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 (non-admin closure). However, the merge to Paris Hilton is strongly recommended. Ruslik (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the above close may be a little confusing and has caused a deletion review, it is important to note that this is a keep closure in the sense of not delete. There is no consensus to merge on this AfD, and any merge/redirection in the future is subject to editor discretion and should only be performed with proper discussion and clear consensus. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton energy plan[edit]

Paris Hilton energy plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Page should never have been forked out of Paris Hilton. Information is unencyclopedic and presumes a real stance from Paris Hilton on energy policy in the United States presidential election. This gives undue weight to the position advanced in that video and is, essentially, a hoax (or, at best, false satire). Almost all of the sources trace back to funnyordie.com, where it was originally posted. I removed a section titled "commentary" which contained little more than a bulleted list of news articles that mentioned this video, but did not explain or elaborate with any meaningful encyclopedic content. It should be merged back to Paris Hilton. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These linked opinion pieces go into informed detail about the "Paris Hilton energy plan" (the title of the article), pro and con, by knowledgeable commentators. No articles merely giving the video mention were included.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I just get that right? Paris Hilton delivers one sentence on politics and this is to be mentioned here at all? I don't think it should go into the main article neither but should be deleted completely. In any case this article has to go, of course, so merge if you can't help it. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also like to see it deleted, but I predict there's going to be somebody who will go to the wall to try to save the material in this article, even if it's unencyclopedic and doesn't actually inform about the election, energy policy or Paris Hilton herself. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Paris Hilton has an energy plan? That's hot! Wikipedia has an article on the Paris Hilton energy plan? That's not hot! Delete Ecoleetage (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This content is notable and well referenced, but there will never be enough material for anything other than a stub. It should be returned to the Paris Hilton article. Wronkiew (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into Paris Hilton. It's more amusing than most of the other anecdotes of her life, but certainly no more notable. Jclemens (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Mergedo not delete. I think she represents everything terrible about America's celebrity-worshiping, but unfortunately, she is notable, as is that video/policy. As an aside, it's a fairly well-thought-out outline of a policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrefron (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. Compare to the bio of Amber Lee Ettinger. Wikipedia's standard is to have separate articles for artistic creations (say a song) rather than to decide whether to include its details in the article for the song's lyricist, musical composer, original recording artist, singer of its most famous cover version, and so forth. In the present case, should the coverage of Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad be a part of the bio of its creator, director Adam McKay? As a section giving encylopedic coverage to this artifact in the United States presidential election, 2008 article? In Hilton's bio? What's the compelling reason to stuff this viral video's coverage into Hilton's bio?

Also, I restored its list of notable commentary, this time adding it to its external links section.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To any admin out there, I throw myself at your mercy: I'd somenow got it in my head to pop out a wikilink or two to folks who'd previously commented in one particular campaign subarticle AfD's and one political satire viral video's AfD; but then, alas, after I got started, I started to notice that there was a hell of alot of commenters on those two things, but became concerned if I didn't contact em ALL I'd somehow be showing favortism of some kind, completely forgetting about the spamming thing -- or rather, I'd skimmed right by that first section at WP:CANVASSING without its registering! Oops! Although I'll never be guilty of doing it again, it's true that I'm obviously guilty of spamming -- I dids the crime and so I gots to do whatever is the time!  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 06:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• MergeNeutral. New title and focus seems more supportable, but just barely. An aggregate Acting works of Paris Hilton would still be better, and merge back to main bio isn't unreasonable. (Perhaps satirical video is notable in Hilton's bio, but one joke isn't notable enough for an article of its own. Possibly notable in some kind of aggregate article on Hilton's acting works or something along those line.) LotLE×talk 05:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. The McCain Camp used here for politics and made her notable in the election. Now they (and we) have to deal with it. "Factum" and not "at acta" (in fake Latin)! --Floridianed (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The content is well-referenced and a mention of it probably is best in her biography article. Cumulous Clouds is correct that the information was probably a false satire, but I do think the information should be retained. Happyme22 (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Just curious, what do editors mean by the novel phrase "false satire" in this discussion? Is there "true satire" in contrast to it? Obviously, the energy plan (such as it is) is satirical, but I don't think the issue of "true" or "false" means anything here. LotLE×talk 05:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Access Hollywood, The Independent, Times Online, The BBC (the previous three non-US organizations), the LA Times and Newsweek have all covered the video. This article even provides actual commentary about the video. Last time I checked, coverage by sources such as these made something notable. