Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics 2.0


 * 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. Wal ton  Need some help?  17:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Politics_2.0

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominate for deletion based on WP:NEO, single-purpose self-referencing account author, and Wikipedia is not a blog. I originally proposed speedy, which was removed in favor of prod, which the SPA removed with no explaination given. Michaelbusch 23:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, topic sufficiently covered by netroots. --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Netroots refers specifically to grassroots efforts. Most of the Internet political activities do not fit into this category, being candidate driven. Politics 2.0 is also the much broader concept with which netroots might be a small component, so if anything it would make theoretical sense, if any merging, to merge netroots into the larger concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexHammer (talk • contribs)


 * Delete unless sourced until the end of this AfD. Alternative (if sourcing is borderline): redirect to that netroots article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I would like to see if the promise of suitable sources is fulfilled, but as it stands, it smells of Neologism. If those sources are available, why are they not already referenced? A forum, a blog and YouTube are not reliable sources. Adrian   M. H.  15:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be greatly adding (improving, fleshing out) this article over the next two weeks, but am busier today and tomorrow. Web 2.0 and Business 2.0 are very strongly accepted and referenced terms (see also Wikipedia entries) and similarly Politics 2.0 is increasingly becoming so (this will be detailed with strong refernce documentation and support).  The effect of web technologies on politics is increasing at a very rapid and influential rate. Everything from YouTube videos, to social networks, to online viral marketing. Politics 2.0 - the convergence of politics and web 2.0 techniques, strategies and tools - is probably the most important growing influence in all of politics today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.202.71 (talk • contribs)

I moved this from the top of the page to a more appropriate location. Note that this is not a place for speeches. Michaelbusch 16:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Beginning reference and documentary information on Politics 2.0 (Links on Politics 2.0 Wikipedia page, thank you):


 * Politics 2.0 refers to the utilization of Web 2.0 techniques, tools and strategies in politics.


 * Leading media sites are examining Politics 2.0, it's reach, scope and influence, including: GigaOm Web 2.0 Gives Birth to Politics 2.0 and The Politico Politics 2.0.


 * A search of Google News for the phrase [Internet Politics] catalogs thousands of current media results, while dozens of current blog articles at any given time reference [Politics 2.0] in their titles.


 * Politics 2.0 is a revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary progress in communication, community and delivery systems, etc., in politics, focused on interactive Internet tools, processes and communities.


 * Hillary Clinton sample Politics 2.0 campaign elements: [blog], [video][(Hillary Presidential website)], [online fundraising], [MySpace page], and [YouTube channel].


 * John Edwards sample Politics 2.0 campaign elements: [blog], [Video, Audio, Podcasts and Downloads][Edwards Presidential website], [online fundraising [MySpace Page, and [YouTube channel]. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by AlexHammer (talk • contribs)


 * Delete - Adding "2.0" to the end of word X and then saying "It's like word X, but it uses Web2.0" is not an article. Artw 23:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition to GigaOm and The Politico (both major and respected) news sites references for their detailed articles on Politics 2.0, just added also New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller on the importance of Politics 2.0. AlexHammer 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope people will agree that the article is improving (being more fleshed out). That is going at a slow and steady pace and will take a bit of time ongoing. I hope that I have now already made a good case (it's obvious to me, but I'm in the field) in regard to mainstream and leading media's coverage of both this topic and term, and the actual critical importance of this content area to politics that is not covered elsewhere (netroots is a much much smaller principle, and really only a sliver of this content area). If you agree, I'd hate to see Wikipedia readers deprived of the role and content of Internet, interactive (including community) and Web 2.0 mediums across politics.

Finally, I am the new person here and ready to learn as I make any mistakes. I copied this from the article deletion Wikipedia page, and unless I am missing something my article doesn't fall into the basic categories covered that lead to deletion (although I'm sure there can be lesser smaller subcategories as well, and maybe I missed something on that page also). "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace." AlexHammer 23:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Continue to work on. Thank you. AlexHammer 23:34, 3 May 2007 (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.