Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invitation to the Inauguration of Barack Obama


 * 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   keep. I weighed the arguments presented by each side, and after evaluating the strength of the arguments—including citations to relevant policies—I feel it has been established that through reliable sources, the article meets WP:N. As such, consensus here is to keep the article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to the Inauguration of Barack Obama

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It is an invitation. There are many like it. I myself can write a good descriptive article about *any* invitation. Please consider that notability of this singular invitation. Kind regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is what "WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information" means. WP:Notability is also not temporary; who beyond die-hard fans of paper and/or presidential minutiae are going to care about this in a month's time?  howcheng  {chat} 03:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I think...this is strange, and kind of interesting! It's actually pretty well-sourced, but I can't decide if that guarantees notability--I guess it doesn't, cause this is pretty useless information. Part of my negative vibe is also caused by the Recipients section, a pretty blatant attempt at name-dropping. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge--I figured out what I think--to Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration (as if that article isn't big enough). That's where it belongs; I don't think a redirect is in order. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this idea, any objections to a merge and redirect? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you write and print a nice invitation to a merge? And then an article about it? :) Drmies (talk)


 * Keep, so...well... honestly, it has four very good, independent sources that talk just about the invitations. I don't see why we would change our standards for notability because we are judging a subject as trivial or silly. It seems a bit ridiculous that Wikipedia has this article, but it meets the standards we have set and enforced throughout the encyclopedia. The length of the article would qualify it for bumping out of the '09 inauguration article, anyway (especially given that the article isn't just some ramble about the inaug, but is actually incredibly focused on the invitation itself). SMSpivey (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of what you say, esp. on WP policy, and I agree that it's not a ramble; still, it can be cut to size, so to speak--cut the long "the invitation reads" sentence, and in the Printing section, one could cut from "The design" to "the seal," which aren't really relevant (part is a definition of engraving, part is probably a bit too trivial). Perhaps the Paper section can go too. Might that sway you some? Drmies (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - SMSpivey says it well. While I was very surprised this article existed, it is more up to par than many more "important" or "notable" articles in that it is well written, includes and image, and is well referenced. In my opinion, it passes all the tests to exist (indeed, better than some) and based on the policies, deserves to be around. ~  ωαdεstεr 16 «talkstalk» 05:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It meets the technical threshold of notability, and is too detailed to merge into the parent article.--ragesoss (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. This isn't a silly enough article to qualify as trivia. Intothewoods29 (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as principal author. I don't see what information has been indiscriminately collected here, but maybe I'm too close to the article. Drmies, the "name-dropping" wasn't supposed to be so - I have little regard for many of the people named, but they are all sourced. The "The invitation reads..." part, I think is important for those who do not have images turned on, or blind people who cannot see the script on the image. With regard to the definition of engraving, I tried to provide WP:CONTEXT to readers who may not know about the process and don't wish to navigate away from the page. Perhaps the part about the first plate needing to be scrapped is too trivial, though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Matthew, sorry, I didn't intend that as an insult, though it did seem to me that the names were there to beef up the article a bit. :) As you can perhaps glean from my remarks, I have the highest regard for what you wrote and how you wrote it (or maybe only I can see that--sorry about this impersonal medium). I said "pretty useless" and in one way I mean it; in another way, lots of really good and fun things are useless. If folks want to keep, I'll be the first to cheer. If that sounds contradictory, well, I contain multitudes. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep — as obscure an article as it seems along the lines of, say, an article on Pikachu's left foot, this actually does establishes good independent notability and is well-written. MuZemike 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; my first inclination was to say this is an unencyclopedic topic with too much minute detail, and wouldn't be interesting to anyone. But I have had a change of heart.  It meets notability requirements, is well sourced and well-written.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  17:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per SMSpivey. cmadler (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete as completely unencyclopedic trivia. The author seems to be a very experienced editor, and has created a pretty good looking and well sourced article, but he should know better.  The fact that there are sources does not make it notable, as you need to consider the topic's lasting historical significance and impact, which differentiates us from the passing interests of the news media (see also WP:NOT or the essay WP:NOTNEWS).  This article does not prove, or really even assert, the significance of the document. I don't see how it is anything more than a souvenir. The sources are tabloids, local news or human interest type stories about the making of the invitation, but that doesn't make it a good topic for an encyclopedia.  What's more, you can see how the article has been "padded" to disguise the lack of real substance.  The Recipients section for instance is only obliquely related to the invitation itself, and is more appropriately covered in the main article for the Inauguration. The controversy over Rick Warren is a political matter completely unrelated to this piece of paper.  Making note of which celebrities received invitations is just tabloid sensationalism.   Lastly, we should also consider whether celebrity worship of American politicians is appropriate for an international project. Fletcher (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It is tempting to vote keep, since the article is well-sourced and written; but, unfortunately, the subject fails WP:NOT. The media coverage of the invitations has been either incidental (X received invitation) or, one of those human-interest, "soft" news stories - and, considering the context, has been relatively meager (even Michele Obama's inaugural dress received significantly greater media attention than the invitations). The article talks about the design, paper, printing etc, without making the case that any of these attributes are unique or significant - besides being a very minor part of an undoubtedly notable event, Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration. I doubt anyone will be writing about the invitation one week from now (let alone 50 years down the line), and that is the defining difference between mere news-of-the-day and encyclopedic content. Abecedare (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-sourced; there is some notability in the attempt to produce it in a green manner. We'll probably want to upmerge it, but let things settle down first, then we can rearrange the Obama inauguration articles. