Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama media controversy


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama media controversy
– (View AfD) (View log)

Previously nominated at Articles for deletion/Barack Obama Muslim rumor. Please note that withdrawal does not: a) endorse keeping the article, and b) does not forbid AfDs at any time. Will (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (Delete) Hopeless POV coatrack article about a major living public figure. No equivalent article exists for any other of the prospective Republican or Democrat candidates for the election. Whole thing appears to expound on the fact he's a) black, and b) he went to Madrassa, and c) that stupid email rumour. For God's sake, this is longer than the article on Monicagate. This really should not be an article. Will (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Editors should have a look at Biographies of living persons for relevant Wikipedia policy on articles such as this. As this article is also technically a fork of Barack Obama, Content forking is also of relevance. When leaving comments about whether to keep or delete the article, bear in mind that this is not a vote, so please provide reasons for taking the course of action that you suggest. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I would help merge any actual useful info into the Insight (magazine) page (as it already has a section there). Any refs on Wikipedia can link to the section. Just the fact that Obama's faith was questioned does not need its own article! Especially since his unequivocal statement - which has not since been questioned. Any incidents involving Insight magazine (including the way it was reported) should surely stay in the Insight article. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - This fails the long term notability test, his Presidential campaign page already contains the relevent information, this page should just be deleted. Epson291 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Frag Sceptre hit it on the nail. A useless content fork which appears to have some latent POV-pushing intent. Just because it's the election doesn't make everything about a candidate notable. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as PoV fork that violates WP:BLP Secret account 20:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete seems like a POV fork. -- neon white user page talk 20:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge. (Disclosure: I've been a regular contributor to the article.) Per nom, this article has become a hopeless coatrack, including barely relevant content about Clinton supporters, speculation about the Clinton campaign and unnamed Republicans, past rivals of Barack in Illinois, and the production values of Katie Couric's video blog. The entire article presents undue weight: Obama's detractors seek to link American prejudice against Islam to a self-described Christian candidate, and this article, if perhaps well-intentioned, only facilitates that dubious goal. Even use of the word madrassa in reference to the school carries a loaded political meaning. I've previously argued for an article covering the controversy over journalism ethics and standards, but that topic might not be notable enough in and of itself, and currently the article's scope goes far beyond this anyway. Delete article, but maybe merge some content with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008, Insight (magazine), SDN Menteng 01, and possibly United States journalism scandals, Fox News Channel controversies, The Washington Post, and other news outlets and personalities, but only if careful attention is paid to pertinence and proper weighting. -  Tobogganoggin talk 20:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename back to Barack Obama Muslim rumor. That topic is clearly notable considering the hundreds if not thousands of newsarticles written, including a mention in a Democratic debate, and public letters written about the subject by prominent American Jewish leaders and members of Congress.  I am an Obama supporter, but this is clearly a notable controversy and not a POV track. Joshdboz (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Doesn't this rationale suggest we should also create a Hillary Clinton sexism article? - Tobogganoggin talk 21:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because that is not a specific controversy that has generated specific and non-trivial media attention. This is.  Joshdboz (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it has - see e.g. . There've been many specific and non-trivial media articles on that topic. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, my bad. Go for it. Joshdboz (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge, per Tobogganoggin. (Disclosure: I launched the original AfD, renamed the article and withdrew my nomination when a broad consensus to delete did not emerge, made substantial contributions, then nominated this version for good article status--it failed). There is nothing in the current article that can't be better handled in appropriate context through a merge with parallel or duplicate text that already exists in other articles. Some of the material now covered is unfit for Wikipedia and should be deleted entirely. --HailFire (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * delete povfork, attack article, patent nonsence, this article is everything that is wrong with WP Fasach Nua (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, deleting only keeps factually-based knowledge from the public in a time at which it is vitally important to society. Fifty7 (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The subject is not being kept from the public as it is also covered in Wikipedia's main articles (and will be more so if this is deleted). Wikipedia is not a collection of all factually-based knowledge, and it's not a moral guardian ether.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * keep, of course. Absurd nomination. The connected subjects of the nature and effect of Obama's connections to the Moslem faith, the nature and effect of the media's coverage of the subject, and other related phenomena (e.g., accusatory emails, resultant firings) has been the subject of a multiplicity of non-trivial coverage in WP:RS.
 * As a complicated WP:N subject in and of itself that requires considerable length to properly develop this article is a perfectly proper content fork from Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008‎.
 * Allegations that this article is a POV fork are false -- reading it one will reasonably conclude that Obama is not a Muslim and was not trained to be a suicide bomber or deep agent as a six year old. There is no fork in POV from the parent article, where I believe there is a proper summary.
 * Allegations that this article is a WP:COATRACK are even more bogus. The title ought to include "Muslim", since that is the focus, but the content of the article is what the title announces it is, not some secondary "bias subject", as the COATRACK essay terms it. There is a list of COATRACK types in the essay, and this article fits none of them.
