich+money+bomb&btnG=Search —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Devil's Advocate (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge to Ron Paul and Google bomb. I was initially weakly in support of this article since the term appeared to have some traction in mainstream press, and the term had been used in other (non-Paul) context as early as 2004. However, it's clear now that the article is just being used as part of the Ron Paul advertising campaign, by Paul's cult-like followers.[1] This Moneybomb article (and other Paul articles) have become a magnet for edit-warring and soapboxing, and on the Moneybomb article, the Paul supporters are redirecting everything non-Paul (including the 2004 reference) away to other pages. I agree with the WP:COATRACK argument, as there seems a clear intent on the part of the Paul supporters to demand "credit" for inventing the neologism. If they want to make this case on off-wiki websites, fine, but I don't want to see Wikipedia used as part of this campaign. The least disruptive course, as I see it, is simply to merge this information (that can be sourced reliably) to the Ron Paul article(s), and redirect the "Moneybomb" term to Google bomb, where a mention can be added of the multiple forms of "Money bomb", from 2004 onwards. --Elonka 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: I fail to see how to take this comment in good faith (especially weighing Elonka's allegations of move-away of non-Paul material against this and this). Political fundraising and search manipulation are already easily disambiguated: "This article is about the political fundraising technique .... For the search manipulation technique also called 'money bombing', see commercial googlebombing." Also, "from 2004 onwards" ignores the 1983 book also helpfully stubbed and disambiguated. The suggestion by Elonka and Athaenara that fundraising content should be shifted to google bomb (which is not about political fundraising) solely because of similarity of phrasing, in all honesty, strikes me as an abuse of disambiguation, rather like saying this: the neologism "sudoku" was first called "number place"; "number place" has been cited twice before as a synonym of "positional notation" (the math principle); therefore "sudoku" should be deleted and its content split among "positional notation" and "logic puzzle". If anyone can disabuse me, please do. John J. Bulten 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Although I have in the neighborhood of 1,000 to 1,500 contributions, I will preface my comments by stating that I have not contributed much over the past year and I do consider myself to be biased in that I am a Ron Paul supporter. I do believe the information to be verifiable and notable, however, I will let others decided if it should be kept as its own article. If other regular contributors believe this information does not warrant its own article, please consider moving it to Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008 or Fundraising for the 2008 presidential election. It is likely that there will be much more newsworthy information on this topic after December 16th. Finally, I would also urge other Paul supporters to resist commenting in this particular AFD if you have not substantially contributed to Wikipedia previously. -Medtopic 23:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge to Ron Paul as suggested. It's just a neologism for a time-focused fundraising campaign, a more Internet-savvy version of a telethon. It doesn't take a whole article to say this. Gordonofcartoon 03:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Well a telethon gets its own article. If a telethon is so significant to merit its own article then surely an Internet version of it would also be significant enough. I just don't get why anyone would put it in the Ron Paul section. It seems to merit its own mention as the term has been used widely by the media and supporters of other candidates like Kucinich and Huckabee.--The Devil's Advocate 05:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • SAVE (KEEP). First, this article already won one AFD battle when the term was less noted (and why can't I find that discussion?). (WP:DE: "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.") Second, there is ongoing third opinion discussion (which I understand constitutes mediation), which means that the content is not settled and judgments should not be made on the paucity of the article because much sourced material is awaiting consensus on its reliability and I have not boldly reinserted it the fourth time due to this discussion. (WP:ATD: "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." Also WP:NOTAGAIN: "It is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article.") Third, the fine arguments above for this article meeting neologism and NPOV criteria are unanswered: the proper weighting of such an article is to concentrate on its origin (Paul supporters), rise to prominence (Paul supporters), and ongoing use (six campaigns). (We are striving for proper weight; I have just readded a sourced anti-Paul comment, because I promised I would, and because it indicates my neutrality.) Fourth, I have particular concerns about the deletion faction, such as the tagalong coatrack charges upon a withdrawn vote, the inexplicable desire to pretend search manipulation has anything to do with this article other than disambiguation, the comments by the third opinion provider (whom I had regarded as a mediator), the attempts to discredit neutral analyses as SPA's (don't tag me SPA, I've just joined a wide Wikiproject), and the combined arguments "Delete, moneybombs are all about Paul" and "Delete, Paulites are hiding info that moneybombs are about lots of campaigns". (Careful review of the talk and edit histories will reward the inquirer after truth.) Fifth, it is clear that prominence was achieved on 11/5, and there was $1.8 million pledged and $4.2 million raised-- but for 12/16 there is $2.5 million pledged already and reliable sources have taken note. Just saying. (Side issue: since AFD nomination, the article has admittedly attracted notable pro-Paul editing (and