Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sock Obama


 * 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 -- JForget  23:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sock Obama

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A brief mention in the news for about one hour out of a 24-hour news cycle does not warrant a wikipedia article for this company. Loonymonkey (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment Not to be rude, but I don't see a deletion rationale in the nomination. Further, the sources in the article cover a period of several days, so the nomination is factually imprecise. Townlake (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The rationale seems quite clear, alternately stated by WP:NOT. The number of days in the news cycle doesn't fix the fundamental problem, little evidence of long term significance. Notability not established. • Gene93k (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Fair enough. I think there's enough RS here to put something together, but if this more appropriate as a footnote to the Obama campaign, that's cool too. Townlake (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Lots of wacky presidential toys and trinkets come out during elections and this (albeit with a big problem the creators didn't notice before announcing it) is no exception. Three of the four refs just repeat the AP copy verbatim, and the product has been pulled. I think we can move along.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 09:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarification Perhaps splitting hairs, but I only see two that are the AP copy verbatim. What am I overlooking?  And while yes, lots of presidential toys come out, the controversy attached to this one differentiates it just a teeny bit, doesn't it? Townlake (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I may have miscounted, but one of them seemed to be almost verbatim. If I was wrong on the count, my apologies. As for the controversy, there had been before, but now there is none. It's not being sold, the people apologized for any offense and no one will ever own this product.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your points are well taken; the fact nobody will ever own the product is particularly compelling. I'm convinced - Delete. Townlake (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No claim of notability given. SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - real and verifiable, but not notable --T-rex 16:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Darn it, merge to Obama 2008. JJB 17:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Do not merge.  Bwrs (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a flash-in-the-pan item which will never even make it to market.  If it continues to receive substantial coverage well into the future, we can reconsider the article at that time.  RFerreira (talk) 20:06, 2 July 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.