 * Allegations that this article violates WP:WEIGHT are silly. The idea that the subject is less important than Monicagate and therefor must have a shorter article is obtunded in so many ways that I'm at a loss where to begin. And the subject is anyway not unimportant. Race is undoubtedly more important to why Obama's vote results don't match his polls than his name, but the Hussein business plays its part, and Wikipedia should offer a comprehensive NPOV treatment of the subject. This article is the place to attempt it. Andyvphil (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. 4. above is unreferenced and POV. The Hussain name could play more of a part than his colour - but either way, why "should" Wikipedia offer a treatment? Wikipedia is not a newspaper of events, and we are not journalists with our own comment columns. We all agree it is noteworthy to a point, but context can be found in existing articles. Also, the main point about Coatrack articles is surely that they are constantly open to abuse, however well-intended they were when created (which is covered). As for the 'typical examples' in the Coatrack essay (not the best part of it) - Attack Article is the closest, though no one example singularly covers the Obama-relevant 'Fact picking' section of the essay, or these side-pages in fact (surely the best use for the essay) - but it will! --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP should have this article because it the subject is WP:N, the content is WP:V, and it complies in all ways with policy, including BLP. And the subject is actually important. I haven't checked to see if I can cite a RS asserting that the Muslim overtones of Obama's name has contributed to the way he has experienced the Tom Bradley effect, but we are supposed to be engaged here in debate about the significance of the subject, not writing content into mainspace. Asking me to cite my arguments to a RS on pain of being dismissed as POV is a category error. Andyvphil (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But did I really ask that? That's the kind of minute needling that is everything that is wrong with these type of articles. You appear to want this singular article because it is important news to you personally, and you want it to be noticed - but that's the wrong way to look at it. There is a fine line between what actually is news, and what is made news, or kept as news. What is true of the media is a potential trapping for Wikipedia too. This story doesn't even come near the line any more, and simply doesn't warrant it's own important and repeatedly linked to 'premium slot' page. It is already has space on the Insight page and an Obama page - deletion here is censoring nothing. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hopelessly POV, and simply read Andyphil's POV comment above for the reason this repository of POV-pushing on a living person needs to be deleted straightaway. There are those who will try to force these things into WP articles, no matter how many times they are discredited. -- Bellwether B  C  02:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Cleaning up the POV in the article is pointless. There is no "there" there. This is just a random collection of disparaging remarks, rumors and innuendos (with accompanying mentions of denials or apologies for psuedo-"balance.")--Loonymonkey (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge any useful content into the proper section at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008-- S    TX   04:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You do recall doing that once before, to complaints from the resident editors that you had imported too much material into their article. There isn't less now. Andyvphil (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it worked out fine.-- S    TX   00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The resident editors were unhappy, but kindly let the material stay until the first deletion nomination was withdrawn. If it had passed would you have defended its retention or is deletion of most of the material you transferred there the happy result you wished for? Andyvphil (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I try to edit by consensus. At the time of the first AFD it appeared (as it does now) that the consensus was for the article to not exist on its own but as a sub-section of the main article. Its the responsibility of the creators of this article and the primary editors of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 to sort out how much weight the content should be given. -- S    TX   21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * delete POV fork, and merge any useful content to one of the related main articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anynobody 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Question How is it a POV fork or coatrack if the article makes clear that the reports of him attending a madrassa etc. were incorrect? If there was no mention of the allegations being proven untrue, then I could see it being a POV fork or coatrack. :In this case as long as the facts are stuck to the situation is the conservative reverse of the Rathergate issue; reporting based on incomplete information that was revealed as such. There certainly was enough coverage to establish notability, including media like the NY Times discussing the poor quality of Insight's sources. Anynobody 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Obama’s unequivocal statement that he was never a Muslim outdates the article subject, as he’s not been proven wrong. Where a guardian takes a minor would not legally stand. The negative ‘balance’ has now become a collection of outdated smears.  Mud ‘sticks’ because it cannot be properly argued – it’s just conjecture. So evenly-weighted balance cannot exist here – the mud has it over Obama, so to speak. Any Insight stories belong naturally in the Insight article - which can be linked to if needed. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and is not here to keep news alive, or even, necessarily, to cover news. It has an encyclopaedia’s standards - which are very different to media ones. Mud has the weight here, in a specially-created article that has been given a hugely disproportionate weight of coverage on Wikipedia. It’s been an embarrassment for Wikipedia in my opinion. The story clearly belongs inside the various relevant main articles, and should never have been forked off - even when the story broke. These side articles come under the same rules as all articles on Wikipedia – but when they have coatrack flaws in their subject, they so easily become sandboxes for armchair journalists and POV pushers. To answer your question in summary: the POV here is actually in the article’s continued existence – the assumption that it is deserving and balanced, when by Wikipedia’s standards, it is intrinsically neither. (COATRACK, WEIGHT, FORK = mud = POV = article's existence). Don't build a house on sand.--Matt Lewis (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlike most of the votes on this page, you're actually debating your position, rather than emitting a catchphrase and pointing with alarm. But Obama's denial obviously does not "outdate the article subject" because the article's subject is not whether Obama is a Muslim. Were that the article's subject I agree we could dispose of it without a separate article. But it's not. Andyvphil (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In relation to the coatrack question, I think this is answered at WP:COAT. