Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.kucinich.us

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. Singu larity 07:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Www.kucinich.us

Was speedy deleted, has been recreated. An earlier version at Kucinich.us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was also deleted, and has spent time as a redirect to Dennis Kucinich. Given that the US elections will soon be upon us, I am bringing this here to discuss the question: are official campaign sites inherently notable per WP:WEB. My reading is not really, but I could be wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It seems odd that the campaign site would have it's own entry. See Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008 or Hillary_Rodham_Clinton as an example. Her site only appears as a reference. --bfigura ^(talk) 22:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Change of opinion, see below bfigura ^(talk) 05:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect `'Míkka 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete and protect. I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Notability (web) that even causes me to look at this as a gray area. Unless the site itself "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (and not in articles primarily about Kucinich or any other broader topic), it lacks notability and should be deleted. If there's ambiguity about it in WP:WEB, maybe you could bring the specific passage to the attention of those reading this discussion, Angusmclellan? Evil1987 22:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the candidate. The article's subject itself is not notable or encyclopedic. The website and its history have no inherent interest. --Moonriddengirl 23:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (changed opinion; see below)[reply]
Delete and oppose redirect this page was already speedily deleted and was then recreated with www added to the front.--Southern Texas 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page was already speedy deleted once before as kucinich.us; this meets ~~both General Criteria 4 and~~ Article Criteria 7 for speedy deletion. Furthermore, this article is nowhere close to meeting the notability standards for websites. I do not think that redirecting this page is appropriate: we certainly wouldn't want a bunch of redirects for the websites of the 18 major presidential candidates, it has little to no usefulness as a redirect (who searches for a candidate's website as an article topic) and it undermines our notability guidelines to permit the entry's inclusion. JasonCNJ 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: to the general question, "Are candidate websites inherently notable?" I submit the answer is no unless the site itself has been subject to external validation and news reports as containing notability itself. Failure of a site to do so means the site itself is an extension of the candidate's campaign - while the campaign might be notable, its component parts are not. JasonCNJ 23:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a widespread misconception that prior WP:CSD deletions qualify an entry for G4 recreation deletion. G4 is only for articles deleted via a consensus discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 03:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected and have caused the inapplicable grounds to be stricken. JasonCNJ 03:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing particularly notable about the website itself, it hasn't been covered independently of the campaign. JCO312 00:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good point from JasonCNJ. Changed my opinion. --Moonriddengirl 00:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. If someone is typing in "www.kucinich.us" in that entry box on the left of the screen, they are either mistaking the Wikipedia search bar for the browser address bar or mistaking Wikipedia for google. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but at least this is more votes than he'll get as a candidate. Nick mallory 00:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch ˉˉ^anetode╦╩
Delete per WP:WEB. Candidate's websites surely do not meet the criteria for inclusion. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for redirect for this as a search term. The website is only a partial aspect of the candidate's campaign. --Dhartung | Talk 03:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Prevent recreation as per nom and Nenyedi Harlowraman 03:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This is an WP:EL masquerading as an article. As was mentioned above, Wikipedia is not Google. Resolute 05:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Jason and Anetode. Changed my opinion bfigura ^(talk) 05:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JasonCNJ and Anetode. --Metropolitan90 06:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. It lacks the nobility as stated on WP:WEB. It has also fall under speedy deletion previously.Cocoma 13:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep. This page should by no means be deleted. If this one survives, I might do other candidates sites." (This comment was left by Www.kucinich.us page creator Zelogan on the discussion page of this AfD, so I have reprinted it into the appropriate section.)
Redirect to Kucinich. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 05:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.