Template:Did you know nominations/Barack Obama on Twitter

Stability. Two AFDs and whatnot, this article is not ready for the main page.

Barack Obama on Twitter

 * ... that Barack Obama's Twitter account (Obama pictured) lost 40,000 followers on one day during the United States debt-ceiling crisis?
 * Reviewed: 5th of 5 QPQs against Template:Did you know nominations/Wukui

Created/expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nom at 23:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's not have any more of these unencyclopedic articles ("X on Twitter") on the front page. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Feel free to WP:AFD it, but it is the future of WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You and your trivia are not the future of WP, Tony. I'm not going to AfD it, but I don't want this tripe on the front page. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that both Lady Gaga on Twitter and Justin Bieber on Twitter have been on the main page?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, very much so. I understand you need to up your DYK count, but not with these articles. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So I go out of my way to create articles for two of the most important twitter accounts and all you have to say is a WP:ATTACK. Please make some sort of cogent statement or none at all.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please attempt to muster all of your intellectual capacity and explain why this should not go on the main page after those have without attacking me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No personal attack here, Tony, unless you were calling me stupid. This should not go on the main page because it's a trivial article that shouldn't exist. That those other articles exist--surely you're familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If there is anything worth noting it can get a paragraph in the main articles. What you and Laura Hale are doing is not beneficial to the project, and if it has to be, "because sources exist", then it still doesn't need to be in the window of the front page. That's a matter of editorial judgment; as a longtime editor and a frequent contributor to DYK, surely I am allowed to make judgment calls. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel these articles should not exist, I am willing to wait a WP:AFD result. Awaiting an AFD outcome is a common thing at DYK.  Furthermore, this is something we should resolve while there are only 5 of these types of articles. If we don't want them stop this now. Please AFD them and get this settled.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. (see Category:Celebrity Twitter accounts)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That category is a great idea, almost as great as that list. As I said, I have no intention of starting an AfD though I invite other editors to give it a shot. I just don't want it on the front page. Drmies (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are not being cogent. You don't want these articles on the main page because you don't think these articles should exist (You described these as "trivial articles that shouldn't exist"), but are not willing to hold a discussion on whether they should exist. Let's either get this resolved or analyze whether they meet WP:WIADYK. You are WP:GAMING the system. Either WP:AFD these or analyze whether they meet WP:WIADYK--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry--I did try and muster all my intellectual powers, but they may be limited. I have started a merge discussion. You are welcome to weigh in there, of course, if you are willing to stoop down to my admittedly low level of cogency. And in case I was too dense or obtuse: I don't want these articles on the front page because they are an embarrassment. How about that? DYK is a privilege, not a right. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretending to think content should be merged into a place where it will be deleted is not a proper way to delete an article. As a WP veteran, you should know that WP:GAMING the system in that way is not sensible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC) This seems to be written with in-world perspective: what on earth's a followee? Doesn't explain on this page or on the Twitter page. What's it all about? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm done responding to your jabs about my intelligence or your personal attacks about my alleged gaming. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting 5 discussions on 5 separate talk pages is not proper. I am going to undo all you merge discussions. If you want to discuss Foo on Twitter open one single AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have undone the three merge discussions that have been started. Anyone who wants to discuss whether Foo on Twitter articles should be deleted, merged, redirected or kept should start a discussion at AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go! - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added an alternate file since this hook would do so well with a recognizable picture of the president on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article says (twitter friends).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But what's one of those? It doesn't say on Twitter; is a friend better than a follower or worse or what? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Perhaps a Venn diagram might help your readers? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure this meets Supplementary Rule D7 re reasonable degree of completeness, on at least two grounds: (1) the title is "Barack Obama on Twitter" - but then the article seems to be about @BarackObama, although you say he uses @whitehouse (and also -bo); (is there any difference in the content posted on each? which does he use on what occasions? out of interest, which was he using for Townhall @ the White House?) presumably he also has a presence on Twitter beyond his own feeds? Perhaps that would also be relevant for inclusion under the article title; (2) with millions of followers it seems a notable social phenomenon - but the article lacks any kind of analysis; what is the impact of this, the political significance? sadly many of your best sources, such as Social Media Marketing for Dummies, give only the most trivial of mentions - can you find anything more insightful? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This genre of article is not well-established yet. It is not clear what is meant by Foo on Twitter. Certainly this could mean all accounts the person uses. I intended it to mean his dedicated profile. I am sure the FLOTUS, VPOTUS and others have issues on the @Whitehouse. I guess it is appropriate to clarify his use of the alternate account though I am not sure that is required at the DYK level. I am sure that there are many Foo on Twitter pages that would span many profiles. If there were a CNN on Twitter page I think it would include two of the top 100 accounts on twitter and several others. It is typical for a Miss USA to use the official Miss USA profile while in office. Thus, Rima Fakih uses @RimaFakih and while in office used @officialrima and @MissUSA.  I have to think about what is meant by Barack Obama on Twitter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. it is conceivable to me that he had a separate Senator twitter account in 2007, 2008 and 2009. I do not know what that account is. It would not be considered notable unless we could document it in WP:RS though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what to present in terms of social significance. Are you looking for something like how social media has changed politics. There may be some articles. I am not sure. I could certainly use help finding them.  I did find an article describing the demographics of his account.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added some content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being obliging and I've had a little look as you asked (I'm afraid I have no idea as to the best places): this graduate school paper seems to have some useful data and directions - identifies Obama's Twitter activity as one element in his social network electioneering, alongside Facebook, YouTube, emails, sms, dedicated websites etc; also compares Obama with his rivals; I don't know if I can add much more, but you may have hit on something; what would be great is if you could improve it sufficiently for User:Drmies to be happy to ok it, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Maculoase, for your comments. This user is probably not going to be happy, but this DYK is not mine to decide. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * FWIW, when someone states all "Foo on Twitter" articles are all unencyclopedic it seems to fly in the face of a recently emerging technology that has gone past the tipping point of mainstream acceptance. I feel the hook should refer instead to the town hall meeting in which Obama took a leading role. The fact that he did so also confirms that this is a note in history much like the town hall meetings that utilize YouTube, another much Wikipedia-discredited technology that also, alas, changed the way people communicate. Insomesia (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While I think it is very relevant that he had a town hall, I don't envision much rubbernecking on that kind of hook. DYK's objective is to lure readers to articles. I think the proposed hook will generate the most interest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would love some feedback on image preference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the first one, of him tweeting as opposed to the other two labelled as responding to tweets. Insomesia (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently, the picture is not in the article because the infobox is in the midst of being constructed. I expect it to be returned to the article soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Infobox is fixed and image is back in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png This is one of the oldest articles in the queue and could use a review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go! - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have we agreed on which picture to use?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Putting a temporary hold on this pending the results of the discussion of the three-minute review of this DYK (and three others) at WT:DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know you guys are short hooks with pictures. You could put this in a picture slot pending decision on which one. I only got one response on best picture. I was hoping for more opinions. I think the third one is the most recognizable, which might get us more pageviews.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's hugely speculative. Bieber and Gaga (with a Gaga picture) on the same topic got around 3,000 and 5,000 views each.  (I've also yet to see a good analysis of what makes a DYK get more views or less.  Lots of random things studied on Wikipedia, but that one not so much.) Besides which, I don't think page views should be a major motivator for picture selection. --LauraHale (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well do you have an opinion on which picture to use or are we suppose to just leave it to the promoter?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer the picture on the left in my opinion. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 16:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd refer to Systemic bias and suggest no photo is needed of the current US president, as his face is more than likely familiar to readers already, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The objective of DYK is to lure pageviews. I think a picture of the Prez doing something unusual will lure more pageviews than most alternatives. Obviously, the hook could be posted without a picture at the discretion of the promoters, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obama working on a computer is "unusual"? Is this the first time he's used a computer? – Lionel (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As I was asked to give an opinion on the picture, I am not some one who moves things to the prep area. My personal preference is no picture. Lots and lots of my DYKs with pictures go into the prep area with out pictures. I don't see it as a big deal either way. If the person moving it to the prep area as good to go needs a picture, they can chose whatever one they want. If they don't need a picture, then no picture. --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My request was an opinion about which picture, if one is chosen.