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's answered there all right. "When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor is invited to ask: what impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article?... A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject." This article gives a truthful impression of the subject: Obama is not a Muslim and did not attend a Wahabi madrassa. On the other hand his denials have been somewhat misleading. His denial that he prayed in a mosque seems to be true only if you don't count going through the motions. And the media's performance has been abysmal. All true. Andyvphil (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have knelt several times during a Catholic prayer while attending with friends or family throughout my life. Yet I would contend I've never "prayed" in these services. Am I being "misleading"? I hardly think so. I didn't, even though I went through the motions out of politesse. -- Bellwether B  C  23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unnecessarily standing while everyone else kneels would of course be impolite and call unnecessary and disruptive attention to yourself. One would do better not to show up than to stand on one's dignity. (How far one must go to be polite when others are touching their foreheads to the ground in the direction of Mecca in a good question of etiquette, but not on point here.) If you were simply asked whether you had ever prayed in church and said "No" that would not be misleading, although it would not be forthcoming either. But if it were observed that you were seen to pray and you simply responded that it was a lie to say so you would indeed pass over into misleading, the clarification that you were merely being polite no longer being optional, should you choose to respond. Obama has omitted saying he merely went through the motions. Misleadingly. (Only a venal sin in middle-of-the-road politicans, who invariably cultivate ambiguity, the better to get votes from people who might not like the exact truth.) And the media has never asked him. Abysmal. Andyvphil (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're free to that opinion, naturally, but this is not the forum to discuss it. This is AfD, the place to discuss whether this article passes snuff by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not whether Barack Obama pulled a fast one on the media. - Revolving Bugbear  00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No one seems to be advancing much in the way of argument that the article fails to pass snuff under policy or guideline. Would you care to do so? Andyvphil (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At the moment, no. The only reason I commented was because it seemed clear to me that this is not the place for a discussion of religion and semantics. - Revolving Bugbear  00:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The question was whether this article is an example of WP:COAT#"But it's true!", which it would be only if it gives "an uninitiated reader [an un]truthful impression of the subject". Hard to answer that without referring to what a truthful impression of the subject would be. Andyvphil (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Does it actually matter if Obama truly prayed as a child? He was a flippin child! We can’t even be sure if Obama even remembers his thoughts in those days. We simply cannot suggest he is “misleading” the world for leaving out of his ‘religious picture’ where a guardian took him as a minor – it’s aggressive and wrong to chase him on that. And we can't even PROVE anything either way! To give 'motions of prayer' THIS kind of high-profile negative importance is hugely anti-Islamic. It's utterly insulting to them. The Insight reporting issues are secondary to all this – and they must naturally remain covered in their relevant articles elsewhere. Coatrack articles attract those dedicated Wikipedians who think that everyone who happens to be against them must be conspiring to conceal 'The Truth'. They will incessantly duck and dive till they get their way. They barely scan disagreeing comments – why bother when you already know you are right? That we these allow people to run for so long with these high-profile coatracks is madness. The ‘importance’ here is in the damage they can do with their POV pushing – not least to Wikipedia’s image. I detest Islamophobia and the article (and some of the comments on it) reeks of it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * [UNDENT]You're still hung up on the idea that the purpose of the article is to prove whether Obama is or was a Muslim. It's not. This article is, for one thing, where you turn on Wikipedia if you've heard that the the intersection of Obama's life and background with the Muslim faith is a matter of some controversy and you want to know what is known and what is not known. One of the things you've learned, apparently, is that Obama is denying things you think he might not even remember. Can't say I've reached the same conclusion. But just because we reach different conclusions doesn't mean either one of us has been misled. As best I can tell, the article informs but does not mislead. Andyvphil (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's just not true - I've never once said I thought the purpose of the article was to prove Obama was a Muslim. The POV argument is actually about keeping mud in the news so it sticks - and I have certainly suggested that some people are happy with maintaining a negative association between Obama and Islam. I've never actually said it factually 'misleads'. Notability, weight and duplication have always been my principal reasons against this high-profile 'side article' - and I've repeated my points quite a lot now (here and on the Talk page).
 * Regarding the 'POV fork' issue - certain editors clearly want to keep the outdated smears of Obama as visible as possible - via forking duplicate mud into a new article and coatracking it behind the Insight reporting issue, hanging up some other ‘balance’ for extra cover. The article has intrinsic negative values for Obama and for Muslims - and that suits them. That's where the POV is. These certain editors can be seen focusing on similar tactics throughout Wikipedia, to enforce their own favoured political balance. 'Prolifery and belligerence' is their trademark - and they are uninterested in consensus. To them - 99 editors can be involved in a 'cover up' to any one editor who shares their view. Arguments detailing what this encyclopedia is about, they ignore - because for them, Wikipedia is their own editorial. Most frustratingly perhaps, they often appear to never properly read other people's comments - even the ones directly responding to them.
