Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flag@whitehouse.gov

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. WP:NOTNEWS - nothing to truly merge, some information may be "useful", but not in this article about an email address (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flag@whitehouse.gov

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This has received no media attention since August 2009. Prezbo (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTYELLOW. No enduring notability. — Rankiri (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even a blip on the radar screen of events. Everyking (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge a innovative and interesting approach by a innovative and interesting administration. This should either be kept or the information moved elsewhere, either way it should not be erased. - Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about an email address that was dead after a month? This is a case where it was in the news cycle for a week or two and then forgotten quickly and with no notability. Nate • (chatter) 03:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either merge slightly into Health care reform debate in the United States or a similar article, or delete. This e-mail address is not a significant topic in its own right, although it could be worth a mention in some article to which it is relevant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the daily news. JIP | Talk 06:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIR. Edison (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Worth two lines in the health care reform article, and might just be searched for. --GRuban (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Non Dairy Creamer. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be interesting, but does it pass NOTNEWS? — Rankiri (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it clearly passes NOTNEWS. The article does not go onto detail, but it is a complex story. Please see; Sen. Accuses White House of Creating "Enemies List", Who’s Behind the Internet Snitch Brigade?, and Target of White House 'disinformation' attacks responds demonstrate some of the complexity of the story. In addition, this is NOTNEWS as it is now a part of political history to be reflected upon. Please see the 2010 text A New American Tea Party: The Counterrevolution Against Bailouts, Handouts for an example. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respectfully disagree. These articles (one of them is a blog entry) were published immediately (August 4-7, 2009) after the White House's announcement. They essentially discuss the same story (the White House mentioning the email address in its blog and Sen. John Cornyn consequently accusing Pres. Obama of "monitoring American citizens' speech") and are hardly evidential of enduring notability of the subject. The book's coverage seems insignificant. — Rankiri (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very harsh oversimplification of the narrative. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Darkwind (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The nominator also stated that there has been "no media attention since August 2009." This is not correct. As one of the sources I provided above shows; this story continues to be discussed in 2010. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically correct. I can find a few columns and blog posts from September 2009[1] and one column from January 2010[2], but basically the media stopped paying attention to this in August 2009. All of the articles you linked to are from August 2009. You also found a 2010 book that mentions this topic on three pages, but that's the only result for it on google books.Prezbo (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that that book was published in January 2010, which means the writer had to submit a final manuscript some time before that; the book doesn't appear to mention any events that happened after September 2009.Prezbo (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per GRuban. Not notable enough for its own article, but nonetheless worthy of a mention in a relevant article. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.