Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed naming of Oprah Winfrey to Barack Obama's senate seat (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   delete. unlikely search term so no point on a redirect and is already covered Spartaz Humbug! 04:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed naming of Oprah Winfrey to Barack Obama's senate seat
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not an important enough event to justify a separate article. The article is really just a collection of quotes from Blagojevich and others, commenting on the idea (sample: "Also on the morning of January 26, TMZ.com posted a video of Blagojevich in New York explaining to one of their reporters why he had considered Winfrey"). I've already inserted a section about the proposal (basically copied from the introductory paragraph here) into Rod Blagojevich controversies, so I don't feel any other merger is necessary. Propaniac (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The previous deletion discussion for this article is at Articles for deletion/Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama's senate seat. Propaniac (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. My first thought was that this would be useful information merged elsewhere. Seeing that it has been done, no reason to do other than delete. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete if something has been copied to the Rod wotsisname controversies. PatGallacher (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Trim down and Merge into Rod_Blagojevich. Not notable enough on its own for a separate article. --Crunch (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's already there. Although I'm inclined to take it out because "Oprah Winfrey", or support of Oprah Winfrey, is not a "political position", and it seems a much better fit under Rod Blagojevich controversies, where it's also already there.Propaniac (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But this article does not describe a controversy so how does it fit in with Rod Blagojevich controversies? SamanthaG (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the topic is not controversial. Propaniac (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There was virtually no criticism of the proposal in the media, so objectively it doesn't qualify as a controversy in any meaningful sense. SamanthaG (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the media had felt it necessary to give the topic more discussion, criticism would surely have been documented; the number of times Blago was apparently asked to explain and justify the idea should be evidence that many did find it controversial. The fact that media commentary amounted to a couple of comments, whether those were supportive or not, should indicate that this topic was not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. (If it's not controversial, then it's just something that happened, or something that could have happened.) Propaniac (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The media gave it tons of coverage as this article clearly indicates and there's been even more coverage recently that has not yet been added to the article. And the media asked him about it because they found it interesting or often Blago himself brought it up.  I don't think you can speculate on what should have or might have been controversial.  If you're going to add something to an article about controversies, you need valid sources showing it to be controversial. SamanthaG (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article only quotes two uninvolved sources offering any kind of opinion of the proposal. For an event that received "tons of coverage," see the Steven Slater incident, which has inspired literally hundreds of news articles, commentaries, interviews and other reporting around the globe, and yet still appears unlikely to find a consensus agreement that it's notable enough to surpass the WP:NOTNEWS guideline. I'm not saying that the Slater article or AFD outcome should have any effect on this one, but it offers some perspective on what kind of attention and impact an event should have to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and the line is drawn far above a handful of quotes from people centrally involved, and a couple of mentions on pundit programs. (And the release of related audio recordings doesn't make much difference either, at least in my opinion, unless there's some evidence that these recordings have any impact, on anything.) Propaniac (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep  Especially now. The article has become far more relevant and news worthy since the first deletion attempt.  Actual tape recordings of Blago discussing Oprah with staff have emerged and documented in reliable sources and these need to be added to the article.  Please don't flush all the hard work that went into creating this article down the drain simply because it's not yet complete.  SamanthaG (talk)
