Talk:America (advertisement)

Notability

Removed notability tag because editor who tagged the page argued WP:OTHERSTUFF, arguing that since there is no article for a Turmp, ad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources

For future editing. "Sure it's viral but...why you should ignore Bernie Sanders' 'America' ad," [1]. Steven Colbert: [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Lots more to add [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Seriously?

I don't have anything against Bernie (in fact, as a Republican, I have no stake in the race at all) but seriously, why is this an article? Why doesn't Trump's "Act of Love" ad have an article? This seems to me to be a very biased article that ridiculously over explains the content of the ad. Does this meet notability guide lines? Does it even meet neutrality standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.118.204 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I also created Act of Love (political statement and advertisement), and I don't think it's any more POV than this article is. Political ads can be notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I've been trying to improve the neutrality of the article. Not sure why we need it, though. The article is longer than the article for Morning in America and this is in need of a shortening/deletion. SirLagsalott (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• By all means try to improve the article, or take it to AFD if you think it will not pass, but do note that the coverage has been intense in mainstream sources that by no means favor Sanders as a candidate, and that analysis of this ad as part of a major shift in modern campaign strategy has begun [4], even though it's only been a month.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Which is why I nominated it for merger...pbp 19:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• User:Purplebackpack89, Curious whether you think it's too trivial or that it's inappropriate during an active campaign (which I doubt the Sanders campaign is at this point, although it seemed to be, a month ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• @E.M.Gregory: Of the two options you've given me, it's more toward the first one, but that's not the exact words I'd use. I don't question whether it passes GNG, though I think five newspaper or web articles say more on the notability front than five million views do. My general feeling is that the real, necessary content can probably be condensed to a single paragraph, which need not be a whole article in and of itself. pbp 21:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Purplebackpack89: Ah, I can understand and respect that. My own perspective is that I love the independent articles on phenomena, as a user even more than as an editor. I love the way you can link in and see just that one pinpoint topic you want to know about, and the way you can follow categories and links to an article like this. I'm a big user of categories, loved them for years as a user. And, certainly, number of hits are not persuasive. Totally aside from the fact that they cannot be accurate (there must be a million ways to view this in additon to youtube), they are not RS. I used one here only because so many journalists were validating their stories with the Youtube count. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

New source

• http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/312298-bernie-sanders-america-ad-made-viewers-happiest-study

 czar 23:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)