 * We need some better 'coatrack-style' rules or guidelines around here if you ask me - this article is exploiting and corrupting Wikipedia, and it's been up for an embarrassingly long time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC). --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the lateness of my reply. I actually tend to ask myself what impression a reader will get from the articles I edit and had considered that here too. I imagine a person hearing from a friend or family member that "Obama's a Muslim" and then coming here to check it out. Hopefully the impression a reader would walk away with is that a conservative internet mag published an old rumor as fact, which was then picked up by major news and proven by other major news to be both old and incorrect. Anynobody 02:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To illustrate how I see the focus of this article, I created an illustration. We have to mention the incorrect allegations to show they were incorrect and that some of the media screwed up:
 * Is that an IQ test? Unfortunately WP just isn't the place for all the ambiguity that you refer to. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's a Venn diagram. But a bit too small for me to read. Andyvphil (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Media Accuracy = 'Mediocrity'!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs) 05:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (The graphic is quite large, if you click on the image. I didn't want to eat up a bunch of page space. You can access the full version here too) Anynobody 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * delete POV fork, merge any useful content to one of the related main articles. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * *sigh* How a POV fork? Contribute your insights, should you have any, not just your vote. Per policy. Andyvphil (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork. Paisan30 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * *double sigh* What part of "AfDs are a debate, not a vote" is difficult to understand? Simply asserting that the article is a "POV fork" gives no indication that you even know what a "POV fork" is, other than content you don't like to see. Andyvphil (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as a balanced, well-sourced, notable article. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is notable if Obama gets the Democratic nomination and is proven that it ruined his chance at the Presidency like the Swift Boat ads did for John Kerry.  Or, it would be notable if it derailed his attempt to get the nomination for the Democratic Party.  Simply put, this article is notable enough to be in the Barack Obama article, but not notable enough to be its own article.  Just because it's a national news story on occasion does not make it noteworthy for an encyclopedia.  It feels a bit like recent to me.  --Son (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If a subject satisfies WP:N (multiple non-trivial coverage in RS) the criteria for existing as a separate article is "enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry".WP:SS Andyvphil (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is an exclusive guideline, not an inclusive one. All crows are black ... - Revolving Bugbear  22:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, not everything that gets three mentions in the press is a suitable subject for a WP article. But "non-notability" has indeed been advanced as a reason for deleting this article. Do you agree? Andyvphil (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that non-notability has been advanced as an argument. Perhaps what I should have said was that fulfilling some of the notability requirements does not necessarily merit inclusion. My mind isn't made up about this article. - Revolving Bugbear  00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - blatant content forking, and per Hailfire. EJF (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I must admit that I started the article, under the name "Barack Obama Muslim rumor". I intended it to be a place where people who had questions about rumors they had heard about Senator Obama's background could find reliable information, on both the facts and the rumors themselves.  I think this is still a legitimate reason and I hope the article has been useful.  I can't exactly say that it is "encyclopedic" enough for WP however. Redddogg (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you are at least honest - though I can't see at all why you still want to keep it! Just in case new information appears? Do you really think your reason for creating it (let alone keeping it) is 'legitimate'? And in what way can any forum-style 'usefulness' actually outweigh the coatrack negatives of propagating and maintaining mud? Why couldn’t/can't you keep to a discussion on the relevant talk page? (like everyone else on WP has to). If this is now about a political forum, is it OK for me to ask you your politics? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and why isn't having a place people can come for reliable information on a current event "'encyclopedic' enough" in an encyclopedia which covers current events? Andyvphil (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Point 5 of WP:NOT looks relevant to that point. Also take a look at Recentism. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Point 5 of WP:NOT: "... Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial." There are a substantial quantity of non-tabloid sources for this topic. Look at the ref list.
 * Recentism: "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion — lack of attributability and notability are..." You may also want to consider the section "Benefits of recentist articles" particularly, "if we don't make sense of it today, someone else will struggle to make sense of it tomorrow."Andyvphil (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since Matt asked about my politics... I consider myself a progressive and think Obama might be a good president. I wouldn't start any false rumors about Senator Clinton however.... And for Andy.... there are still some people who are interested in getting accurate information on the things being said about Obama.  Redddogg (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering the one rhetorical question. To me, that says quite a lot. 'still some people' says a lot too. People who can't trust the public's judgement often break the rules to deliver them The Truth. As for your Obama support, it's actually irrelevant to all the criticisms, including coatrack - though having looked through the consistently crummy history of the article, I just can't quite go for it, sorry. --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete there's no more a " media controversy" about him than the other candidates. The main articles are sufficient for each of them. DGG (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SS:"...if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page." The existance of a "main" (i.e., sub-) article need not be a measure of relative importance -- it's primarily a measure of the degree to which a topic has been developed. Rolling this content back into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 will immediately result in a situation where spinning it off into a separate article is what "summary style" calls for. Andyvphil (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