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep An excellent, well written, carefully researched article. All that matters is that it is notable and verifiable, and it meets both standards. There is no need to merge or trim the information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep (but move title to plural, Invitations to the inauguration of Barack Obama) because Wikipedia is not paper and we can write about all kinds of crazy stuff, including cool historical tidbits (assuming that within several years these will be "historical tidbits"). These have clearly been written about a lot in a wide variety of sources, which is enough to satisfy WP:N for me. Politizer talk / contribs 04:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good, well written and well sourced article.Biophys (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, ineffectively argued at this point. Clearly this will be kept, but in the long run, I hope that this will become an article about such invitations in general.  This aspect of the American presidency is of encyclopedic interest -- for obvious reasons, these golden tickets have to be prepared very carefully, and that was true before 2009.  However, I don't think that a detailed description of a ticket for any particular inauguration ceremony would be worth an article.  I doubt that anyone's planning an article about, say, the pass to see the 2003 swearing in of Néstor Kirchner, but I don't consider that to be worth its own article either.  A few months from now, we'll look back on this and the other Inauguration Week articles from a different perspective.  At that time, more people may wonder why we were so interested in the typeface and paper stock for a piece of cardboard. Mandsford (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedians don't determine what is notable for inclusion. Third party media do. They publish the stories, and we garner the information and merge it into one cohesive narrative here in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but most of the people in this discussion are probably not in journalism, nor do they have to be. You'll see, as time goes on, that the purpose of the AfD forum is for Wikipedians, regardless of their backgrounds, to determine what is kept and what's deleted from the site.  Most of those discussions come down to someone's opinion about whether the topic is notable enough for an article.  If you're a member of the media, of course, you have the same right to participate as any other editor, but your status carries no greater weight than that of any other editor.  Mandsford (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Article is sourced and notability is not an issue. There are many invitations but very few to an historical event. This is what Wikipedia is all about.  --J.Mundo (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep While it's pretty obscure on the relative scales of obscurity (especially the further we move away from the event) it's still proven historical from the global coverage, odd as that is. I have a feeling we're going to have a LOT of at first glance oddball really notable things coming out of the next four years. rootology ( C )( T ) 23:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The fact that someone was able to write this article, with good sources, proves its significance. How many articles does Wikipedia have about video games that never sold a million copies? Mike Serfas (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources are there - too much info to be included in the parent article on the inauguration - I'd say it's a keep. Joshdboz (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - an image and caption of an invitation in the main inauguration article is probably sufficient. Details on the paper, ink and other minutiae are not that important -- this is not the Magna Carta, after all -- and invitees are only marginally related to the invitation itself. - Biruitorul Talk 23:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I'm neutral about this issue, this invitation is only one of the invitations that were distributed for the inauguration. Aside from what is mentioned in the article, this invitation was also distributed to the general public who received tickets for inauguration (I know ... I got this invitation from the Obama Transition Project as a member of the general public). The other invitation that I've seen is a much nicer -- one that's in book format with the invitation on the left page and Obama's picture on the right page. Otherwise, nothing remarkable about the invitation.  →   Lwalt ♦ talk 23:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. topic is Notable and the information is verifiable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Initially seems like an obscure topic, but the article is well-written, verifiable, comprehensive and interesting. I think Wikipedia should have more articles like this, not fewer. -Halo (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge to Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration. Everyone here !voting "Keep" needs to read this section of "What Wikipedia is Not" very carefully. This is a great article, with great sourcing and great prose. But it is not an encyclopedic topic. And despite what some people have insisted above, this article can be condensed down and merged, because it has minimal encyclopedic value. I would say that Sarah Palin's outfit, Hillary Clinton confirmation hearings, and the Obama family dog are just as notable, if not more, as they have all had a significant amount of news coverage and have an impact on today's political climate in the US. Yet I would vote to delete those as well, because the full breadth of their impact on the world could be covered in a few sentences at Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Family of Barack Obama, respectively. Sure, one could come up with paragraphs upon paragraphs discussing the brand choices of Palin's clothes, the exact timeline of objections and votes on Clinton's nomination, and the details of how one of the Obama children is allergic to dogs so they must get a hypoallergenic one but they still want to adopt from a shelter. But these can be cut out and reduced to their full encyclopedic value: a few sentences. This article has no impact on the world except for the fact that it exists (existed?), which is very much NOT a criterion for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Could you imagine an article Invitation to the Inauguration of Millard Fillmore? That topic would be no less notable than this one.- Running On  Brains  19:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I'm pretty sure the Obama family dog will have an article, just like all the first family's pets. SMSpivey (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2009 (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.