Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama's senate seat


 * 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama's senate seat
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article starts out by saying: "In January 2009 the then governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich revealed that he had considered naming talk show host Oprah Winfrey as his first choice to fill the Illinois senate seat previously occupied by president Barack Obama." Blagojevich, as you probably know, is a notoriously dishonest person. Why should WP have an article about something he "revealed" that he considered to do? Yes, I know that many people commented and/or joked about Mr. Blagojevich's statement, which is what the article mainly consists of. Borock (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge a severely pruned version into Rod Blagojevich. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete and merge  changed to merge and redirect, I agree with Jezhotwells. Among some of the things that Wikipedia is not, is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that he considered her is notable enough to be in the article about him, and perhaps about her, but not with anything near this level of detail. I do feel bad for the original author, though, as a lot of hard work seems to have been put into this. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that Delete/Merge is a violation of the GFDL; redirects are cheap, so if you think there's material that should be salvaged, merge/redirect is probably the way to go. Baileypalblue (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your point about delete/merge is a violation of the GNU license. What do you mean? It is quite common to delete implausible redirects, and this would be one, were it merged+redirected. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 20:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that, if material is merged into another article, it's necessary to leave a redirect to the previous article for purposes of attribution, and delete destroys the page history that documents who first created the material. Quoting from WP:MERGE: "Merging &mdash; regardless of the amount of information kept &mdash; should always leave a redirect or, in some cases, a disambiguation page in place. This is often needed to allow proper attribution through the edit history for the page the merged text came from. Superfluous redirects do not harm anything, and can be helpful in finding articles, e.g. from alternative names."  Deleting is perfectly okay, if no material is merged.  Let me know if you think I'm wrong on this.  Baileypalblue (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point. As such, I suppose I'll change my vote to merge/redirect. Cheers! - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 20:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect - per the above, some of the content could go to the respective articles.-- TRU  CO   19:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete - per nom. Not enough material to warrant a standalone article, better a section in the Blago page. And delete because I think it wouldn't even be a plausible redirect. §FreeRangeFrog 20:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Before you voted someone said how merge and delete was a GFDL violation. The GFDL is more important than the plausability of a redirect any day. - Mgm|(talk) 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have quoted WP:MERGE the first time around. My fault for not being clear enough.  Baileypalblue (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a sucker for deleting implausible redirects. Content with substantial numbers of revisions is deleted all the time, I don't see how this would be any different, especially considering that some of the material would be merged into the article, and in the unlikely case that the original author(s) would bring a complaint based on their rights under the license, the revisions can be restored. §FreeRangeFrog 22:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Blagojevich. It had nothing to do with Obama beyond the fact that it was his vacant seat. Rather it was part of the scheming (I don't think that term is POV at this point) of Blago. Valley2 city ‽ 20:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect A single fact that isn't sufficient for an entirely separate article. - Mgm|(talk) 21:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Subject was covered by several major media sources, deals with a historical presidency, a historical senate seat, and the biggest names in politics and popular culture.  Easily more relevant than 95% of wikipedia articles. SamanthaG (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an incoherent collection of soundbites, and therefore not an encyclopedia article. (WP:NOTNEWS, if you want to be formal) WillOakland (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Article is well researched, well referenced, well organized, important, historical, topical & interesting. Globeclotter (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It would be more appropriately merged at Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. However, it is a fairly elaborate article that might be a bit more extenesive than would be appropriate as a section of that article.  It is certainly to extensive for the Rod Blagojevich and Oprah Winfrey articles where it should just be mentioned.  I think the article is a distinct topic from the other subjects and although a footnote in history is modestly encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep. The matter was widely discussed in the mainstream media for a short time.  The article is decent and decently well referenced.  There's more material in the article than would be suitable to merge into another one, so on the whole what's the harm in keeping the article.  This isn't just a random piece of information, and I can see someone in ten years being interested in the topic, though probably just as a trivia fact. Cool3 (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that the most talked about governor in America went on a publicity tour gushing over the most famous talk show host in the world, and considering offering her the former senate seat of the first black president is a subject people will find interesting centuries from now. This is one of the most interesting stories in American political history and is more than worthy of an article. Bluescientist (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't find it particularly interesting right now. Most talked-about governor - WP:NOTNEWS. Blago was already on his way out of office and had picked Burris. Mentioning it on his media spree does not make it worthy of an article.