 * Move to a title such as Appointment to the United States Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, after which this topic can be fleshed out to become an article that can stand on its own and is also understandable for a reader who did not follow the events at the time, dealing with: why the seat was vacated; what Illinois state law has to say about the succession; accusations about putting the seat up for sale; reactions of Blago; public speculation in the media; role of the White House; appointment of Burris. In this fleshed-out article Oprah is an element and not the whole opera. --Lambiam 17:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That article already exists at Rod Blagojevich corruption charges, which has also been suggested as a merge target. I don't really care which, but the last AFD was essentially closed as a merge that never happened, which is why I did the merge in advance (not that it seems to have made any difference to the people still !voting for a merge). Propaniac (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a large overlap: the corruption-charges article pays much attention to the Senate Seat replacement events also outside the scope of the corruption charges, and goes into detail that is not relevant for the charges per se, while not all corruption charges – and in particular not the one Blago was convicted for – are directly related to the appointment issue. So I feel the material could be distributed more evenly and clearly: an article really focussing on the criminal investigation and proceedings – telephone taps, charges, indictment, court case, verdict, appeal, ... – and an article concerned with the civil governmental aspects. --Lambiam 18:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is interestining, historic, well cited, and increasingly relevant. Zomputer (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge relevant info to appropriate articles. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this is not an encyclopedic topic. Moreover, the article contains mostly just news stories.--TM 05:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. This topic is already covered elsewhere, and it was basically a big nothing anyway. Blagojevich never offered the Senate seat to Winfrey, he never discussed it with her before offering it to Roland Burris, and he never publicly revealed that he had considered her for the position until after Burris had been seated in the Senate. Even if Blagojevich hadn't recently been convicted of making false statements, I still don't see why something he says he thought about doing, but didn't take any concrete steps toward doing, is worthy of a separate article. The supporters of a "keep" should consider that even if this article is deleted, the knowledge of this unrealized idea will not disappear from Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But we now have proof that he thought about it and discussed it with his staff before he decided to name Burris as FBI tapes have emerged documenting the fact. It may be nothing in the grand scheme of things, but for the great number of people who study the intersection of politics and pop culture, it's an epic piece of history, and it gives great insight into how the most colorful governor in American history thinks. SamanthaG (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete One minor event, reporting by gossipy news sources does not give it lasting importance. Anyway the Senate seat is not President Obama's, and I'm sure he would say so himself, any more than the presidency is George Bush's or for that matter George Washington's. Borock (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was also reported by the New York Times, the Washington Times, CNN, CBS News, debated on MSNBC, discussed by Dianne Sawyer, documented by FBI tapes, and even used as part of the defense in Blagojevich's trial. And if everything in wikipedia had to be of incredible importance, there would very few articles indeed. SamanthaG (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - A big pile of WP:NOTNEWS, a blip of a media frenzy with no lasting, historical significance. It is addressed now at Rod Blagojevich controversies, time to move on. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is fascinating, well documented and contains enough in depth detail to justify a full article. Everything about this article is extremely relevant.  The governor who proposed the idea is the most notable governor in America, the woman he was considered for the senate is the most notable woman in arguabley the world, and the fact that it was the seat of the first black president gives the article historical significance and makes it interesting to people all over the world.  Makewater (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it really plausible that Rod Blagojevich was, at the time of this incident, the most notable governor in America? Just being indicted made him more notable than the movie star or even the former vice presidential nominee? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Palin wasn't in the news at the time, and not much was going on in California implicitly related to Schwarzenegger. Furthermore crime sells. Wing gundam (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Great article, well researched and sourced; it's quite relevant, and as good as any other nomination article that hit the media. Furthermore it lends quite a bit to the Blagojevich and the Corruption Charges articles. definitely a keep. Wing gundam (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete article about a pipe dream/non-event, existing mention in Blagojevich article is more than enough Hekerui (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge in a conxdensed manner. There is not actually that much material that it demands a separate article. The use of article sections for each individual comment makes it look much more impressive than it is. It would all fit nicely into a paragraph or two. The not very informative repetitive text of the individual comments would fit nicely in the footnotes giving the source. Blagojevich made a number of comments defending or explaining his choice .   ... Various commentators thought it might in fact be fitting .  . Others thought otherwise .   . This preserves all the information.    DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable and highly discussed event that has been covered in multiple reliable sources independent of the article's subject. It easily passes the GNG, and I fail to see how this is just a news story. Merge to a new article about Obama's Senate seat if necessary, but this article can stand on its own.  — fetch ·  comms   04:06, 9 September 2010 (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.