Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama O's and Cap'n McCain's


 * 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. Most participants in this discussion seem to agree that the article fails notability requirements. There are a few editors arguing to to the contrary, but with somewhat weak rationales, including "It exists". – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama O's and Cap'n McCain's
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about two products which are not notable. This material should not be it's own article. At most, this could be mentioned in another article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, absolutely insane, no reliable sources that I know of to prove notability. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk · contribs) 01:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Have you tried Googling Obama O's ? You can see it is rather know, as well as the endorsement from Katy Perry and Perez Hilton. Why can't it remain as a stub until more information is added? It has supporting materials  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   02:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Always worth putting the quotation marks in. Otherwise you're searching for obama o, which reveals lots of totally unrelated material. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 10:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not noteworthy nor enough information to be more than a stub. It should be integrated in the 2008 Presidential Campaign article.  Additionally, the only external references are advertising sites making it violate policies against spamming. Bytebear (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Silly marketing gimmick, no doubt.  But apparently real, and minorly notable enough to deserve an article.  LotLE × talk  03:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note. I have added a photo that depicts both boxes instead of having two un-free photos  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   04:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Sources are scarce but there. Take this for example, or this. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable cereal in their own rights (hence why they had to have a joined article in the first place). Since we cannot redirect this title to both pages, I say delete and redirect the individual names to the individual people (also make sure that it's at least noted on their page somewhere if it already isn't). There's barely enough for for a paragraph on either one's page, and when you split it up it's even less. Delete - redirect individual titles. I have Googled Obama O's, through Google News (which is a better indicated that Google Web, because the latter includes about 95% unusable sources). Not much for McCain's cereal either.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Reliable sourcing does not equal notability. I nominated this article for deletion for lacking notability. I consider the issue of reliable sourcing to be secondary. If the nominated article is notable, then any product referencing Barack Obama will be worthing of having its own article. President Obama is obviously notable, but that doesn't make the nominated article notable. SMP0328. (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are free to comment all you want but please only one !vote per discussion. Since you are the nominator, your nomination statement is your !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, duly noted. SMP0328. (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Procedurally, I think it is good and proper for nominator to state a vote explicitly. One presumes it is usually "delete", but not always.  Sometimes a nominator (who acted in good faith by nominating) is convinced to change by discussion, and that is worth clarifying (in either direction).  Moreover, sometimes the comments that pertain to a "delete" vote are not identical to the narrow grounds for nomination itself. I disagree with Ron Ritzman's striking the vote.  LotLE × talk  19:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the only thing I struck was the bolded word "delete", not the comment that followed it. I would have done the same thing if someone had !voted "delete" early in the discussion and then !voted "delete" again later. In long discussions, it's sometimes hard to track who !voted and it's even possible to forget who the nominator is. Also you're correct about nominators changing their position. However, except for "procedural" nominations where the nominator explicitly states he has no position, it is assumed that the nominator wants the article deleted and the closer will count that as the first delete !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because there is a disagreement as to whether the nominator (in this case, I) can vote, and because I don't know the correct answer, I have restored my "Delete" vote. SMP0328. (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your !vote is basically that "if we let this one in, we'll have to let them all in." That isn't how it works; we're determining this article's notability on a singular basis. Also, reliable sourcing is not the same as notability, but is the method in which we determine the notability of the subject; how else would we determine it? If enough sources describe, explain, or just report upon the subject, we could assume that the subject is notable. I have changed my vote to "weak keep", because sources are few and relatively weak, but I think the source adequately show the notability of the product. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 20:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Wikipedia policy evenly applied to all articles or is it applied on an article by article basis? If it is the latter, then arbitrary application becomes a possibility. My main reason for wanting deletion is that the nominated article is not notable. The last part of my "Delete" comment is in response to those who would claim that Obama being mentioned in the article makes the article notable. SMP0328. (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, then my point is moot if you were just being preemptive. However, I believe the latter of my points still stands; reliable sources are how we determine notability, and this subject is proven to have reliable sources backing it up. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't merge RS and notability. RS is one of the policies regarding whether material should be in an article. Notability deals with whether material is worthy of being its own article. I'm claiming that even if the material in the nominated article is reliably sourced, making it worthy of being in Wikipedia, that material is not notable and so it is not worthy of being its own article. SMP0328. (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not merging the policies, I'm sorry if I'm being unclear. I'm saying that to determine notability, we use reliable sources, as defined at WP:RS. For example, if the only sources promoting the notability of this subject were blogs, or social networking sites, then it would not be notable (unless it were an extreme case, but that is not the case here). However, those supporting a keep !vote have provided what I believe to be adequate sources to determine the notability. To say "[r]eliable sourcing does not equal notability" would be incorrect, because without reliable sources, we cannot prove or disprove the notability of a subject. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you believe material can be reliably sourced, but not be notable? SMP0328. (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you would be hard pressed to find a case. I know something similar to the opposite can exist, but I've never seen a case as you described it. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that I am the only one preventing the deletion, I hereby grant this article to be deleted and clearly classify it as uncontroversial  • S • C  • A • R  • C • E •   03:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable campaign ephemera. Edison (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Well the pictures do tell alot and if there are sources it should be kept. Parker1297 (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Cute, but not noteworthy. Will never grow to be anything more than a baby stub.  QueenofBattle (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a complete and utter failure of WP:N. The bulk of the coverage is from non-reliable sources, and what little mention does occur in RS is that the back-end, "funny story of the day" of the news cycle, i.e. . Tarc (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Simply fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Shame, but still...this is wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misortie (talk • contribs) 12:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable (500 box limited edition cereals?). --4wajzkd02 (talk)
 * 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.