 * Delete, or as a second choice merge into some appropriate article (such as Rod Blagojevich corruption charges). This article is about an unrealized idea -- something that Rod Blagojevich said he thought about but never attempted to carry through (that is, he never actually discussed it with Winfrey). Note that Blagojevich did not even announce this idea until Roland Burris had already taken the Senate seat, at which time the idea could not have been put into effect anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Some of the information might be useful, but the incident by itself is an absurd degree of over-detail for an article. DGG (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep!!! If this subject matter was notable enough that the Governor of Illinois was asked about it by six of the biggest names in American media, notable enough that Oprah Winfrey herself commented on it, notable enough that the senator from Illinois commented in detail on it, notable enough that political analysts and entertainment shows debated it, then of course it's notable enough to be its own article.  Not only that but there's a strong possibility that had the scandal not occurred, Oprah would be senator today, and that would have been the biggest political story of 2009.  I am astonished that anyone would consider deleting this article, especially when wikipedia is littered with trivial articles about episodes of TV shows, movies that no one's seen & other obscure topics.  This is a topic that connects Oprah, Obama, Blagojevich and Roland Burris-The four most talked about people in the state of Illinois.  The fact that an article as valid and referenced as this one has been nominated for deletion shows how random the deletion nomination process  is. Christmasgirl (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are millions of things that have been talked about by the media, senators, and Oprah, but we do not need a separate article for every single one of them listing every single mention of it in the news. You have absolutely no basis that he would have picked her if not for the scandal. The most talked-about thing? WP:NOTNEWS. Reywas92 Talk  22:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge The tittle of this article is misleading and original. I don't see any news sources describing this topic as the "Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama's senate seat."  Nobody argues that Blagojevich was notable and interesting subject, but do we need an article for every idea  that the governor had about the senate seat? Any relevant content should be merge. --J.Mundo (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If wikipedia only covered subjects we needed to know about it would be very small indeed. But wikipedia is supposed to be the sum total of all human knowledge, and judging by all the references, humans know a lot about this topic.  And information that is useless to some is useful to others. Irongood (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Wikipedia is not the sum total of all human knowledge. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 06:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There more than half a million google hits relating to the subject of this article. Article is too detailed & specific to be merged into any existing article and the details are relevant and interesting. I learned a lot from it. Irongood (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Every detail in this article is referenced and the subject matter meets any reasonable standard of notability as all the players involved are extremely influential and important people who are discussed in the media on a daily basis. Merging this article would only serve to greatly reduce its content and prevent wikipedia readers from taking an in-depth look at the topic. Makewater (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge to Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. We do WP:NOT need an entire article on every little thing that has ever happened to people. Just because Blago mentioned her multiple times on his media spree does not mean there should be an article on Oprah and the seat alone. It could be listed in the charges article that Blago commented on Oprah, but every instance of him talking about it does not need to be covered in detail. This info is also at Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama. We do not need a separate article for this. It might have been "discussed in the media on a daily basis" but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS! Reywas92 Talk 21:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Being seriously considered for the U.S. senate in a seat as historical as Barack Obama's by a governor as controversial as Blago for a woman as influential as Oprah is not every little thing that happens to people, it's a major event and is worthy of being covered in extensive detail. We're not talking about some pop-culture trivia, we're talking about political decisions that affect how the world's sole super-power is governed at the higest levels of political office.  SamanthaG (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Blagojevich goes on a media spree right before being impeached. He says he considered Oprah at each one and some other media commented on it. Why should this really warrant its own article? And no, this was not a decision at all and it did not affect anything.
 * It should warrant its own article because he was the governor of the state and there's no more important a decision a governor can make than deciding who gets a senate seat. And apparently the only thing that prevented him from asking Oprah were his infamous corruption charges, so from a historical perspective, it's crucial that we document how those corruption charges may have changed the course of political history. SamanthaG (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. A clear case of WP:NOT. If this was about a similar incident in, say, India or Nigeria this would be an uncontested delete, so why should we keep this piece of extreme trivia about the United States? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A better question would be why shouldn't we keep it? What's the advantage of deleting this article?  I thought we were trying to build an encyclopedia not destroy one.  Why the knee-jerk impulse to delete any and everything that we personally have no use for?  If you don't want to explore this topic in depth, no one's forcing you, but if other people are interested in the topic, why the urge to deny them all the research that has already been assembled?  The advantage of keeping this article is that a lot of time, effort and research has been invested into creating it so why flush all that human capital down the drain when it allows us to explore a specific topic about very relevant people in great depth?  It's wrong that similar incidents in India and Nigeria have more difficulty establishing notability,  but the solution is to build & defend more articles about those countries, not to destroy articles about America. SamanthaG (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason to keep the article. There is nothing wrong with a merge of the information. Wikipedia can WP:NOT just keep every tidbit of material just because WP:ILIKEIT. The WP:EFFORT invested does not say why the article passes. There are inclusion criteria that have been agreed on. Reywas92 Talk  01:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You make it sound like this is an article about bubble gum. We're talking about the most talked about governor in America considering filling the most historical senate seat of all time with the most influential woman in the world.  Everything about this topic is notable in the extreme, so to just dismiss it as a tidbit unworthy of an article does no do the topic justice. I really think you need to step back and look at this from a different perspective.  SamanthaG (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep You don't just delete or merge an article with as many references as this one unless you have a compelling reason. The U.S. senate is an extremely important institution in American society so an encyclopedia should devote a lot of coverage to how senators are appointed by governors and the thought process that goes through a governor's mind.  The fact that this governor, the seat he was filling, and the woman he considered are all extremely notable makes the article all the more important & interesting. Gottoupload (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If kept it should at least be retitled. The article is about a statement of Mr. Blagojevich, not about Ms Winfrey and the senate seat. Borock (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Summarize and Merge to Rod Blagojevich corruption charges; do not redirect as the title is highly implausible. As the nominator had the wisdom to point out, all we really know for sure is that Blagojevich claims that he gave serious consideration to appointing Ms. Winfrey. That juicy tidbit was like an overdose of catnip for celebrity-obssessed columnists and bloviators, especially in the Chicago area -- but it's a mighty slender reed for a Wikipedia article. The whole kerfuffle was but a passing blip on the radar screen of history. It should be compressed into a single paragraph in the Blago corruption article, and a sentence at most in Oprah Winfrey or it will run afoul of WP:UNDUE. Cgingold (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Being a passing blip on the radar of history is more than sufficient to merrit an article on wikipedia. If we insisted that all wikipedia articles met the highest of standards of historical significance then 99% of wikipedia's content would vanish.  This article revolves around the most influential woman in the world, the most talked about governor in America, the most historic seat in the most powerful institution in the world.  The notion that this is just celebrity gossip really misses the point I think. SamanthaG (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge- No need for a seperate article on this topic World (talk • contributions) 20:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Article is much too long & referenced to be merged into an existing article without deleting a lot of important content from the historical record. SamanthaG (talk) 23:37, 20 February 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.