pro-other editing), but these edits should be handled by normal consensus, not deletion.) Sorry I joined here late-- I was sick. In short, it would be disappointing if a careless admin made the deletion lacking even rough consensus and without addressing the quality of the arguments here and in the prior case. WP:DGFA: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." WP:DP: "If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept." John J. Bulten 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment/Question. Perhaps I'm missing something, but where was the prior AfD nomination? I only see a couple CSD deletes in the actual page history, and as for this page there are no deletes; plus, this AfD only has "Moneybomb" in the title (as opposed to "Moneybomb (2nd nomination)"). Therefore, I can only currently assume that this is the first nomination for this article. If I'm mistaken, please point me in the right direction. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 10:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment/Reply: He [Bulten] can't find it because it doesn't exist. He's probably confused about different processes (afd, prod, speedy). The article previously was deleted (logs) as a dictdef. — Athaenara ✉ 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment/Reply: That's what I figured, because I saw the prior CSDs. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Athaenara's statement is incomplete because the deletion mentioned is wholly unrelated; my and Slakr's question is still open. The deletion mentioned results from my neophyte attempt to move the article. As you can see in talk, it was originally located at "money bomb" with a redirect from "moneybomb". I wished to swap and was uncontested in talk, but incorrectly attempted to move the redirect "moneybomb" first, which didn't work and then required me to request speedy deletion of "moneybomb" (namely, for an uncontroversial move). When that happened, before I finished, another editor recreated "moneybomb" as a dict def, which Orangemike properly quoted and re-speedied as such. Then I completed my move, all on 11/20. Those two speedy deletions had nothing to do with the text currently disputed. However, the original discussion about deleting then-"money bomb", which according to talk was requested by Orangemike 11/5 and contested by Kazvorpal (so it could not be speedy or prod, though I looked), is still missing; there is no record of deleting its expected page. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
My reply to Slakr (1) specified the dictdef deletion and (2) linked the log which lists its 07:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC) occurrence. — Athaenara ✉ 00:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The previous deletion debate, that Bulten was talking about, is at the original Money Bomb talk page. --Kaz (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The new paradigm of campaign fundraising that the article describes is real. The article name is dubious, but that can be fixed if necessary. The Ron Paul focus is unfortunate, but does not invalidate the subject; it too can be fixed, if editors are willing to engage the Paulites. I'd be tempted to merge this into Campaign finance in the United States, but that article is really oriented towards types of funds raising and which types are regulated; this is about new ways of gathering non-controversial individual contributions. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This practice is not just limited to one candidate like some have suggested. Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama (with "Barack Friday") have both organized "moneybombs" that failed, but that won't stop others from trying and succeeding. I see this type of media promotion becoming more and more mainstream in the future since people are really starting to use the power of the internet to collaborate. --pie4all88 (talk) 03:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Those are excellent points which support keeping a balanced article; it is still very skewed toward the Paul campaign. — Athaenara ✉ 03:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The rule for being a GOOD editor is that if something is broken, you fix it...not delete it. If the article seems to be too pro-Ron Paul, you make it LESS pro-Ron Paul, not try to get it deleted altogether. Typically, people who object to a mere formatting or presentation issue and then want to delete it instead of fixing it have a POV agenda.
Their goal is censorship, not fixing whatever technicality they're citing.
One guy above actually says that he'd support the article, except that it's too pro-Paul. This is, in essence, a direct confession that he's wanting it deleted because of a POV agenda, over something entirely fixable.
I see, here, a lot of evidence of precisely that kind of bad faith. The attacks are on obviously reparable issues, yet the agenda is to remove the article entirely. The idea that an event setting the record for one-day Republican fund raising is not noteworthy is laughable. The idea that a word documented in mainstream media, and used on over 311,000 websites that Google has noted, is still too much a neologism to be noteworthy is ridiculous.
All words are new at one time or another, but:
    • seven different political campaigns (six other than Paul) trying moneybombs
    • hundreds of thousands of pages using the word
    • and a record-setting event using the name
...more than qualify as something worth an article -- or two. --Kaz (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral: It is my view that articles which do not comply with the neutral point of view policy should be edited in conformity with it or, if that is not possible, deleted. AFD itself: The AFD process is well suited to a community overview of such borderline articles in that it brings them to the attention of editors who were not previously aware of them. This has nothing to do with politics, and I have struck out my "Delete" above to reflect this. — Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 5 December 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.