Talk:America (advertisement)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Television / Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Which is why I nominated it for merger...p b p 19:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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. p b p 21:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]