Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whoo hoo!

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 08:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo hoo!

Subject deleted 3 times, still doesn't show enough notability, spammy, and possible conflict of interest. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-12t10:58z 10:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unsourced version was deleted three times and it did look like something that the ad agency's marketing department might have written. Current version is cleaned up and has sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, nominator might want to be a little more careful with facts, as the article was only deleted twice. But details aside, the article as it stands now, does not even resemble the article that was deleted. As for nominator's reasons for deletion, I will go through them one be one. 1 - Notability: Nominator who is from South Africa might not be that familiar with American pop-culture to know that the advertising campaign is extremely popular and widespread here in the United States. However, despite cultural differences, nominator could have realized that this advertising campaign was notable, simply by checking the references in the article. Advertising campaigns rarely receive mainstream media coverage about their actual advertising campaigns (the reason is obvious - there's a conflict of interest). Nevertheless, this campaign has met the WP:N requirement, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. This is clearly established by the references in the article. If the reliable sources in the article are not enough, there are another 21,000 ghits that one can peruse. 2 - "Spammy": Again, nominator might be confused with the original reasons for speedy deletion. The article was was first deleted as spam because it mainly focused on the ad agency that created the ad, and not the actual ad. The article as it stands now, has no relation to the original article. 3 - "conflict of interest" - despite COI not being a basis for deletion, I will address it as well. I don't know the creator of the original article, but it is likely that there was some sort of COI. However, as stated earlier, the article that was previously created does not even resemble the current article. I hope nominator isn't accusing me (I have some 30k edits) of having a conflict of interest. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that the creator tried to editwar back to his "spammy" version and even blanked the page once. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure what exactly the newbie creator intended. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Deletions:
  1. 2008-09-03t10:29:16z
  2. 2008-09-03t15:16:33z
  3. 2008-09-04t16:40:52z
- Since it's likely to be recreated again, a redirect may be best.
- "widespread in web navigation" with a not very stellar source doesn't seem to indicate encyclopedic/tertiary source notability. Adweek may be better, but it's not a university press or newspaper of record. The cnbc ref is pure fluff.
- "Looks spammy to me, unlike "Where's the beef?" which is notable and not trying to sell something with an ad in WP."
- The possible COI person started and reverted back to their version - if it was notable enough for an encyclopedia, someone else would've created an article on it. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-13t19:19z
  - Please look carefully at the deletion log, the article was only deleted twice. You might be confused with the deletion of the redirect after the article was userfied.
  - "'widespread in web navigation'" with a not very stellar source.... doesn't seem to indicate encyclopedic/tertiary source notability"
  - Seeking Alpha is a reliable source for financial issues. Read the WP article on the source.
  - "'widespread in web navigation'...doesn't seem to indicate encyclopedic/tertiary source notability"
  - "[W]idespread in web navigation" clearly establishes notability. What exactly would establish notability of an ad? Some headlines on TMZ? Again, an ad is not an actress, it rarely gets news coverage. But I'm not asking for a WP:N exception to apply to ads because the refs in this article clearly establish that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. If that were enough you have another 21,000 to choose from.
  - The cnbc ref is pure fluff."
  - How is a article by CNBC "pure fluff"? What satisfies you? A philosophical discourse on the ad? These types of articles are what make something notable. It doesn't matter why the news media decided to give the ad news coverage, all that matters is that CNBC decided provide coverage.
  - "Looks spammy to me, unlike "Where's the beef?" which is notable and not trying to sell something with an ad in WP."
  - I have no idea what you are referring to. The notability issue is unrelated to the spam issue. Not everything that is unnotable is spam. In addition, saying that this article is trying sell something is, at most, funny. Nobody that reads this little stub, will be more likely to go out an open a WAMU account.
  - "The possible COI person started and reverted back to their version - if it was notable enough for an encyclopedia, someone else would've created an article on it"
  - This clearly isn't a winning argument, and doesn't really need a rebuttal. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:RHaworth's delete was because even the redirect to a user page was not notable enough, unlike the i'm lovin' it which is notable enough for a redirect.
    - Alpha is a blog, and has a editorial staff that write about blogs.
    - Reliable sources need to be inline, not in Google's index.
    - Advertorial like puff pieces are not reliable sources establishing notability.
    - Where's the beef? is an example of something that's notable, more notable than i'm lovin' it which is just a redirect. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-14t07:13z, -- Jeandré, 2008-09-14t07:20z
      - "User:RHaworth's delete was because even the redirect to a user page was not notable enough, unlike the i'm lovin' it which is notable enough for a redirect"
      - The deletion of a redirect had nothing to do with the notability. By policy, there can't be a redirect to a page that is not in the mainspace.
      - "Alpha is a blog, and has a editorial staff that write about blogs"
      - Welcome to the 21st century, where blogs are a regular media source. Some are reliable and some are not. Seeking Alpha is clearly a reliable source per WP:RS.
      - "Reliable sources need to be inline, not in Google's index."
      - So then how about constructively going ahead and added the sources to the article? I know its much easier to nominate things for deletion, but in case you have extra time.........
      - Advertorial like puff pieces are not reliable sources establishing notability.
      - repetitiously calling it a "puff piece" doesn't win your argument, and disingenuously calling it an "advertorial" is unacceptable. Moreover, it clearly manifests your desperation to see the article deleted. This is the classic coverage which makes an advertising campaign notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep - the originals were spammy, and the language here still seems a little NPOV-violating; but there is evidence of notability in some media markets (even in the U.S., WaMu is not present in many areas, such as here in Wisconsin). A little cleanup of the tone is indicated, but not deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced. In need of NPOV cleanup, but definitely not deletion. SashaNein (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm surprised at the arguments for keeping, because when it comes down to it, it's a slogan for a financial institution which is not on the same tier by any means as I can't believe I ate the whole thing or Plop-plop, fizz-fizz, etc..., or as known as Erin Esurance. It's a cute ad campaign, yes, but the slogan is known only by ads and has not established further notability than WaMu's old campaign with the bankers and the talk show. At best, redirect to WaMu. Nate • (chatter) 05:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete trivial advertising slogan. One campaign doesn't make it. Redirect to t he bank seems a sensible solution. DGG (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2008 (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.