Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Girl

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obama Girl

Obama Girl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable meme. No references. I put a speedy tag on it, but it was removed. Corvus cornix 05:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - flash in the pan web meme. Artw 06:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've got a crush on Obama too, but unless there are some reliable sources lurking out there, this fails notability guidelines. --Haemo 07:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. gren グレン 08:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB, clearly no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now - I don't think this will last and I don't think it's particularly noteworthy, but that being said, a simple search of "Yahoo! News" finds dozens of articles from various reliable TV and newspaper sources talking about this. Also, CNN has discussed it and, as of right now, has a link on the front page of CNN.com to a segment about this video. So, at least for now, sources do exist to back up its notability. (No telling if it will last, though.) --Hnsampat 12:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia. The author needs to take it there.--Edtropolis 13:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - In just a few minutes I was able to source the contents of this article from multiple non-trivial, third-party and reputable news sources (e.g., ABC News, MSNBC, Fox news). The !votes for "delete" above, therefore, should have their concerns abated. The subject is unquestionably notable, and since notability is not temporary, it does not matter that the current level of media coverage will probably not continue. The fact that it has the potential to influence (however subtly) an upcoming U.S. presidential election merits mention here. ◄Zahakiel► 13:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete. I agree that notability is not temporary and use the third sentence of that section to justify my opinion: "In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." Deor 15:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I actually fixed a spelling error in that article while working on this, so I've read it pretty thoroughly. It is true, as the page states, that present news coverage does not necessarily constitute long-term notability, but the elections issue, and the nature of that coverage, would speak to at least some potential long-term importance. As those voting "keep for now" have rightly said, it is a current matter of much discussion, and has been noted by a variety of sources. This fits our criteria for inclusion. ◄Zahakiel► 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't put much stock in "keep for now" arguments; my reading of the relevant guidelines is that a topic has to have demonstrable long-term notability for an article to be created. If an article is kept as "notable for the moment", it's very difficult to get rid of it in the future, since folks will argue that notability is not temporary. Deor 17:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
And it's not. The nature of the current coverage is already examining its potential influence on such long-term issues as a presidential election. This may be a "sudden" phenomenon, but it's not just some guy with a glowing broom handle dancing around the place either. ◄Zahakiel► 17:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-enduring web meme. -N 14:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - For the moment it is notable. Anyone remember "All your base are belong to us"? --Art8641 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, brief Internet phenomena. Well, I guess it is noteable for the time-being, but it won't be remembered like All your base belong to us was. --Thekittybomb 16:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You don't know that, do you? I'm not saying that it will be remembered, but none of us knows what the future holds. Less important phenomena have been known to persist for an ungodly long time. --Hnsampat 17:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Persons asserting that "It will be very quickly forgotten" are very confident in their personal crystal ball. That is not a good basis for deletion of something that satisfies WP:A and WP:N. It has been the subject of lengthy independent stories in a number of newspapers (not just blogs) such as the Chicago Tribune [1], besides the ones already cited. That said, it should be judged by the "rejected" WP:MEME, a notability standard for internet memes. There seems to be some implicit standard for judging such memes, because Bus Uncle, a celphone video of an old guy raving in a pugnacious manner on a bus, was appareently never even nominated for deletion, and actually became a featured article. Bus Uncle got 1.7 million viewings on Youtube in 3 weeks, or 81,000 per day while Obama Girl received 777,000 viewings in 3 day, or 259,000 per day, over 3 times the viewing rate. I could see deleting it on the basis that per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a newspaper, in keeping with the essay WP:NOTNEWS, which calls for deleting mere "water-cooler" stories. Edison 19:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    Certainly. And water cooler stories can only be determined to be such after the meme dies away. There's good reason to believe, beyond mere speculation, that as long as Obama is a viable candidate for the 2008 election, this video is going to keep coming up in discussion, if the current coverage is any indication at all. And of course, All your base was also a Featured Article in 2004... nobody expected it to be so enduring a web presence, and that wasn't even about a politician :) ◄Zahakiel► 19:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    Comment The Bus Uncle was previously nominated for deletion in May 2006. