Talk:ExposeObama.com

Executive board

The upper management of these attack sites is often very significant, as are the overlocking affiliations of some of the key players behind them. It'd be remiss of us not to include these names in the article. Yellow Rain (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think you need to establish some sort third-party notability to make the case that they should be included. Are James Lacy and Bruce Hawkins mentioned in any of the references? How are they notable and specifically, how are they notable to this article? Where did you get this information from (and the information about who Hawkins has worked with)? At a certain point this just becomes your own original research. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the point with the latest references. You haven't provided any reference for why this matters to the article. Nothing about the notability of this article has anything to do with the second two names. Every article written about this website that I've seen just mentions Floyd Brown. Should we also have a section on the web-hosting company on which the website is stored (that information can be found on the website as well).I think you need a better reason than "I like it" to include this. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I suggest merging the article to Brown's. The mere existence of a website used to broadcast a person's views does not seem so notable. Redddogg (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging the two articles. I felt that the article was on shaky notability grounds to begin with, having been mentioned briefly as a campaign item in a single news cycle and then never again. Political attack websites are a dime a dozen, the only thing that gives this one slight notability is that it is run by Brown. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]