 - On the article;  - On AfD discussion;
 * Comment - Without trying to hog space, here’s some more direct links that can be added to the above mentioned Wikipedia is not a... News report and Recentism, which I think are relevant to this whole issue (with their related aspect explained);
 * NPOV fork – Covers how side articles should not be created to cover information that cannot find consensus in the main article.
 * Coatrack - Covers how side issues should not be used to camouflage any biased reasons for a side article’s existence (or continual existence).
 * Let the facts speak for themselves - Advises against over-description of facts that are already simple, well-covered and conclusive.
 * Neutrality and Verifiability - Shows how an abundance of passable citations cannot negate certain neutrality issues.
 * Notability is not temporary - Shows how past importance and/or the possibility of future importance does not amount to Notability.
 * Assume Good Faith (inc essays) – How it shows ‘bad faith’ to negatively read (or misread) semantic, imperfect, miswritten or unclear details in someone’s comment - when it is reasonable to assume a positive meaning. Also - paranoia, and grouping people together.
 * Under Gaming the system;
 * (which lists how people can use various policies to actually force through their own bias)


 * Refusal to 'get the point' - ‘Bad faith’ editors who ignore disproven points, repeating their chosen tacks.
 * Playing policies against each other – Being addressed over a specific policy breach, and retorting with other policy.
 * Wikilawyering - Putting letter before spirit of law, carefully misinterpreting policy, and using formal terms inappropriately.
 * Stonewalling – Using gaming tactics to block or hold back something from occurring (consensus, a point being understood, a resolution, an event etc).
 * A few are subsets to others (like NPOV), but I found these to be of more value when finding and reading them in isolation.--Matt Lewis (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CFORK: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." See Redddog's comment, above. WP:SS:"Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place... When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be summarized from the present entry and a link is provided to the more detailed article." "Refusal to 'get the point' - ‘Bad faith’ editors who ignore disproven points(sic), repeating their chosen tacks." The idea that this article is a POV fork is an utterly disproven point -- it has been repeatedly pointed out that there is no difference in POV between it and the parent article. "In some cases, bad-faith editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end,..." E.g., "POV fork". Andyvphil (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The negative POV is in over-exposing the mud - you ignored that point every time it's been made. No one has once suggested the article directly claims Obama is a Muslim - yet you constantly return to that.