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bus Uncle. cab 06:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not necessarily a fan of articles on web memes, but this one seems fairly significant since it is tied to a presidential campaign and has been heavily discussed in major media (which is somewhat surprising). This may be a flash-in-the-pan story, or it may be an enduring aspect of the 2008 campaign which warrants an article. Right now, there is simply no way to tell. I vote to keep for now and to close the AfD with a note that deletion could and should certainly be reconsidered if the meme dies down in the months ahead. I would also note that several of the first few votes seemed to be solely on the basis of lack of notability as established by reliable sources. Now that RS have been provided, I think these editors should reconsider (or simply re-justify) their votes/comments and if not these comments should be given less weight. It is now a substantially different article and "no reliable sources" is no longer a valid delete reason in my opinion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. There is no evidence of lasting encyclopedic notability here. MER-C 05:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep arguments of no lasting relevance seem a little absurd when talking about presidential candidates, their campaigns, and supporters--they give rise to books and everything related for decades and decades. Not news does not mean ignore everything that might be in a newspaper as well. DGG 07:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep About as weak as humanly possible. However campaign/campaign-related ads do sometimes become of lasting value. This one was mentioned in credible news sources. I think this is just a temporary fad, I despise the word/concept meme, but if by 2008 she becomes a major discussion point in the campaign we might look silly for the lack of foresight. (I don't think this will happen, but we can't be certain she will be forgotten either)--T. Anthony 07:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. The Internet section of that article could be expanded to include more on this video and other Net-related Obama issues. It isn't really worthy of its own article yet.--T. Anthony 02:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's making headlines. Will it be making them 10 years from now? Probably not, but it's made enough of a splash that if Obama Girl ever gets mentioned in conversation, the uninformed should be able to turn to WP for enlightenment. - Pharaonic 12:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. After I saw the video, Wikipedia was the first place I looked for additional information. How many candidates get sexy videos made for them? I think that alone makes it notable enough for a site like Wikipedia. Foofy 17:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Pharaonic. JJL 17:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - this first internet viral sex video for a candidate is not notable in the slightest. The storage costs and bandwidth costs to the wikipedia must be considered. In fact, not only should we delete this entry, but I think we should delete all future entries that haven't paid their subscription fees. How else will we keep Wikipedia pure? Also, is there a speedy delete bot that can be used to tag a "Speedy delete" on all new entries? Better safe than sorry I always say. Allowing a keep on this will just encourage people to add new entries to the wikipedia at a time when current entries need a great deal more revising. Is that really what we want to permit? 71.39.78.68 18:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Excuse me? Subscription fees for Wikipedia? Blocking all new entries? You do realize that Wikipedia is, by definition, "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? --Hnsampat 19:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
      • "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" Is that really what it is, because frankly, I'd swear that definition sounds like something Douglas Adams would have written.71.39.78.68 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
        • This is copied from the Main Page of Wikipedia: "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." That's the first thing you see when coming to this site. So yes, that's really what this is. There are certain aspects of the site, such as the fact that there is no time limit, and even anonymous users (such as yourself) can make changes to articles, that work against the concerns you have raised regarding this particular article. The Obama Girl entry does meet the criteria that Wikipedia has established for information inclusion, so it's fine for being here. ◄Zahakiel► 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
          • All of you need your sarcasm detectors adjusted. -N 01:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Haha, oh man, I feel a bit dumb now. I should've picked up on the sarcasm based on just how outrageous the comments were (and the reference to Douglas Adams in the reply). Okay, let me strike my comments above. In my defense, though, I think this serves as a good example of how sarcasm is easy to miss when reading something posted online. --Hnsampat 01:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