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A note for the AfD closer: [1] seresin ( ¡? ) 06:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Expand and rename If this article is kept, it ought to be renamed. The title of the video was "Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad" so that would be the sensible title for this article. The video contained a lot more than just an "energy plan". I don't see anything wrong in principle with having a Wikipedia article about a very notable video, and presumably that's why the categories Viral videos and YouTube videos exist. Whether this particular video is notable enough for a separate article is not something that I'm sure about. But she definitely is hot.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on new title and focus. Notable as a viral video, per Josiah Rowe.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Expand and rename to cover the video as a whole, and the media reaction to it (including the sources that took the "energy plan" seriously, but not limited to that). The video as a whole was notable, and part of that notability comes from the "energy plan", but the one-sentence "energy plan" is too narrow a topic for a full encyclopedia article. Not sure what the best title for the expanded article would be: the official name of the video appears to be "Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad", so perhaps that should be the new title. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on new title and focus. Notable as a viral video. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Paris Hilton. This fork certainly seems notable at first glance, due to the amount of media coverage, but definitely fails WP:Recentism. However, this is something that someone would check out and expect to find at the Paris Hilton article. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 05:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak weak keep, this is definitely borderline and I just sided on keep because I think our notability standards have other articles of less note than this. But, I won't feel bad at all if it's merged... I just want the guidelines applied evenly. gren グレン 07:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as suggested, but I'm more okay with "delete" than merge. Her article is already quite long considering she's done little of real value. This is quite possibly the most significant thing she's ever done or maybe ever will do. Granted it's not at the level of Happy Birthday, Mr. President, but it's sort-of in that genre of blonde model-types doing something talked-about with politicians.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Paris Hilton. This five sentence "article" should replace the three sentence section that already exists in Paris Hilton - that main article is certainly not so long at this time that it needs this part forked off, nor is it likely that anyone looking for something about the video would fail to look at the bio. Besides all of that, the title is absurd. Tvoz/talk 07:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Jclemens. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As much as it pains me to say it, it IS notable only because it was acknowledged not only by every news organization in the States, but by several people that said HER energy plan made more sense than either candidates. Does it deserve its own article? not yet, but lets wait until after the election. --Hourick (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or rename - it's definitely notable per the sources someone gave above, but as an energy plan it is, IMO, a very borderline hoax. Perhaps retitling the article to something like "Paris Hilton's response to..." and then expanding it, will make it more suitable as an article. On the whole I would prefer to see it merged with Paris Hilton, than kept and renamed. -Samuel Tan 09:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand and rename per Ferrylodge and Josiah Rowe. The idea of an article on "Paris Hilton's energy plan" is silly. But the video itself meets notability (as well as being a brilliant little gem, imo), so there's clearly a place for it in Category:Viral videos. Cgingold (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand and rename and/or possible merge with Amber Lee Ettinger (and similar). Plenty of notability and media coverage. (Comment: Disturbingly cogent and coherent energy plan.) -- Scjessey (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The energy plant this article is about is not noteworthy enough to have it's own article and was more of a reaction against McCain then a real energy plan. Brothejr (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename. It meets all the notability criteria except perhaps the Wikipedia:Recentism essay. Plenty of reliable sources. It's an extremely successful spoof commercial / political satire / Internet Meme involving well-known producers, a famous personality, and a somewhat infamous political gaffe. I won't bother looking for more sources but there are clearly innumerable ones to establish notability. Like it or not, Paris Hilton is an actress. This wasn't just an aspect of her public life, it was a professionally-produced work by her. We don't normally merge an actor's appearances with the BIO article. Among other things this turns the article into an unencyclopedic list, and it ignores the other aspects of a video production beyond the actress who stars in it - the producers, the current event, the cultural context, and so on. As for the name, it looks like "Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad" is the official title of the video. That might help avoid any confusion over what the article is about. Wikidemo (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and refocus. I can see what the fuss is about. We don't need an article on a joke political platform that's written in-world as if it were real. It's very well and good that some people are taking this seriously as a shocking sign that Paris Hilton has some intelligence, perhaps more than the other two candidates. But she's not going to win the election, and it would be very surprising if anyone took this supposed plan (just a simple mash-up and rehash, something a comedy writer thought up in an afternoon) seriously for more than the next few days. So true, Wikipedia does not need an article about this imaginary energy plan. It seems a little pop-crufty. But a more sober article about the viral video makes sense. Accordingly, I rewrote the lead to suggest where this article might go.