Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential candidate girls, 2008


 * 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. The consensus in this discussion was that the sourcing lacked sufficient depth treating the subject topically for article. There was a strong subcurrent that notable information might be included somewhere, but no merge targets gained traction. I will be happy to userify if that will assist in obtaining information contained here. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

United States presidential candidate girls, 2008

 * – ( View AfD View log )

1. This is a WP:LINKFARM. 2. None of these so-called "presidential candidate girls" are remotely notable, except for Obama Girl (even that is a redirect to the actress who played her). The concept of "presidential candidate girls" is a neologism. OCNative (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus these redirects: Giuliani Girl, Hillary Girl, Huckabee Girl, Kucinich Girl, McCain Girl, Romney Girls, The Romney Girls, and Ron Paul Girl. OCNative (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. LK (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Completely unnotable. Wikipedian2 (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename. List of notable Youtube video girls appearing during the 2008 presidential elections.   D r e a m Focus  13:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that these get ample coverage in the news media. For example Giuliani Girl   A notable phenomenon.   D r e a m Focus  13:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If so, my inclination would be to rewrite into an article about the phenomenon, not just a list. Morgan Wick (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to United States presidential election, 2008 Lionel (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge: to United States presidential election, 2008. A fairly ephemeral gimmick, apparently lacking anything non-routine, any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or any analysis of its wider implications. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete it's an observable trend. But Wikipedia doesn't report on trends observed by editors, because that's original research. Needs something to WP:verify notability of this 2008 phenomenon. Looks to be impossible because only one (maybe two) of these girls ever attracted any attention from reliable third-party sources. Trivial coverage of the group at best. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's easy to find sources for this such as Where's Hillary Guy?, Obama Girl, Giuliani Girl Let The Feathers Fly or Obama Girl Meets Her Match. Worst case is that we merge this into some higher level article such as United States presidential election, 2008.  Per our editing policy, deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And its easy to see that these sources treat these girls in isolation, from which any attempt to derive a wider topic would be pure WP:Synthesis -- which "per our policy" against original research (and also "per our policy" of not basing articles purely on routine news coverage) is impermissible. Some might call pulling a single policy out of context as "wikilawyering".  HrafnTalkStalk(P) 20:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, all those sources treat the girls severally rather than in isolation. It's easy to turn up more such as Encyclopedia of Politics, the Media, and Popular Culture which states "The success of the viral clip led to answer songs such as "Hot for Hill"..."  There's a clearly a topic here which has been recognised by a print encyclopedia and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm, no, nowhere like it, not even close. Your first source gives the 'several' girls mere vapid, vacuous mention as "The FCC has yet to regulate viral video or, consequently, viral vixen — those sirens of the information superhighway who so far include Obama Girl, Giuliani Girl and the Romney Girls. According to a poll on BarelyPolitical.com, Ron Paul Girl might be next." (If this is 'treating' the subject, then a bandaid is 'treating' an amputated limb.) WP:INDEPTH? NOT! The other two sources only deal (superficially, but in at least slightly more depth than your first empty-headed source) with Obama Girl vs Giuliani Girl (facing off on some obscure website) and the fact that Romney, unlike Obama, doesn't have a single girl, he has triplets. What is very, very, very "ordinary" is the coverage -- strictly WP:ROUTINE, as is CW's repeated referral at AfDs solely to two isolated paragraphs of WP:Editing policy, WP:PRESERVE & WP:IMPERFECT -- as though these two paragraphs are the entirety of that policy (explicitly by piping them as such), let alone the entirety of Wikipedia policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: That all these girls emerged in the wake of Obama Girl is notable content, whether we place it in a subsection of I Got a Crush... on Obama, here, or elsewhere. Current title may not be easiest ways for searchers to find content.--Milowent • talkblp-r  03:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The argument that there are no sources discussing the concept of "presidential candidate girls" as such, and that the article is therefore OR by synthesis, is persuasive.  Sandstein   09:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the question has to be, in a political climate where every tactic that has a potential to garner publicity is tried, and every momentarily successful tactic is copied, is every idea that enjoys its 15 seconds in the political sun worthy of being immortalised in an encyclopaedia? What's next? United States presidential candidate novelty ties, 2012? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was notable enough for every single novelty tie to get media coverage, then yes, that'd be fine. WP:I don't like it is not a reason to try to delete something.  Also, this wasn't a political tactic, it was just various girls doing things on their own.   D r e a m Focus  10:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) On your first point I, along with WP:EVENT, will have to agree to disagree with you. (ii) On your second point I WILL THANK YOU NOT TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH! I did not say "I don't like it", I did not give any argument that could reasonably be interpreted as "I don't like it". And for your information WP:NOTNEWS IS a reason for not including "something" (and specifically this topic) in Wikipedia. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:20, 24 April 2011 (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.