Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My.BarackObama.com

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 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 talk 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My.BarackObama.com

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
My.BarackObama.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (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)

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 [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] and some of your edits [8][9][10][11] during this discussion are closely resembling an attempt at WP:POINT. Please refrain from this behavior. Also do not remove valid comments of others[12]. These are all forms of Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia articles[13][14]; who's disrupting WP:POINT and WP:NOT#CRYSTAL BALL here? Italiavivi 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."[15]? Seems you have quite the plan on How to make personal attacks on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia") 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 Wikipedia[16][17] has no place lecturing anyone about disregard for the consensus process. Italiavivi 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)
  • 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 (rants) 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge as per Bobblehead. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 18:31, 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. 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. Italiavivi 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. Italiavivi 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)
  • 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. Wikipedia 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 [18]. He is of course entitled to participate wherever he likes, but his participation and vote should be weighed with that in mind. Italiavivi 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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. Italiavivi 23:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I am here on my independent awareness. And I am entitled to my opinion here, which is: Wikipedia 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. Italiavivi 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 Wikipedia. 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. Italiavivi 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. Italiavivi 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. Italiavivi 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 Wikipedia 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?
  • Delete or Redirect Merge 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. Italiavivi 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. Italiavivi 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. Italiavivi 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. Wikipedia should avoid becoming just another tool in political campaigns. Beorhtric 11:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has never only had "one article per candidate." Please assume good faith instead of implying that other editors are using Wikipedia as a campaign tool. Italiavivi 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 Wikipedia - 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)
  • 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. Italiavivi 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 (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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.