 * The article has NO INTRINSIC balance - as mud is just conjecture that has a tendency to stick - especially when perpetually 'in the air'. It is impossible to give a weighted balance when conjecture (is he a muslim?) is the whole issue. The Insight story belongs in Insight - and Obama when he was a kid was a minor - so Obama being a 'liar' is no story either. These two are coats in the coatrack - they cannot sustain articles themselves. It all falls down.


 * Lack of Notability IMO has been absolutely proven - this collection of stories clearly do not warrant a dedicated page above the sections they already have in the main articles. Just because Obama's big himself, doesn't mean the 'Muslim story' has to be made a high profile, highly-linked side article. It especially can't be kept as one. 'Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper' (which is mentioned somewhere in 'What Wikipedia is not') - suggests that WP should avoid keeping sensational stories front page news - focusing on sensation over notability. Some people want that little picture of Obama and the word 'Muslim' in the corner of every front page. It's just keeping the mud in the air. So POVfork (as the story is perfectly happy elsewhere). --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea that this obscure article "over exposes" the issue is such patent nonsense that I have indeed ignored it. Presumably Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 gets more readership than the child article, and if the summary there is replaced by this content it may get more readers, not less. The problem then will be that its length will justify, according to the MOS guideline WP:Summary Style, spinning it off into a separate article. If that development has been arbitrarily blocked by an admin who closes this AfD as "Delete" because he's counted noses rather than weighed arguments, the alternative is to delete well-cited relevant material to fit the Procrustian bed of the space that can be allotted to it if the other elements of the subject are not to appear undeveloped. Setting up this unnecessary conflict between WP:WEIGHT and the retention of well-cited NPOV content is a prescription for an edit war.
 * Thus, the idea that "the story is perfectly happy elsewhere" is false and contrary to guideline, and anyway "So POVfork" doesn't remotely follow. Just as you haven't been able to point to anything in the actual essay to indicate that this article fits WP:COATRACK, you haven't been able to answer my proofs that this article doesn't fit the definition of WP:POVFORK. The problem is that you don't like the subject (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). And your statement "The article has NO INTRINSIC balance" is nothing more than a rejection of NPOV as an alternative to censorship. It hasn't escaped my attention that nowhere on this now long page has anyone pointed to any content of the article that is not written from the NPOV. I cannot deny that a host of editors have turned up who seem perfectly comfortable using "I don't like it" as their guideline, and closing admins rarely resist nosecount. So you may get your way. It won't reflect well on Wikipedia if you do. Andyvphil (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You keep misrepresenting what I write. If anyone just reads your comments, they might think me (and my argument) foolish!


 * In actual fact, I wrote 'POV fork' here clearly to describe my 'mud will stick' argument - I have always connected the two. You are one of the biggest abusers of Assume Good Faith (in this case my clear meaning) I have come across on Wikipedia! When I repeat my arguments to answer your claims that I have 'yet to say anything', you ignore them, misrepresent me, and say I have 'yet to say anything'.