              • While it is true I was being sarcastic, I have often thought that "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit" does sound like something out of the pages of HHGTG. And I think the speedy delete taggers will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.71.39.78.68 01:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
                • If y'all had read some of the comments I have, you wouldn't have been so sure... :) ◄Zahakiel► 02:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Plenty of reliable sources coverage. Almost aOver 1.3 million youtube views [2]. Meets our standards. Notability is permanant, etc. --Oakshade 21:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Please point to any guideline or policy which says "lots of youtube visits means that something is notable." Corvus cornix 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • So any other arguement besides being the primary subject of mulitple non-trivial published works (which this person is, by the way) is not allowed? I could say "Please point to any guideline or policy which says 'If Corvis cornix says something is a non-notable meme and has no references, even if the topic is notable and has references and is the subject of mulitiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources, it's still non-notable'", but I won't. --Oakshade 06:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's every bit as relevent as Dick in a box or Numa numa. --Mongrel 22:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid deletion discussion criterion. Corvus cornix 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • According to an essay--not a guideline, and certainly not a policy. Oftentimes "othercrapexists" is, well, a crappy argument, but sometimes comparisons can be useful, thus I don't think the point that Dick in a box has an article is completely irrelevant or invalid.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It depends. If a subject has survived deletion and been declared notable through process than a subject of similar notability could also merit inclusion. I think there is or can be some sense of precedent. Numa Numa got "no concensus" so isn't necessarily a precedent. The other one is listed as a Good Article so may be a precedent of sorts. (That stated I think the analogy is inexact and I switched to merging)--T. Anthony 10:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - verifiable by reliable sources. -- MisterHand 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Existence ≠ notability. Corvus cornix 01:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's true, but not everything that exists is covered extensively in third-party sources. This was. That is our standard for notability. ◄Zahakiel► 02:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Why is there a deletion attempt right in the middle of the whole news story. It doesn't make any sense. Waiting a few days will help us see how big and notable this really is. There are other possible developments that could occur (Obama responds, conservative people react, poll changes and more). It's way too soon to consider it for deletion, which is why, at the moment, I say Keep. Pizzachicken 21:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why don't we change the name of this article to "Amber Lee Ettinger"? and put obama girl as an aka?
    • The article is about the video and the character, not the person. --Hnsampat 23:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Deor Donama 23:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As mentioned above, it is culturally relevant to our times. The reason I created this page is because I saw so much of her on news channels such as CNN, MSNBC and Fox News that I was curious what the video was about and if it had relation to people in Obama's campaign. I came to Wikipedia and was shocked to notice it had no page, so I made one, hoping more people would add to it. This is certainly part of our cultural history and more relevant than many pages you find on Wikipedia. I got 365,000 hits on google for "Obama Girl." Considering the story is a mere 4-5 days old, thats huge. There are plenty of US news sources talking about this topic. Not to mention, I saw a british news paper talking about it recently online when doing a search. Deltaforce5000 7:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Pizzachicken. Right now there are lots of people following up the story on major news channels by checking it out on wikipedia. We might consider deleting later if actually turns out to be non-notable in the long term, but right now this is notable and referenced and it could qualify as notable in the long term. --Aranae 08:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep All my reasons are redundant, and previously sated well by Pharaonic, Foofy, & Aranae. - Bjewiki 12:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Added New York Times reference to the other reliable sources already in the article. Youtube now shows 1,238,6861,503,000 views in the 6 8 days the video has been online, plus 253,00 views of 3 closely related videos, and it has received worldwide coverage in the press as shown by Google News [3]. As "memes" go this is more notable than the others which have Wikipedia articles. Edison 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Considering this video may greatly impact the election, and bring young people to the voting booths, it is certainly as encyclopedia worthy as much of other content on Wikipedia. If pornography stars have Wiki entries, then certainly this ought to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.89.140 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the sources say notable. Everyking 08:36, 21 June 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.