Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitehouse.org


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Whitehouse.org

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Run-of-the-WP:MILL comedy site which got some sparse coverage from notable media sources. At best, this is a case of WP:1E, with that one event being the conflict with Cheney's office. Outside of this one event, every last reference is either from the site itself (a primary source if there ever was one), or non-notable sources that, in some cases, would provide a "reference" for any website (like WHOIS). HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 21:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  22:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No view on the notability of the web site, but WP:1E has no application here. 1E applies to "individuals" notable for a single event. This AfD concerns a web site (not an individual) ... and one that has been operating for more than 20 years. The notability of the web site should be assessed under WP:GNG and perhaps also WP:WEBCRIT. Cbl62 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cbl62, you have a good point. However, I fail to see how most of the coverage from mainstream media sources passes WP:WEBCRIT; I would argue that the only three references from reliable sources that count as vaguely notable are the first two New York Times ones and the Salon one, all of which are relatively brief and could be argued to not constitute significant coverage on their own; the second New York Times reference is about a play based on the website and makes only brief (about two paragraphs) reference to the site itself. The CNN reference is both mildly questionable in its status as a secondary source (it's an interview with the site's owner during an episode of a talk show, which I would consider to be a questionably independent source) and highly questionable in its notability (said talk show, while notable enough for its own page, is so obscure it doesn't even show up in the CNN Original Programming template), and the Washington Post reference is a dead link. I cannot find much else coverage of the site in the Find sources for Google News. Therefore, I would argue that it does not pass WP:WEBCRIT, and rather or not it passes WP:GNG is debatable. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 02:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be based on 3rd party sources, and for a long running website if there is really only one event that ever got quality coverage, we should not have an article on the website. The event itself does not seem to rise to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh. Barely notable and only sometimes funny. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The book provides five pages of coverage about Whitehouse.org. The book notes in the "Overview" section of the chapter: "WhiteHouse.org is a satirical site—an acid-tongued spin on President George W. Bush and his administration. When you realize your mistake, you may be tempted to exit the page and head to the real White House Web site (www.whitehouse.gov). But if you flee, you'll be missing one of the best examples of biting, incisive satire on the Web. As with all effective satire, Whitehouse.org is impolite, perhaps even a tough vulgar. Fans of the Republican administration will likely be put off by the harsh tenor of much of the site's 'news' articles. But if you believe that the purpose of the popular press is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable (the creed of many professional journalists), you'll realize how firmly this site is rooted in the American tradition of muckraking."  The article notes: "Shortly after Bush was 'appointed' by the Supreme Court, John Wooden thought Bush's new White House would be 'super-meaty project.' All he needed was a name, and the whitehouse.org web domain just happened to be free. Wooden's parody is a mirror distortion of the real White House's web site. Whitehouse.org is complete with clickable links to things like the Department of Faith, Homeland Security, and Fraternal Affairs. ... Back at Whitehouse.org, the main page also offers Onionesque press releases, including: 'President's Armed Forces Radio Address to America's Troops on the Glorious Occasion of their Retroactive Induction into Eternal Martial Slavery' ..."  The article notes: "The site (www.whitehouse.org) lampoons senior members of the administration, from the president on down. The Bush Administration, it says on one page. Courage. Passion. Faith. Petroleum. Xenophobia. The site is meant to be a parody of the actual White House Web site (www.whitehouse.gov), Mr. Wooden said. Mr. Wooden, of Brooklyn, said he has operated the site since 2001, and no one in the Bush administration had complained before the letter from Mr. Cheney's counsel, David S. Addington." This websiteInternet Archive from the website's creator provides a list of media quotes about the website:“Hilarious” – The New York Times“In” – Vanity Fair</li><li>“Spot on” – BBC</li><li>“Hysterical… Searing political parody” – CNN</li><li>“Brilliantly ham-fisted” – TIME</li><li>“Scathing… Wickedly funny” – Detroit Metro Times</li><li>“Offensive, irreverent… bitingly funny.” – Orlando Sentinel</li><li>“The jury is out on Wooden’s ability to make anyone laugh.” – New York Post</li></ol></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Whitehouse.org to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Keep. Passes GNG and prong 1 of WEBCRIT per sourcing proffered by Cunard. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Really good research and documentation by Cunard above makes a convincing case to me.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Cunard's findings, I think this passes GNG. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 02:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.