[2] Wikidemo (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I retitled it "Paris Hilton responds to McCain Ad" per the many comments above and now WD's bringing into focus of its lede.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 13:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's episodes like this that give some fun to American politics, and it's having articles like this that keep Wikipedia fun. And the title's okay with me too, since that's what it's commonly known as. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Unless she gets asked to assume a cabinet position (that sounds dirty when you're talking about her, doesn't it?), this is one of those nine-day wonders that will be forgotten soon. Worth a mention in her article, but like Farenheit 9/11, no matter how many people watched it before the election, you won't be able to give away the video afterward. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep for now. This is an ongoing political event and the main article on Hilton is already very long so it isn't at all reasonable to spin this off as a separate article. I don't like the attention this got and found it to be idiotic and another example of how low Amercian political discourse has sunk. That isn't a reason to get rid of it. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Paris Hilton. For the moment it is bsically still a WP:NOT#NEWS case. If anyone still remembers this 6-8 months from now, could be worth a a separate article then. Nsk92 (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Could be referenced in the Paris Hilton article, but no need to have separate articles for every campaign add zinger.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge only if the merger results in no loss of information. Frankly, injecting herself into US presidential politics on a viral video is quite possibly Paris Hilton's most significant achievement to date. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It isn't a satire of anything. It isn't a hoax because it isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's a joke, like a comedy routine. Wikipedia covers comedy routines with articles when they're notable enough (including quite a collection from Monty Python which have been kept at AfD), This is notable enough as it stands today. In addition to the notability which already justifies keeping this it's worth thinking about the following: Will we think this is worth an article five years from now or a year from now? I think it's possible we will. Let's decide later. The mash-up between online video/campaign commercial/celebrity publicity seems pretty innovative (with the Internet we're finding a lot of new ways for advertisers, publicists, politicians and the public to communicate and this is part of that movement -- it could easily be used as a precedent for others to build on in the future). I keep on hearing that Paris Hilton is a pretty savvy businesswoman, and this article could help explore that. Don't let the airhead image fool you into thinking this subject is just fluff. See the "Marketing uses" section of Viral video article: Humor, wit, and creativity, combined with the randomness of "word of mouth" distribution, causes huge numbers of people to distribute a video among friends, co-workers, colleagues [...] A famous example is the "Hiring the Right Person" video created by California recruiting firm Accolo, which parodied the Paris Hilton Carl's Jr. ad. In this case, the ad garnered so much attention that it even ended up on traditional media news reports and other non-internet venues. Marketing firms have flourished from this form of distribution and now dedicate specifically to the creation of viral video. This is an encyclopedic subject that Wikipedia is still at a primitive stage in building its coverage on. Now is not the time to be deleting an article that contributes to it. Eventually it might be merged into something, but it's too soon to tell what. -- Noroton (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Justmeherenow has been hard at work canvassing for votes in this nomination: Special:Contributions/Justmeherenow. I'm unfamiliar with the course to take now, as that user has (and may have already) been trying to torpedo this discussion through votestacking. I'll ask somebody more familiar with process to give me guidance here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My canvassing methodology was stringently neutral: a few minutes goin' down the line, not skipping a single soul: 1st here and then here. ...That is, 'til stopped by a genteel admin I'd spammed who informed me I was: for which I apologize and shall abide by whatever punishment the community deems fit, save hanging, or actual torture (even mild).  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you save all the country slang for someplace else, it's distracting and makes discussion very difficult. Now that you have canvassed all those votes, it's unlikely we'll have a fair discussion here, so I'm asking for somebody to help figure out how we repair the damage you've done. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Canvassing#Friendly notices says, "For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion...." check "Remember to always keep the message neutral...." check But then WP:Canvassing#Excessive cross-posting said, "Important discussions sometimes happen at remote locations in Wikipedia, so editors might be tempted to publicize this discussion by mass-mailing...." oops Which my mind didn't catch. (Maybe a synapse misfired when I scanned that particular graf....)