Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad (2nd nomination)


 * 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   redirect to Paris Hilton. We have consensus that this does not need its own article, but we don't agree on how much, if anything, should be merged. That will have to be decided through the editorial process.  Sandstein  16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad
AfDs for this article: 
 * (AfD1)(DRV) ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

POV fork news event that would receive appropriate context if presented in Paris Hilton, Cultural and political image of John McCain, List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements (as a counter point), or in an article about the secondary news events generated by United States presidential election, 2008. -- Suntag  ☼  23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - covered adequately in the Paris Hilton article. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - garnered media attention, but covered in the parent article and per WP:NOT. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom inappropriate POV fork. JBsupreme (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Yesterday's news, and an article that never should have been written in the first place.  Skittles, anyone?  Mandsford (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge anything new to the main Paris Hilton article. 23skidoo (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - for goodness sake, and ignore all the comments based on IDONTLIKEIT or that do not actually look at how the matter is covered by the sources. The article easily meets all the notability criteria - thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of news stories in every major outlet.  So this is a matter of trying to defeat notability of an article that meets the formal criteria.  The arguments I see are NOT#NEWS, Recentivism, and POV.  Starting with the first two the coverage of the matter continues daily with no sign of abating in the past two months - perhaps it is expanding.  Some random examples in a few seconds of googling. Any claim that it is just a flash in the pan is WP:CRYSTAL.  There is no way to know.  For now it is still going strong after two months.  Regarding POV, that implies a duplicate of material covered elsewhere in order to create a biased pov.  However, this is a real phenomenon, a video production.  There is no fork implied by covering it one place or another, simply a question of where to organize the material.   We cover  spoof commercials / political satire / Internet Memes and the like.  Whether you like her or not, Hilton is a public personality and an actress.  The video is more than an aspect of her life, it is is a work in which she happens to act.  Although Hilton may star in the video, but she did not make it, she did not write it, she did not film it, and she did not produce it.  Much of the coverage goes to the people who actually did make the view, for example director Adam McKay.  There are also aspects of cultural events, of the election, and of McCain's image. It would be unusual to merge an actor's appearances in works with their BIO article.  Merging it into any parent article is arbitrary and makes it inaccessible and hard to navigate from the other subjects.   Like most pieces of creative content it represents the intersection of many people's efforts.  Wikidemon (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh! It is getting worse. Make it stop!  Since Hilton is running with this as a "fake president" campaign it might best be merged or expanded into an article about the overall joke candidacy (we have precedents for such articles, e.g. Stephen Colbert presidential campaign, 2008).  Wikidemon (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How is a spoof video an element of biography? Doesn't it deal more directly with media? (Question not rhetorical. Am really curious regarding the reasoning behind the designation. Thx) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     08:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC) In fact, pending reasonable explanation of the above question by more experienced RfD hands than mine, I !vote not " Delete " but "Merge" - Since there would appear to be more than enough not-strictly biographical material concerning this fill out an article about this notable media subject. Yet Merged-to article should accomodate coverage of Hilton's subsequent political video, the fact of Hilton-Rianna campaign merchandise being sold, etc.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow     14:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A question for the nominator or JBsupreme &mdash; why is this a POV fork? From what was it forked and to deal with what POV? seresin ( ¡? )  23:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also interested in the answer to this question.--Anon 10:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would imagine the fork is from Paris Hilton (I don't buy the argument that someone looking for this article is not going to start at Paris Hilton), and I would imagine the POV is that this 'independant work' is notable as an independant work. Paris is clearly the reason the work became notable. It is worth noting that even though his name came up in this very debate to support the idea of an independant work, Adam McKay's article has zero mention of this notable work he directed at this time. MickMacNee (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the nominator seems to be suggesting a merge rather than a delete. Merge proposals can be discussed on talk pages rather than here. "This content can be covered elsewhere" is not a valid reason to delete a page, I think it is a very valid application of the official guideline WP:SUMMARIZE.--Anon 10:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I proposed a merge on 30 August 2008. It isn't exactly being discussed right now. MickMacNee (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree totally with the assessment that it's a POV fork, so that argument is disregarded. Looking at the article, while it might be better suited there in the Paris Hilton article, merging all relevant information there would create a disproportionately large section in the article, despite the fact that it's not a huge part of Paris Hilton's life, and so it would be inappropriate to merge it there. Looking at United States presidential election, 2008, I find myself thinking a section, (or even an article) about all the campaign drama, watercooler talk, and buzzwords from the campaign (things like Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin's clothes, Ayers, the article in question etc.) would add a lot to the article. But that's not what we're talking about. So my suggestion for the article is, ideally, for the article/section I suggested above to be created, and this article merged there. Barring that, the result of this AfD should be 'keep', due to the news coverage, explicitly without a mandate for merging, but not precluding a merge should editorial consensus result in such a decision. seresin ( ¡? )  23:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You want to create Trivia of the United States presidential election, 2008? The fake presidential campaign section in Hilton's bio already covers this article and more besides. The only thing I can see being argued to be kept here is press and politician's commments on Paris's proposed energy policy compromise. Whatever way you cut that, even though it is sourced, that is not worthy of an article, and that is what needs to be merged into more relevant presidential articles. MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this proposal makes sense.--Anon 09:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect - to Paris Hilton. It's already covered there pretty well and any new info and sources could be moved over there without, in my opinion, making the Paris Hilton article too long. Raven1977 (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the two articles into Paris Hilton energy plan. Notable, but marginally so by themselves. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Paris Hilton energy plan is a redirect here. MickMacNee (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps article should be merged with Funny or Die. (Hilton's video "Paris for President" released just today (October 30) IMO is sort of dreck.) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     23:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC) On 2nd thought, merge this article, its Funny or Die sequel and a mention of the new "Paris for President" music video to a new article named Paris for President?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow     15:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge anything of value to Paris_Hilton and List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, as suggested by the nom. This article is a rather pointless POV fork that the project is better off without.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete then add two sentences on this to the paris hilton page.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:07, 1 November 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.