Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter diplomacy


 * 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. by now the consensus is clearly to keep  DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Twitter diplomacy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly disguised ad for the company behind Twiplomacy.com. Maybe a notable topic, but then WP:TNT applies. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 16:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

--

Hi, Qwertyus.

I created the page. I'm a master's student in Russia, and I chose this topic to satisfy a requirement for one of my courses. It's not an ad; I have no affiliation with Twiplomacy nor with anyone listed in the article.

The article uses Twiplomacy's numbers only to highlight the main point of the article, which is that diplomats and foreign publics are getting closer thanks to Twitter. Why did you not highlight this article as an ad for Twitter?

The page is much more robust than those for digital diplomacy and Facebook diplomacy, two pages that barely qualify as articles. If the references to Twiplomacy are so contentious, some of them can be removed. I'm not sure why deletion of the entire page or "blowing it up and starting over" is your proposed solution.

Thanks. Dave

--

Hi, Qwertyus.

I also re-added a quote that you deleted. Sorry I missed the citation, but you just could have pointed that out to me. I hope it addresses your concern. Feel free to point out any other concerns.

Thanks, Dave


 * Weak keep and improve urgently. There are plenty of mainstream, independent news sources available about the subject, the problem is the article does not refer to (or use) any of them. Though I've sympathies with the BLOWITUP/USERIFY option the author should at least be given a chance to improve the article. I've added clean-up templates and, while they exist, the author clearly has not fulfilled their college brief to write a decent Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

--

Qwertyus, Sionk, thanks again for the input and I'll start working on changes to the sources. Sionk, I will also re-examine my tone as well; I believe that is what you were pointing me to with the clean-up template. You all are far more helpful when you make tangible suggestions; for example. 02:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, but improvement definitely needed. Might even be best to trim out much of the existing article, as the tone is too focused on establishing, proving the existence of this phenomenon. The article shouldn't have to prove it -- it should describe and reference it. That said, this is real, and the term has had meaningful validation already, including, substantively, in the NYT piece from Feb 4 that I just added. I actually ran into the page because I saw a link in Michael McFaul's twitter post, where he also calls his own substantial usage of twitter by the same term. Avram (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, TNT doesn't apply. This isn't completely useless. We could stubify, but that's still a KEEP recommendation. Avram (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Last comment for now-- key bit of NYT piece is: "The next iteration of Twitter diplomacy has arrived — one that involves augmenting, sometimes even replacing, the carefully scripted and vetted language of official State Department and White House statements with the choppy patois of Twitter." Avram (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

--

Thanks again to all and to Avram for the latest edit. I've run through the article again and attempted to address everyone's concerns about (1) my perceived endorsement of Twiplomacy.com, (2) my lack of source use, and (3) the non-encyclopedic tone. What else do you notice? And who decides when can we remove the banners at the top of the page? Thanks, Dave. D.a.kelm (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, you can add (two more substantial uses of Twitter diplomacy and one "hashtag diplomacy": http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2012/02/21/147207004/twitter-diplomacy-state-department-2-0, http://blogs.ft.com/brusselsblog/2013/12/16/twitter-diplomacy-fule-vs-eu-ministers-on-ukraine/, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/26/obama-hashtag-diplomacy-with-russia-sparks-new-criticism-about-weak-foreign/ . The basic process here is that editors will debate the merits of the article and eventually a moderator will decide one way or the other. In cases where there quickly arises a clear consensus that the article should stay, non-moderators will sometimes close AfD discussions, but that's the less common case. Avram (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

-- Thanks again Avram, for the advice and for the insight into the AfD process. I added two of those articles and a reference to 'hashtag diplomacy.' D.a.kelm (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has improved dramatically since it was nominated and appears to cover a notable topic. Pburka (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

-- Thanks Pburka and to all who continue to make edits. I'll continue to improve the content and address your other recommendations. I really don't see myself solving the issue of original sourcing, as this is quite a contemporary topic that has few references other than media articles and the two studies I found. Happy to take suggestions. Has the non-encyclopedic tone improved? Again, happy to take suggestions. If someone feels that the tone's no longer an issue, can I invite you to remove that banner? Thanks, D.a.kelm (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and encyclopedic and educational. Arguably part of the phenomenon of Web 2.0. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cirt. I've added 'Web 2.0' to the page's categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.a.kelm (talk • contribs) 18:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that categorization must be supported by the article's text, and, by extension, reliable sources. Sadly, User:Cirt is not a reliable source. Pburka (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pburka. Was thinking of the very first source ('State Department 2.0') and not Cirt, but feel free to delete it. I think it's fine.d.a.kelm ([[User talk:d.a.kelm|talk) 20:29, 30 April 2014 (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.