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've absolutely no idea what you mean by country slang, so my first impression is to take it as some kind of personal attack? (Ie, that you're a regional chauvanist or something? What in the world did I say? "Ya'll?????") However, C. Clouds, I'll try to assume good faith and assume you must be referring to something concrete, although I've absolutely no idea whatsoever what!! (However if you don't come to explain yourself, I'll simply delete your comment as well as this one. Thx!) :^(  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justmeherenow, please do not go ahead and delete anyone else's comments here without explaining a very compelling reason to do so. Additionally, I think excessive cross-posting about this matter on talk pages was a form of unintentional spam that was disruptive to those talk pages, and not disruptive to this deletion discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My patrilineal line goes through Kentucky and back to the English northern borderlands (...also to Wales) so maybe I'm sensitive about being called on my corn pone.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulus Clouds probably just had some difficulty understanding what you were saying. The corn-top's ripe and the meadow's in the bloom.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ferrylodge. From the WP article corn pone: "term is sometimes intended as a pejorative, often directed at persons from rural areas of the southern and midwestern U.S." So note that while I can say "corn pone" about myself, it's not kosher fer somebody else to! And p/s -- I think if somebody says something translatable as perjorative to another Wikipedian and then would decline to explain what context s/he meant it in when asked, for the offended Wikipedian then to offer, such as I did, to go ahead and delete the conceivably offensive remark along with the offended person's question about it should only be thought an attempt to enjoin all parties to keep to good talk-page etiquette: keeping the discussion on editing and editorial issues and not on editors and their personalities!  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cut C. Clouds some slack. And stop saying "Kosher", I'm Jewish!  :) Ferrylodge (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! my bad. <blushes>  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Don't worry: it's not a vote, it's a discussion. Ningauble (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Paris Hilton - Not notable enough to have its own article, but worth mentioning in a paragraph or so in her article. (Eventually, it may get deleted from the article. It all depends on how notable this remains.) --Hnsampat (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Notable but too short to justify a fork unless and until such time as she builds a more substantial body of satirical or political work. Ningauble (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• while I want to say keep, I think I have to say Merge - Unitl ms. Hilton does a few other notable political things, her positions and opinions are likely not independently encyclopedic enough for articles. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ick. Delete on principle. What's there to merge? What's worth keeping? How exactly is this encyclopedic? Because someone else wrote about it? Ick. I don't care how many sources are there, ick. Go ahead and add an WP:IDONTLIKEIT below, I don't care. Ick. Keeper ǀ 76 20:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete The case can be made to merge back to Paris Hilton, but I'm not really that convinced that this deserves an article. How is this even newsworthy? Enigma ^message 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I've expanded the article, adding in more details about commentators discussing the pros and cons of her proposal. Many notable individuals have commented on what she said including Clarence Page who is by no means someone who simply write celebrity gossip. Whether we like it or not this event has become notable enough for its own article and is too large to fit within the general article on Hilton. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, if Paris Hilton shits in a public restroom, comments on her blog, or wherever, that she didn't enjoy shitting in a public restroom, and wants to make shitting in a public restroom better with her "Shitting in a public restroom plan", and reliable sources say "paris hilton wants to improve shitting in public restrooms", would we have an article on it? Ick, is all I say. I realize this will probably be kept or merged. My life won't end, and wikipedia won't collapse in on itself. Again, though, this is why I said "delete" on principle. This is so entirely momentary, non-encyclopedic, and fan-boyish that I can't even see straight. Keeper ǀ 76 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Paris Hilton's comments about shitting in a public restroom were discussed by Clarence Page and by multiple members of the US Congress then yes, it would be notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, no it wouldn't. It would simply indicate a slow news day, nothing more. Again, I'll say what I said before, this will likely be kept, I just can't in good conscience be part of it. Trying to get rid of forks about celebs is in general impossible, under the pretense of "not paper" or "comprehensive". Whatever. Having an encyclopedia about the mos trivial of non-stories/non encyclopedic material is so hot right now. Who am I to fight it? Heaven forbid PH decides to comment on the Sept.11 attacks...Keeper ǀ 76 21:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keeper, I invite you to see if a normal "slow news day" invites opinion pieces by Clarence Page. At the end of the day this just comes down to IDONTLIKEIT. Attempting to preempt such issues by bringing it above doesn't alter the lack of validity of your point at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said I don't like it. I linked IDONTLIKEIT. I never said my point was valid, but it is still my point. I never said anything other than "ick" and that I thought this shouldn't be here. I'm allowed to think that. Based on this discussion, and the prevailing winds on wikipedia, I realize this will likely stay an article. Wikipedia won't explode if it stays, and I won't leave if it stays. Still though, I'm allowed to say ick, and I'm allowed to debate someone that doesn't agree with my "ick". You are allowed to say keep, and I'm allowed to disagree with your "keep" (not just you J-Z, you just happened to be the one I responded to - nothing personal, I don't know you). I won't change your mind, you will most certainly not change mine. I will heed to consensus, as I always do. But still, ick. Keeper ǀ 76 21:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)-[reply]
