Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheneygate

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 of the debate was REDIRECTED to Plame affair by Stevertigo. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 00:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheneygate

This appears to be a neologism. Yahoo search yields ten hits [1]. Article is redundant, appears to exist solely for POV pushing; all of its content appears in other articles, such as Plame affair Brandon39 22:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism, no legs yet (although I get about 112 non-wiki hits on Google).  BD2412 ^talk 22:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The only problem with this article is the fact that it does not note that the scandal is also called "Libbygate," "Rovegate," and "Plamegate" by some commentators. Combined, these names get huge numbers of hits. (It makes sense to write the -gate article on this scandal in Cheneygate because Cheney is the most notable.) It's safe to say that -gate whatever is becoming the common name for this stroy. JMaxwell 22:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is not the failure to note alternative names, it's the fact that the name of the article is not in anything resembling mainstream use. Maybe it will be in the future, but it is not the function of Wikipedia to get it there, or to report it before it's there. I suppose a redirect would be harmless at this point, tho.  BD2412 ^talk 03:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to main Cheney article. - Just zis Guy, you know? 23:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Plame affair, according to what JMaxwell says. mikka (t) 00:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's wait and see what Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald says in his report. As the nominator says, this is a neologism at the moment with 424 Google hits with this article at the top followed by an article in a Lyndon LaRouche publication see [2]. Capitalistroadster 01:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge. Ambi 01:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. --Jacqui ^{★ 04:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)}
• Merge/Redirect to Plame affair, per mikkalai. — RJH 15:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect - no need to fork plame affair. -St|eve 17:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - There's no NPOV reason for this name to be used. The Monster 17:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect: the large number (almost 1000) of Google hits means that it is a well-used term, but all the information in it should be contained elsewhere. It must be merged. JDH Owens^{talk | Esperanza 18:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)}
• Merge and redirect to Plame affair --CFIF 19:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Plame affair; move sentence on possible Philipino leak to Dick Cheney, if necessary. No point to two articles on one subject. Septentrionalis 20:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Plame affair --Liface 21:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect -> Plame affair --Bk0 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect -> Plame affair -- I think this was a stub that was hit with a vfd, it's worth maybe a side mention in some section of the refernced article. I've not heard the term "Cheneygate" in any common media sources and none are mentioned in the stub as it stands. Clearly, a merge, redirect would be the way to go. Calicocat 00:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect -> Plame affair; "Cheneygate" might become the consensus term for the Plame leak scandal in the future, but it currently isn't. It's notable enough to merit a mention in the Plame affair article, but not to get an article of its own (yet). Redxiv 00:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect -> Plame affair; 'I never heard of Cheneygate before I saw a link to it on Dich Cheney's page. (Bjorn Tipling 09:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC))

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.