Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul 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 delete. Kurykh 03:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ron Paul Girl
Subject fails to meet notability guidelines. Page reads like advertisement and was created by a user whose only contributions have been to this page. Chadamir 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for being a misleading article about Ron Paul's campaign videos and being utterly bereft of any factual info on the subject at hand. Eddie.willers 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is certainly notable enough. If you don't like the page, argue with Wikipedia standards for notability, which favour cartoons, video games and other pop culture items with a low bar for passing the screen. Per present standards this is a keeper. Decoratrix 05:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Since when are Metacafe and Blogspot reliable sources, let alone third-party ones? As it stands, this article doesn't just miss the bar, it whangs it's head on it. --UsaSatsui 08:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Check out the current article sources which include coverage by CNN, Fox News, the Paul Campaign website, USA Today and others. Decoratrix 01:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Since when are Metacafe and Blogspot reliable sources, let alone third-party ones? As it stands, this article doesn't just miss the bar, it whangs it's head on it. --UsaSatsui 08:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Unless references (other than metacafe and blogspot) to verify notability can be added to the article. -- Rjd0060 05:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete lack of news coverage; effectively an ad for the actress/site. JJL 13:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as it has no verifiable sources, and does not appear to be notable. TonyBallioni 13:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not encyclopedic, no reliable sources, borderline advert. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete due to lack of reliable sources and non-noteable. However, the situation could change if this publicity campaign gets covered by the mainstream press. Majoreditor 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Coverage has been picked up by CNN and Fox News. This is a very new phenom. Give it time to develope. Over 250,000 people have watched one of the videos. It has become a part of the 08 U.S. presidential campaign, like it or not. Decoratrix 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Her being mentioned on the USA Today blog is all well and good, but it's just another blog. You cannot say that one blog is more valid as a source than another, and in this context, they have been said to be invalid as a source. Your other source provides coverage by journalists, but it really doesn't show her as being covered over any significant amount of time. At best she is a human interest piece, and should he not receive the nomination, this page will read more like a resume and most likely fall into neglect. Isn't there a better place for her than her own article? Perhaps his campaign page? If she's not significant enough to be included there then I don't see how she's somebody that should be included in an encyclopedia.--Chadamir 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Response The Ron Paul Girl is mentioned in Ron Paul's article, but merging all this material into Ron Paul would give the Ron Paul Girl coverage undue weight in Ron Paul. By the way, since when is the length of time of media coverage a criterion for notability? Decoratrix 03:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Response http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary --Chadamir 05:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Response The Ron Paul Girl is mentioned in Ron Paul's article, but merging all this material into Ron Paul would give the Ron Paul Girl coverage undue weight in Ron Paul. By the way, since when is the length of time of media coverage a criterion for notability? Decoratrix 03:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Her being mentioned on the USA Today blog is all well and good, but it's just another blog. You cannot say that one blog is more valid as a source than another, and in this context, they have been said to be invalid as a source. Your other source provides coverage by journalists, but it really doesn't show her as being covered over any significant amount of time. At best she is a human interest piece, and should he not receive the nomination, this page will read more like a resume and most likely fall into neglect. Isn't there a better place for her than her own article? Perhaps his campaign page? If she's not significant enough to be included there then I don't see how she's somebody that should be included in an encyclopedia.--Chadamir 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Coverage has been picked up by CNN and Fox News. This is a very new phenom. Give it time to develope. Over 250,000 people have watched one of the videos. It has become a part of the 08 U.S. presidential campaign, like it or not. Decoratrix 23:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but improve the article's quality. 12.10.248.51 23:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per present standards this is a keeper.
- Delete and waiting for the AfD appearence of Chris Dodd Girl, Mike Huckabee Lass, Dennis Kucinich Woman and Female Fred Thompson Supporter Doc Strange 07:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why are we trying to delete the article on the Ron Paul Girl? The Barack Obama girl has not one, but two articles about her and no one's marked them for deletion.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Got_a_Crush..._on_Obama
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Lee_Ettinger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.76.94 (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Response Then Mark them for deletion. I simply stumbled upon this one.--Chadamir 00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Why are we trying to get rid of the Ron Paul Girl? There's nothing wrong with this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.184.142 (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable on the web. Shown on Fox. Republican version the the Obama Girl. Medtopic 02:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The Ron Paul girl should stay. She's an icon now and anyone within the Ron Paul Grassroots campaign knows about her. I find nothing from the rules of deletion to be applied here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frasu (talk • contribs) 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Interesting to note that the comments after Nov 12 23:30 strongly favour keeping. These commentors saw the page when the notable sources were added. Thus the later commentors should be given very serious weight since they saw the poperly sourced version of the article. Decoratrix 15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The following Keep comment was found on the article talk page and I am transferring it here for completeness. "The Ron Paul girl should stay. She's an icon now and anyone within the Ron Paul Grassroots campaign knows about her." (note this unsigned comment posted by User:Vitacore}Decoratrix 15:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)- Response The sources provided still do not establish her notability as lasting and not temporary. One of the comments justified keeping it based on the notability within the grassroots campaign. This does not establish notability as it is word of mouth and still temporary, even though I'll assume good faith and say its true. The fact that someone can find nothing wrong with the page doesn't mean there still aren't problems or that it actually is notable. This isn't a campaign or political issue so much as a wikipedia issue. As I've said I'm all for deleting the Obama girl too. One bad article does not justify another. The comment from the talk page was already posted here by that user although they did not sign so no need to repeat it. I've striked it out and the fact that it was posted by two different people in the same exact words is suspect. --Chadamir 19:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this is not a biography, it's a "wow, hot!" fan piece about the campaign tactic. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 17 November 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.