 * Regarding your arguments behind calling the over-exposure argument 'patent nonsense': Obviously, Obama's main articles would always get more readers than this article  – but equality in the ascribed importance is the issue here. Both articles get lots of readers. When properly merged, fair coverage will exist next to all similarly important issues. It will no longer be unfairly elevated and prone to coatrack exploitation.  If a complete merge proves difficult due to consensus – tough luck. You’ll have to work towards consensus like everyone else - rather than have it conveniently ‘built into’ the article subject. Lack of consensus in one article cannot be a reason for making, or keeping, another (see ‘NPOV fork’ link above). It has even been admitted that this was the reason for this articles creation! The article's creator, Redddogg, ignored consensus on coverage, and went with his POV on importance - creating a 'news style' article on the subject (Redddoggs first edit). If you read the Talk on it you will see comments were made for and against inclusion, and Redddogg declared he would create a new article as nothing was on the campaign page either - which he promptly did. That is clearly avoiding consensus. Since then it has been covered on the campaign page. How is this not a POV fork? Speculation of a 'rumour campaign' was Recent and Redddogg clearly got over-excited and made his page. Within half an hour he went on to fill detail into the Obama and Insight articles. Creating the new article was almost a childish 'first in' thing to do, as it wasn't at the time needed at all - Wikipedia had all the provisions for debate in place. It then developed into a 'bolthole' from inclusion-debate and consensus.


 * You are surely wrong to suggest that any new attempts for the article will be blocked once a ‘delete’ decision is made. If genuine consensus for it is found, it surely only has to survive any ensuing call for deletion. (I’m not 100% you did mean that, by the way – I found that part of your above comment confusing).


 * It was rather ‘bad faith’ of you to suggest deletion here could lead to an edit war. The conflict between ‘weight’ and ‘retention’ you describe is actually a decent description of Wikipedia! Why call it ‘unnecessary’ and a ‘prescription for an edit war ’? Each man or woman standing askance will simply have to accept the necessity of some form of ‘consensus’ eventually. One locked page I’ve seen aside, can I ask you if you fundamentally agree with that?


 * My interest here is actually less about the subject (which I'm entitled to care about, by the way) than the legalities I have kept arguing - so I deny IDONTLIKEIT - and you should resist on making your 'bad faith' assumptions. It’s hardly wise to pre-judge admins either.


 * There is a wider importance for me, however - I am interested in better guidelines, and specifically improving or expanding coatrack. I want an improved Wikipedia that isn't so easily exploited. The length of time this article has existed (over 3 months now) I personally think is an embarrassment. There are countless 'stories' that could be treated like this, but Wikipedia would surely become unmanageable with so many side articles for people to monitor. Decent editors would simply abandon WP to the lawless if this article became a benchmark which others took up and followed.


 * So the result of this AfD is specifically important to me. I spend a lot of my time here, and have various plans to spend more of my time, and I naturally need to see AfD's like this representing sense - as Wikipedia is a place where the day to day rules are kept to the minimum. My main worry (and reason for my persistence) is that the three months this article has now existed could play a part in keeping it up. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - blatant content forking. Brimba (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CFORK:"A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject." There is no other article on this subject. Like many contributors to this vote it seems you like the names of policies and guidelines and essays better than their actual content. Andyvphil (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Distill and merge - This article exists primarily to support/promote an agenda: "awareness" of these controversies (something Andyvphil's comments about its "importance" confirms). The argument that the subject has outgrown its parent article says more about its overcoverage than its objective notability.  (Aside to Andyvphil: Yelling at people for failing to explain their "votes" is about as constructive as what they just did.  Give it a rest, please.) - JasonAQuest (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, as between Obama and Clinton, I don't have a dog in that fight. My observation that the subject is of great practical importance because questions about Obama's electability due to race and Muslim name, etc. - supported by his having apparently experienced the Bradley Effect on his poll results - is simply that, an observation designed to counter assertions that the subject is non-notable. How it supports your mistaken idea that my interest in this subject lies in promoting awareness of the "controversy" is a mystery. I'm much more interested in it as a case study in the repeated unreliability of what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources", which have repeatedly accepted or promoted falsehoods and failed to ask the obvious, clarifying, question. Andyvphil (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no evidence that there is any special "media controversy." The basic facts about the rumors, which was mentioned as the reason for this article in the first place, are covered in a section on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it's "covered" there, in summary style. The content of every calfed-off article must be "covered" in its parent article to comply with WP:SS and WP:CFORK. The effects of Obama's Muslim name, heritage and experience is the subject of much more coverage than is mentioned in the article's extensive ref list, so your argument is reduced to saying the child article should be deleted because the parent complies with policy. Ridiculous. Andyvphil (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2008 (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.