Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama on Twitter: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:02, 6 July 2012

Barack Obama on Twitter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not an article about @BarackObama it is an article about Barack Obama on Twitter and as such it should be condensed and merged into the appropriate article. Articles on the use of a social medium by a public figure are simply not notable, some extraordinary "accounts" are however not in this case nor in the case of Ashton Kutcher on Twitter. The problem is that this topic does not meet the notability requirements for a separate article and is not of any educational value. The sources are for Barack Obama not for his account and are therefore SYNTHESIS, therefore we must delete this entry and merge a small amount of useful information to Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians or Barack Obama possibly Barack Obama#Cultural and political image if not we will have to accept an unending series of Barack Obama on Facebook, on Instagram, on Pinterist, on Google +, Barack Obama's email account, Barack Obama's home in Chicago and other useless TRIVIA. Lastly the relevant policy in this case what Wikipedia is not WP:NOT, in particular WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and to some degree WP:NOTDIARY), which states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No wonder you did not link to WP:INDISCRIMINATE; it has nothing to do with this article.
As for the rest, it is the same throwing of mere assertions and flawed reasoning and seeing what sticks that I have come to expect at AfD, eg invoking notability without substantiation, a slippery slope argument, and the hair-splitting invention of calling the use of sources about BO's use of Twitter SYNTH because they are not specifically about the account itself. Anarchangel (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a proper separate article, per WP:SPLIT, as including it in the main Barack Obama article would be undue weight. Furthermore, this is one of the few on Twitter accounts that I support existing, because Obama has specifically used Twitter extensively throughout his presidency and in specific venues, such as the Twitter Town Hall. There has been extensive coverage on his Twitter use and how it relates to his presidency and his current presidential campaign, shown in sources like this. If Barack Obama received an extensive amount of coverage on his usage of other venues, then those might be notable enough to make, but right now, that is just an OTHERSTUFF argument, because there is no indication that Obama significantly uses any other venue besides Twitter. Furthermore,, the comments about email and his home are red herrings. This article is not indiscriminate or violate NOT, because of the extensive specific coverage of Obama's Twitter account. Silverseren^C 00:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 4. Snotbot t • c » 00:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While 99.6% of the YOURNAMEHERE on Twitter articles are inherently unencyclopedic, there are sufficient independent published sources showing for this to pass GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel like I ought to be fair and say that maybe there are better arguments for deletion than have been presented, they are so bad. SYNTH is about the use of sources, not the choice of them. If the sources were not about the Twitter account, someone could have removed them because they did not verify the statements they were supposed to cite.Not only does no one seem to understand SYNTH, but people misunderstand it in different ways. Wee! Anarchangel (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Barack Obama is being cited in reliable sources his account @BarackObama is not, this article is about Barack Obama and is therefore a duplicate that is unsourced.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe delete rationale seems to be a non-justification. "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." That rightly says the article is not -necessarily- suitable, it doesn't come close to saying it's unsuitable. I forget the formal logic terminology for this.150.35.244.246 (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral if renaming a title to a broader scope - Seriously, this is a collaboration of recorded events from news. However, we are dealing with the President of the United States, not Kutcher or Bieber... or Gaga. If people want this article kept, then this article is too much on Twitter. He might have used YouTube and other stuff. Therefore, renaming this article to "Barack Obama on <something internet-related>" and then broadening scope of this article would help, right? Otherwise, why else keeping Obama-Twitter is nothing is to be done? Without general analysis or thought on Twitter account as a whole, this is a delete for me if Twitter account stays a Twitter account. Regardless of notability of this topic, the whole article speaks something that is against standards of general needs of a reader. --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Showing how the elected leader of one of the most powerful nations on Earth uses a popular social networking site to gather support and influence people to his causes, seems quite encyclopedic to me. Dream Focus 07:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Political campaigning and advertising is potentially notable (e.g. Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, Daisy (advertisement)). If something involves the president of the USA and is widely covered in the media over a long period of time, it's probably notable. Political controversies regularly come to AfD and are quite often kept. Merging to Barack Obama is impossible due to its length, and it can therefore stand as a spinout. Changing it to "Barack Obama use of social media" might be possible, but I don't believe it's necessary. The internet and Twitter are now important media. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Must I say something? Surely, this topic is notable, right? However, writing an article about this topic.... is not very easy, but I guess it has some merit about the next campaign. Still, this article is just retelling of all events, and no significant viewpoints have been yet made about Obama-Twitter. ~~I crossed out "delete" in favor of Neutral because of WP:SIZE, unfortunately, which speaks about loading issues.~~ WP:MOS comes in play, as well, because even a special issue of the Time magazine can do better than this article, no offense. --George Ho (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: because this is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIARY, WP:NOTCASE study, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is not a simple issue of notability. The fact is, for any major public figure, you're going to be able to assemble sources about a myriad of subtopics. Barack Obama's appearances in Ohio. Justin Bieber's live performances. Lindsay Lohan's substance abuse issues. Those would all technically be sourceable. The problem is, you're starting to get into topic selections that resemble the biases of the editor. You're starting to confuse "the subject" with "what the subject is notable for". It's your standard WP:CONTENTFORK problem where people can write multiple articles that are all basically about the same thing, which would make the encyclopedia even more unmanageable than it already is. (Note: this is a copy-and-paste comment that I also posted at the similar Bieber article. Everything I said there applies equally here.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm not the only one. --George Ho (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use of social media by political candidates and campaigns has been the target of lots and lots of coverage. If ever these articles are notable it is here. Obama campaign on Facebook could even probably be a notable article, though it might make more sense to have one article Obama campaign on social media.174.234.0.33 (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is getting ridiculous. Here: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Someone stop the madness!--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability of this topic is not relevant to the execution of this article, no matter how the quality of this article is. --George Ho (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article is not a reason. My point above is that all those sources focus rather heavily on Obama's Twitter activity as a subject unto itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet even the next or the next 10 revisions are current revisions. Even changes become current versions. --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia should not contain everything found somewhere on the Internet. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nominator ("...it should be condensed and merged into the appropriate article.") and suggest that he start a WP:Merge discussion per our policies. Also suggest he/she take the time to read WP:Synthesis, as using a source mainly about one thing in an article on something else is both not synthesis and not against GNG sourcing policy. The Steve 05:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colapeninsula. You can disagree with the ones about celebrities, but this one involves the president of the United States, who uses it for campaigning purposes. Statυs (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colapeninsula and The Steve. To me, passess WP:GNG and agree it's too long to merge. Vertium (talk to me) 10:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was about to nom this myself as yet another indiscriminate amalgamation of trivial doings. This is especially true for the P{resident of the US, who receives heaps of media coverage as to what is on the White House dinner table at Thanksgiving, what the family gives each other at XMas, Michelle Obama's arms, the president swatting a fly during an interview, etc... There is nothing especially notable about an official White House twitter feed, any more than there is about a White House telephone or White House e-mail account. This is far more of a slam dunk than the Kutcher or Bieber articles. Tarc (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per common sense; we're a serious encyclopedia and this is a trivial topic. Encyclopediacy trumps any notability guideline. This is simply inappropriate for an academic resource, our reliability aside. The rise of new media has blurred the line between notability and sheer triviality—closing admin must not fail to distinguish this line. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Twitter is a communication medium. Presidents use communications mediums. With very rare exceptions like FDR's Fireside chats, we shouldn't make articles on how Presidents use communications mediums. Do you see an article like Theodore Roosevelt on the telephone or Ronald Reagan on television? Of course not. This isn't an encyclopedic topic at all. Now, if this were merged into, say, Barack Obama on social media this might be okay. But this isn't an encyclopedic topic. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Ronald Reagan filmography, a clearly notable topic? Silverseren^C 21:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You assume wrong; I mean his television appearances as a president and politician, which is clearly not a notable topic as a whole. Individual ones may be if they are speeches or addresses to the nation, but it isn't a notable topic as a whole. Toa Nidhiki05 21:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIARY. Not everything that is reported in reliable sources is appropriate for its own article, especially things that are trivial and commonplace like this. Some of the more notable material on this subject should be presented in articles like Barack Obama, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, and Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians, but not in a standalone article on the subject. -Scottywong | talk _ 21:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, all of you need to stop using INDISCRIMINATE, because it doesn't apply. Second, Obama's use of Twitter is very clearly not trivial, when it had had a significant impact on his presidency and his current campaign and he's used it as such (in Twitter Town Halls and the like). An article covering this usage is appropriate and easy to source. Silverseren^C 21:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a really good source for that. Silverseren^C 21:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, INDISCRIMINATE can apply; it is commonly interpreted that the 3 examples listed in the guideline are just that: examples of where INDISCRIMINATE applies. Whether or not it should apply here is for the closer of this debate to decide. Also, if it has had a significant impact on his presidency and current campaign, then why not consider merging it to Presidency of Barack Obama or Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sigh. Except that INDISCRIMINATE is a policy specifically against things that are only verifiable, ie things with not enough sources per the GNG. This is explicitly stated in the intro: "...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It goes on to list some examples, like plot summaries, which by their nature, will only have one primary source, the work itself. Meeting the GNG with third-party, independent, reliable sources means that INDISCRIMINATE will not apply. The Steve 01:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to The Steve, and anyone else who opposes use of WP:INDISCRIMINATE in this debate: WP:GNG addresses INDISCRIMINATE by saying that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Also, to be considered verifiable, it must have reliable sources, which are defined here as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So, while the specific examples INDISCRIMINATE gives typically do not have this, they are therefore not verifiable and not representative of all articles that INDISCRIMINATE applies to. The quote you gave from the intro to INDISCRIMINATE, that verifiability "does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion", shows this. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I created this page, I did so just because I saw other Foo on Twitter pages. With so many articles related to the President, I feel that this adds content that is informative and would otherwise be left uncoordinated and only obtainable by numerous Google searches.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If anybody wants this article kept, why not userfication then? That way, let's wait for future upcomings that can generally signify this topic. --George Ho (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I vote to keep this article. I agree with Silver Seren and Anarchangel! --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References establish notability. Everyking (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 ::* Actually, INDISCRIMINATE can apply; it is commonly interpreted that the 3 examples listed in the guideline are just that: examples of where INDISCRIMINATE applies. Whether or not it should apply here is for the closer of this debate to decide. Also, if it has had a significant impact on his presidency and current campaign, then why not consider merging it to [[Presidency of Barack Obama]] or [[Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012]]? [[User:RedSoxFan2434|RedSoxFan2434]] ([[User talk:RedSoxFan2434|talk]]) 21:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 :::'''Comment'''  sigh.  Except that INDISCRIMINATE is a policy specifically against things that are only verifiable, ie things '''with not enough sources''' per the GNG.  This is explicitly stated in the intro: "...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  It goes on to list some examples, like plot summaries, which by their nature, will only have one primary source, the work itself.   Meeting the GNG with third-party, independent, reliable sources means that INDISCRIMINATE will not apply.  [[user: Thesteve|<font color="#FFFFFF"><font style="background:darkblue">&nbsp;Th</font><font style="background:royalblue" >e S</font><font style="background:blue">te</font><font style="background:#6666FF">ve&nbsp;</font></font>]] 01:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
+:::*'''Response to The Steve, and anyone else who opposes use of [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] in this debate:''' [[WP:GNG]] addresses INDISCRIMINATE by saying that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate [[WP:NOT|what Wikipedia is not]], perhaps the most likely violation being [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information]]." Also, to be considered [[WP:V|verifiable]], it must have reliable sources, which are defined [[WP:SOURCES|here]] as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So, while the specific examples INDISCRIMINATE gives typically do not have this, they are therefore not verifiable and not representative of all articles that INDISCRIMINATE applies to. The quote you gave from the intro to INDISCRIMINATE, that verifiability "does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion", shows this. [[User:RedSoxFan2434|RedSoxFan2434]] ([[User talk:RedSoxFan2434|talk]]) 02:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' When I created this page, I did so just because I saw other Foo on Twitter pages. With so many articles related to the President, I feel that this adds content that is informative and would otherwise be left uncoordinated and only obtainable by numerous Google searches.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|BIO]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:FOUR]]) </small> 22:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 ** If anybody wants this article kept, why not '''userfication''' then? That way, let's wait for future upcomings that can generally signify this topic. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 23:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)