        • If you are so concerned about tracking everything that a journalist happens to mention about the news, I recommend you compile them at an article like Things that Clarence Page said or Conversations from newspaper staff about celebrities. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Almost everything Clarence Page talks about is about a topic that we would consider notable anyways. And again it isn't just Page. This includes multiple members of the US Congress, Newsweek, Time, a few international sources, Disover Magazine and others. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • • You could, you know read what I wrote. I'll try spelling this out very carefully: There are two points in reply to your remark: 1) Almost every Page talks about that gets printed is about topics that all of us would agree are notable and noteworthy. 2) This topic hasn't just had Clarence Page talk about it. As I said, you've had also multiple members of Congress, commentators from major news magazines (granted Time and Newsweek do often have a lot of celebrity crap), Discover Magazine, and a variety of other sources including sources from outside the United States. If that isn't good evidence of notability, I don't know what is. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • So let me get this straight, if Clarence Page mentions something we suddenly have proof of notability? Can we call that the Clarence Page test as a standard of notability in these discussions? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • • heh. Heaven forbid that Page ever complains into a microphone about how his breakfast of toast, cereal, and a glass of milk, hasn't settled well in his stomach. We might have an article called Clarence Page has indigestion during Capitol Hill meeting after a breakfast with too many carbohydrates. Keeper ǀ 76 21:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Take it outside, people. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but with the campaign This will I think remain as perhaps one of the most permanently memorable highlights of this campaign, but sheds more light on the candidate involved than the speaker. It's noteworthy what the candidates will resort to, it's not noteworthy what the personalities they make use of will do. DGG (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep — The video in question clearly exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is existence a valid criterion for keeping an article on Wikipedia? Heck, I exist, but no articles exist about me (yet). --Hnsampat (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • It's Kurt. He always says that. Closing admins generally just disregard his remarks. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. There is no Paris Hilton Energy Plan. She was hired to star in a video. Merge the relevant parts into Paris Hilton, Funny or Die, and Wikinews:Paris Hilton mocks John McCain presidential ad. If it becomes as popular as the Obama Girl video, for example if Funny or Die makes a series of these starring Hilton, we can re-think this. Flatterworld (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The video is a legitimate work that gained over 7 million page views in two days and a large amount of press coverage. Because the video, even if it was intended as parody, received written and verbal responses from both candidates and a wide array of experts and politicians, it deserves its own page at least as much as Samwell's What What in the Butt. The video's page and the page on the "Paris Hilton Energy Plan" should direct to the same page, as they do now.Hvalross (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep I'm not even going to bother listing out the various sources, since... well, c'mon.... This is absurdly notable. Is it a long news cycle? Maybe, maybe not. WP:N says "multiple non-trivial". Here's several sources, of which you can take any several dozen from any of these searches: here, here, and here. Take your pick of any several dozen. rootology (T) 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to Paris Hilton. Seriously, is anyone going to lookup either "Paris Hilton energy plan" or "Paris Hilton responds to McCain Ad" especially a few years down the road? Not encyclopedic at all. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Any chance we could go back in time and delete Paris Hilton from this timeline? No? Oh well, had to ask.--Father Goose (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Merging it into Paris Hilton would give undue weight to this incident as part of her life, and redacting it for merger would lose notable information. Although I would support merging the plethora of articles on controversies and events of the 2008 election into one article on such things (or one for each candidate/campaign).--The Bruce (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So it's better that we should give undue weight to this incident in Wikipedia? Mandsford (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how it's being given undue weight in Wikipedia. I think those who have said that in the long run it won't be notable are probably right. But Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and at the moment, while the campaign is running, it is notable enough. Each time this incident is brought up during the campaign, by commentators or in the midst of the Presidential debates, people who aren't aware of the incident will look for the details, and this sourced article can provide helpful and concise background information. All of the articles relating to the 2008 election will be re-examined after the election. Many will be merged into others or deleted altogether, and I suspect this will be one of those. But at the moment there's every justification for this to exist as a seperate article.