Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office of the president elect

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn. The article has changed in a significant manner and the nomination has been withdrawn. The delete voters' concerns should have all been addressed at ths point or are not relevant due to the changed nature of the article. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDA^duel 03:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Office of the President-Elect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article has been recreated in spite of speedy deletion and application of speedy delete tags, so let's discuss this here. The present article appears to be motivated by a desire to attack president-elect Barack Obama. It is unencyclopedic in tone. There were at least two previous versions of the article, which were not written from a neutral point of view and appeared to me to be much clearer attack on Obama. Perhaps some kind admin can access the text of the previous versions to put this current article in context? I believe that this article is written by an author who cannot be objective about the topic. Richard Cavell (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I withdraw my nomination - the article as it stands now is completely different to the one that I nominated, and all of my concerns have been addressed. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I fixed the attacking wording and referencing. Tell me if it's okay. (NOT creator of article, patroller) Also, shouldn't it be redirected to: Office of the United states President Elect?(edit:boldly done) I do agree the article was created as an attack article.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• yeah, it was an attack at the beginning. Now it's fairly neutral in content following editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warion7 (talk • contribs)
  • You know you just admitted to writing an attack page, right? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • it was written entirely per a foxnews article, of course it was slanted. didn't at the time of first publication realize it couldn't be based entirely on the tonal quality of one external article. current format is much better and encyclopedic. - --Warion7 (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes no logical sense, if you can realize now it was an attack page, how could you possibly have not realized earlier, especially since the page was previously deleted. Not to mention you cite actually stated there is a bill that legalizes the office. However, per Wp:AGF, I'm just going to place a reminder warning template on your talk page to remind you to read and make sure the content you are placing up is not an attack page in the future as advice. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Wikipedia's policies on Original Research, Neologisms, and Coatracks. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If it gets deleted it gets deleted. I'm new to this, still figuring the ropes out. I have no idea what the policies on neologisms, coatracks, or original research are. nor did i realize before i posted the article as an attack post that they weren't allowed. The article has been modified to state facts only. I think it should stay as there is nothing else pertaining to the subject here. --Warion7 (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the current version fails OR as there is citations and it's fair in my POV, but..ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• PS: Can someone file a bugzilla report for me? Sometimes when I click edit, I get a blank page and the message:"you have new messages" even though I don't when I am using the secure server.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete- unless better sources can be found than Michelle Malkin and Fox News. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The government paper cite on the office isn't enough to establish existence?! Also, I'm 100% sure I saw it on Cnn.com a long time ago when the sign first appeared, but I don't have the time to look for it/its probably down anyway. Found NYT article mentioning the office, so regardless of CNN, there is citations.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the government paper--assuming that we're speaking of the same one--makes no reference at all I can find to any 'United States Office of the President-Elect', no, the paper doesn't establish its existence. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• it's gone for one reason or another. interesting process... learned a lot. thanks nojan. i'll probably try it again later. --Warion7 (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? Its just been moved. Also, I never said I supported making an attack page, I'm kind of skeptical on even mentioning the criticism/"controversy". I'm only defending the existence of the article on a subject that is notable (the office) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • yeah, found it after the fact. --Warion7 (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the usage of a term in the news media falls under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. If you had just made a redirect to Presidential transition of Barack Obama nobody would care, but the article is just an attack on the uppity Mr Obama--how dare he conduct business like a white man?! Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have you read the recent *fixed* version? Why would I purposely slander/allow slander of Obama when I consider myself Centrist-Liberal (international definition, see my userpage for political compass test results)?! Or did you mean warion's original usage?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This appears to be an actual government organisation and is now cited properly. The article could do with much more work, but it's on a valid topic and the content is OK at present. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Following the source cited for the existence of this 'United States Office of the President-Elect' shows no such term anywhere in the Act. In other words, the very title is Original Research. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a neologism, original research, and violates WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based upon current revision, but expand. Neologisms are terms coined on a small scale in a limited venue. Obama has established this office and it has been cited in the mainstream media, not just the NY Times, but CNN, etc. This could also be seen as a precedent-setting measure (though we'll need to wait till 2012 or 2016 to see if the next president adopts it). I don't know what the status of the article was at time of nomination, but as it stands now it's fine. It needs expansion and more sourcing, etc. But the topic is notable enough, and has been covered well enough in mainstream media. Article needs, however, to be renamed Office of the President-Elect to conform with naming standards, if it is kept or a no consensus decision occurs. (Note: at present that form of the title is a redirect to President-Elect). I am curious how accusations that the title of this article is original research; has no one read WP:NOR? It's a prohibition on "new knowledge"; I fail to see how a term established by the upcoming president of the United States (or possibly earlier depending on other third sources) and already used by the media could possibly be considered original research. 23skidoo (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Okay, sure, it started as a bizarre little article that essentially said "This office may not legally exist. Also? This law said it legally exists." So fix the article. It's a real office, has been for years, will be for years. --John Kenneth Fisher (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note:The article was Office of the President-Elect, however I moved it since I felt it should have the country in the name of the article for disambiguity reasons. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:Coatrack. An occasionally used office played up by partisan sources. Not much encyclopedic content that is not already covered by Presidential transition. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to Presidential transition of Barack Obama, which links from Presidential transition and President-elect. It's certainly a legitimate topic, even if the title is too long to be a useful search term. When people see Mr. Obama standing behind a podium that says "Office of the President-Elect", and they don't recall ever hearing of such an "office" before, it's natural to turn to the internet (and to Wikipedia) to find out when this came about. It's an odd extension of change.gov and, hopefully, something that is never heard from again after January 20, 2009. Mandsford (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Given that its legal basis going back to 1963, it seems a significant topic in its own right, with potential for expansion to put the main current reason for interest (Obama's transition) into broader context in ways that wouldn't be appropriate in the proposed merge targets.--ragesoss (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in its present form. The original version was POV, and cited out of context even the Fox article, which was not as negative as the article then indicated. But this now has sources over the whole spectrum, including the Huffington Post.DGG (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. has enough sources now and is certainly notable since it's been covered more than once in major national media. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This organization has been around for more than 40 years. The article should, however, be named Office of the President-Elect of the United States as that is what the organization is named. L0b0t (talk) 23:44, 30 November 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.