Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations

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 delete. W.marsh 19:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations

This article contains content that is not encyclopedic.

Since this is a sensitive political topic, I know some editors will accuse me of nominating this with a political agenda or motivation. In order to dispel this idea, I will point out that while I have also nominated

• Delete: While a list of organizations related to the scandal would be useful, this is mearly a list of any organization he has any connection to (scandal related or not). At best it is irrelevant and at worst it is implying that all of these organizations were affected by the scandal. A list of organizations affected by the scandal would be useful, but it appears to be covered with
  List of Jack Abramoff's tribal clients. Koweja 22:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Koweja. Xtifr _tälk 00:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Koweja. -- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 16:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Save: I disagree that the article should be deleted, at least for now. I think a list of organizations he was involved with is a good idea, for historical purposes. The article could stand editing and deeper research; having his alma mater listed, for example, isn't helpful, and doesn't have anything to do with his political/lobbying career or the scandals. But seeing how he pulled this kind of thing off may help folks see patterns like it in the future. This was/is a pretty big shake-up in the political world, and I think documenting it in as many ways as possible is a good thing. For that matter, knowing his tribal clients is also helpful, again for historical purposes. This information should all be saved; and seriously, completely, totally reorganized from the mess that it is. I will say that as long as this information is contained somewhere around here, I'll be happy. It need not be in this particular article. --Dthatcher 16:34, 4 November 2006 (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.