--The Bruce (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Even though I know that you are entirely right, and that my "vote" should and will be discounted as invalid, I just cannot bring myself to changing my earlier comment from "ick" to "keep". Keeper ǀ 76 19:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a false compromise. If it gives undue weight to even mention it within her article, it would seriously overreach that guideline to have this as a separate article. Believe or not, there are certain things in the world that Wikipedia doesn't have to document and this trivial piece of popular culture is one of them. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You do realize I'm on your side, right? It's all about "picking your battles" though, at this point. There is no way that this article will be closed as anything short of keep, probably as "no consensus". I don't want this article to be here any more than you do, CC. Until our inclusion guidelines change, it will be here, and I'm disgusted by that. Let me know if/when you attempt to update our guidelines, I'll happily contribute then. Keeper ǀ 76 21:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Redacting this for merger would NOT lose notable information. Fact is, such information is notable solely because of its association with a celebrity, and that's ultimately not notable enough for encyclopedic purposes.Bdell555 (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• General comment to those with latent distaste for Hilton's particular brand of burlesque humor: I'd presume any commenting here would have already viewed this free video or at least perused news stories about it, especially those the proposed article references. Thanks.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge without loss of data back into Paris Hilton. This incident, as an example of the absurdity of modern politics, deserves to be documented, but right now it's basically just a single news cycle's wonder. RayAYang (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep Clearly notable (meets WP:N with no effort). The only question in my mind is WP:NOT#NEWS. But I think it isn't news per se. Hobit (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close - There's clearly no consensus for deleting. To merge or not to merge, that is the question now, and AfD is not for merge discussions. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  There really is no way, after this much discussion, that this will be "speedy closed". Let it run. Keeper ǀ 76 21:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it is. If a consensus emerges here that will save us time and process down the road and it prevents the deletion of the redirect so we don't have to have this discussion all over again. And since there is currently an identical section for all this information at Paris_Hilton#Political_satire, it largely defeats the purpose in having this as a separate article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The video has become part of the campaign. Also, interestingly enough, the proposal isn't that far-fetched. The references establish its notability. Ngchen (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What campaign Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• And where are the reliable sources which discuss this video and don't just mention it in passing Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this video has definitely caught hold. I just saw Gwen Ifill, speaking to Tom Brokaw on Meet The Press, refer to the "Paris Hilton Compromise" when discussing energy policy. Kelly ^hi! 14:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That scares me. Hobit (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge t'wards Weak Keep - Put w/ Paris Hilton. It's sort of some pop-culture/humorous "nine-day wonders", as Mandsford said. I stil don't think it has a place within notability, but it does deserve a mention...in the Paris Hilton article. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 18:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and put in a sentence on the Paris Hilton page. Since the video has been discussed in the media, you can make a case for notability. But since Hilton is not any kind of authority on the subject, media mention of the video is its only claim for notability. Let me ask a question of everyone: Is every youtube video which has been mentioned in the media notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page? I don't think so. In particular, it seems like the original "Celeb" ad by John McCain does not have its own page. So what are the criteria? Vegasprof (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what my answer to your question would be is that, according to WP:WAX, whether or not there's currently a Celeb (political ad) article is immaterial here. (McCain's Celeb ad is pretty iconic...we'll see if it eventually rises to the level of Willie Horton or not.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' - Not notable enough. Remember, the subject of the article is the video itself, not what was said in the video or about the video (which of course if fair game, once notability of the video has been established). In this case, there might be a lot of chatter in the media about it--but references in the media are only evidence of notability--but notability supposed to be lasting. I doubt very much that this video has any lasting notability. Maybe this is worth a 1-sentence reference (assuming the original McCain ad "Celebrity" in United States presidential election, 2008 --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per WP:NTEMP, notability doesn't have to be lasting. Notaility has to be established just once so, "there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic". Deamon138 (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, verifiable enough event, but there's no need for a spinout from the mother article, Paris Hilton, when it's only 42kB. Deamon138 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Preferably merge back to Paris Hilton. The topic is clearly notable and well-referenced, but I'm simply not sure there's enough to say about it to justify its own article; I think the information here would be better presented as a subsection of the Paris Hilton article. Failing a merge, I'd rather see it kept than deleted. Terraxos (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep This video does have some interesting details, and might raise some controversies in the upcoming future, so I think it should be kept for now.Mertozoro (talk) 00:20, 27 August 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.