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you really want to put Obama on the front page wasting time with twitter in these economic times? Are you working on the Romney campaign? – Lionel (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Laura---I always thought they never used my pics on DYK because they don't like me. – Lionel (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Lionelt, about one in three to one in five of mine with pictures actually get used. It is completely up to the person who is moving them.  If I was insistent that everyone I nominated with a picture got used, we'd still be waiting on half of mine.  Pictures are nice if you can get them.  I really appreciate when ones taken specifically for the article get used.  Expectations that they get used?  Not so much and rather annoying as this feels like a repeat where this has been explained to Tony before. tl;dr More people nominate with pictures than are can be used. Topic is irrelevant.   --LauraHale (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The last time (and one of the few times) I stronly suggested a picture be used, it got over 25K hits. I think that this one could also get 10-20K as well with a picture. That is why I am asking opinions on the picture.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Laura, please don't make wild baseless accusations that I do this all the time when you know it isn't true. There is a word for stuff like that.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the responses above, which are two people (other than myself) in favor of the first image and two in favor of no image, we should just approve this and let the promoter choose between the first image and no image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as the approval explains what was actually reviewed, based on the DYK review criteria, I would have no objections. However, absent that list, I would object to a third "Good to go" from Presidentman for the reasons stated at WT:DYK. His first approval was even sketchier than the second, being part of a wave of approve-and-promotes on June 1 that had to be reversed. At this point, we need to get another reviewer who's willing to give this some quality time. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Drmies, this is really trivial. There's lots more important stuff to both write about and put on the main page. — Puppy of Dog The Teddy Bear • WOOF • 20:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There are certainly an enormous amount of content presented on the main page that are far less important than the most trivial activities of the President of the United States.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There has been a discussion regarding fair use for the screencaps used in these articles and weather or not they qualify. makes it seem unlikely they do. If the screencaps are in the article, this issue needs to be addressed to be sure they actually qualify under Wikipedia's Fair Use policy. --LauraHale (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In that debate you have made no cogent argument as to why a picture of his moptop is preferable to a picture of his tweets.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the Bieber Twitter account has a copyrightable avatar making his page un-FUR-able.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Serious concern Can someone explain how this hook gives appropriate weight to the topic of the article and is not a transparent attempt to play political games on our front page? Hipocrite (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that a hook is suppose to be some sort of weighted summary of the article. Hooks are very commonly quirky tangential elements of an article that are most likely to cause internet rubbernecking.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * NPOV is a policy for every main space page. This is not that. Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The hook is very NPOV and I could provide 5 citations that back it up. It is no more NPOV than to say that his popularity rose or fell in a particular poll or unemployment went up or down.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is substantially less NPOV than "Barack Obama's Twitter account had 16,505,044 followers,and has posted 4,239 tweets." It's is also not fully descriptive of why the followers were lost, and it's obvious that something untoward is here. Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hooks that are half the story is what DYK is all about. Your suggested hook would not cause any wonderment, which is desired in a DYK hook.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have brought this issue to Wikipedia talk:Did you know for more input from the DYK community. Cunard (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @tiger: Tony, this has been around for a little while now, various issues have been raised, and in the interests of keeping things fresh - I don't know whether you'd be prepared to follow the example of the nominator one above you in the queue (here)? You may be right that there is something in all this, but perhaps a "subject matter expert" might be needed to show the way; D7 etc; and perhaps the same for the Ashton whateverhisnameis page one beneath this one? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the nominator one above me did. However, it is standard practice here to await AFD outcomes. I see no reason why this should be different, ignoring what seems to me to be an attempted distraction by  to tag the page with barely relevant tags. I don't really see the relevance of D7 here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The AFD result was......... no consensus to delete, NOT "keep". Still there could be deletion review on AFD. Likely, it may be rejected, or it may not. However, we have a long battle, and, if I were a reviewer, I would not allow this to pass because it lacks commentary. But Tony here... ugh. I don't know when we can be civil to each other. Therefore, I'll leave this nom to someone who has no struggles with Tony. --George Ho (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: The title was changed to "Communications of Barack Obama". --George Ho (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't have reverted the change back, but administrators have a point. --George Ho (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is again nominated for deletion. Let's wait... --George Ho (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * NO, it's been two months, two afds, time to go. Pumpkin Sky   talk  01:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)