Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VoteToImpeach

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 merge to

WP:ATTP.  Sandstein  04:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

VoteToImpeach

VoteToImpeach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political website, sole reference is site itself

Soxwon (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

A link to this article appears in the Ramsey Clark article. I requested a redirect to this article for searches on "indictbushnow.org" which is a current campaign to indict President Bush for war crimes and violating the Constitution. I donated money to this cause, but had difficulty finding out who these people were.114.161.253.11 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to question
Soxwon's motives for deletion, in light of the information on his user page stating: "I'm a right-wing capitalist, and for the most part conservative." Is this proposed deletion politically motivated?114.161.253.11 (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
So the fact that I'm open about which way I lean makes my opinion questionable? Everyone on here is biased in some way, we all try to work to control it. So in answer to your question, no, it's not, and thanks for
Soxwon (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

To me, this deletion request is as clear-cut a case of agenda-driven editing as I have seen in nearly two years as an editor. Jusdafax (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, I've asked you repeatedly to comment on content rather than contributor. What notability can you point to for this article to be kept? A single citation to itself is not grounds for notability and so your accusation of an agenda is empty.
Soxwon (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
When you edit with a clear agenda, your stated political position is relevant to the discussion. My statement stands. As to the issue of notability, a one minute search found the website's successor listed on Congressman Robert Wexler's MySpace page; Wexler asks readers to sign their petition to indict the former President and members of his administration. I've added it to the article as a reference. You may not like it, but it's a fact, it's notable, and you just want to censor it. There are other places the notability has been established, perhaps you could work on improving the article? Jusdafax (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just cite a myspace page? That does NOT meet the requirement for
Soxwon (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It's Congressman Wexler's own page. Not enough? I've added former Attorney General Clark's own statement, with a reference. No good? How about that well-known conservative magazine and website The Weekly Standard? I found these two googling while on the phone. It took all of three minutes, which further contributes to my belief that you are only interested in censoring this notable, historical Wikipedia article to meet your agenda. If I'm wrong about you, sorry, but you continue to fail to avoid the appearance of agenda-driven editing.
  • Wexlers page simply shows it exists. So what? That's not the issue here. The issue is notability. A mention on a comgressmans page is not "significant coverage by multiple reliable sources", now is it? Get off your high horse. If you spent nearly as much time trying to meet the notability standards of
    WP:WEB as you did worrying about the user boxes of those who don't agree with you, I might take you more seriously. Right now, your total arguement comes off as a case of W:ILIKEIT and little more. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Also, please stop leaving messages on my personal page. Here again, you come off as attempting to intimidate. You want to talk to me, do it openly. Jusdafax (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the violations of
Soxwon (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
To quote you, "I did a couple of G-news searches and came up with nothing, so if you can find anything fine, use it." Sure looks like you didn't look very hard. Let the backpedaling and spin begin. This article documents a noted website run by a former U.S.
Attorney General
during a turbulent time in U.S. history, during which over a period of years it is claimed, rightly or wrongly, that over one million people signed a petition to impeach a sitting President.
Deleting would set an interesting precedent for Wikipedia. Nor do I think the new fallback position of 'merger', promoted as a 'compromise', is anything more than proclaimed right-wingers (see comments below) censoring Wikipedia. Jusdafax (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok first of all, Wikidemon's not a "self-proclaimed right-winger" and you're now outvoted and by two far more experienced editors. Secondly, let me rephrase, I did a g-news search and didn't see any
Soxwon (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Not Wikidemon... My reference, of course, is to carrots, whose comments are telling. Now you're playing the "more experienced editor than you" card. But of course, that's not intimidation. Jusdafax (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Merge - with
    WP:WEIGHT matter. It's probably worth a sentence there, which is about the length of the substantive part of this article (if you cut out all the redundancy and meta-discussion of sources now in the text) Wikidemon (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Yeah I'd go with that, as long as the silly stuff (myspace, mocking Weekly Standard) was rmved.
Soxwon (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Seems like a sentence in the Clark article would be fair, and the current article could redirect to that one - as could the more current name of the organization. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An agency ran by a former U.S. Attorney General is notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Agency" sounds like something official. This was a former AG grinding a political axe quite unsuccessfully. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ramsey Clark per above. No evidence of independent notability, nor does the nominator's political stance have anything at all to do with whether this organization is notable. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and
    WP:LAW } 17:19, 4 September 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/VoteToImpeach&oldid=1141933941"