Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination)

From 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 of the debate was weak-consensus to delete, but I don't forsee any objections to someone writing a section on this in the Not in Our Name article. For the record my final vote tally was 37 delete, 20 keep, 11 merge, 5 merge and/or delete, 2 merge and/or keep, discounting anons and very new users. I based the final result on the comments as well as the numbers however. Thryduulf 22:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush Crimes Commission

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Comment "any opinions or comments relating to a listed page must be made in good faith." quoted from WP:DP. Trawling for participants as you have done, including rueing the fact that they didn't vote the way you hoped, [1] I simply put the notice up to alert the people that you have been directing here in the hope that they will vote according to your wishes. Luckily, the user in question above voted the way they personally thought best. Please don't leave "invitations" to vote on user pages. That doesn't generally influence people to vote in good faith, they think they have to because of your invitation. Ansell 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not interested in fighting with you. Cheers and happy editing! Morton devonshire 00:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not a formal Commission Aeon 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait a minute, you nominated it again one month later? after an overwhelming keep vote? Isn't that totally improper? more so even than all this vote stacking?--152.163.100.70 21:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
First off it is not improper, 2nd, it is two months since the first nomination, not one. Xtra 02:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Correction: It is improper, but that doesn't stop anyone. Ever. Failed eletion votes have literally been followed up by another attempt only three days later before without the admins involved saying a word. Rogue 9 12:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Look first off I'M not the one who voted stacked! Please talk to User:Morton devonshire about that. I don't even know this guy. I don't go around and start asking random people to go a vote delete because I'm a bush supporter or whatever. Aeon 04:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Propaganda -- Wikipedia is not a soap box Morton devonshire 19:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment How does WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox apply? Might that not be better applied to[2]? Шизомби 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Propaganda Morton devonshire 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment How is it propaganda? Can't the article "report objectively" on this subject? Isn't this a POV issue, not an AFD one? Шизомби 01:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
        • COmment. Simply repeating the word is hardly persuasive. · rodii · 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. I can't speak for the whole delete side, but I can tell you my own thoughts, which are this: (1) the BCC is an extremely small, partisan off-shoot of another already small partisan group (Not in Our Name), and as such, doesn't get much notice from the press, so there's no way to verify through reliable sources what it is that they say and do; (2) because of this lack of notability, almost anything that's said about them is original research or POV pushing from persons that agree with the political slant of the group; (3) because of (1) and (2), the article doesn't attract enough editors to keep it NPOV. As such, the article will always be dominated by NION and Bush Crimes Commission supporters, endlessly pushing their POV. In my opinion, it's better to delete those kinds of articles because they will never be encyclopedic, and therefore don't belong on WP. I would say the same thing about any highly political article where the ideas presented in the article are non-notable and stridently advanced by a small group. Wikipedia seems to be replete with those kinds of articles. I don't think that WP will truly work as a project until we have found a mechanism for controlling advocacy-planting, and am open to your ideas. As to the keep argument, I can't speak for it. Consider both sides, and the goals of Wikipedia, and vote as you see fit. Cheers. Morton devonshire 20:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable unless evidence of non-trivial national media coverage can be provided. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
comment: Interesting criterion, but the corporate media is complicit in the deceptions and coverups that have defined the modus operandi of the Bush Administration. There is plenty of attention being paid to the Bush Crimes Commission, and that attention has played a noteworthy part in the escalating drumbeat that is finally beginning to pierce the veil of corporate mass media's silence regarding Bush's crimes. These crimes are increasingly viewed as treasonous by many observers, and if the drumroll calling for censure and impeachment continues to escalate, thanks in part to the Bush Crimes Commission, Bush may finally be drummed out of office. Ombudsman 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad hoc commissions aren't inherently notable unless non-trivial coverage is provided. --Mmx1 20:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • [Keep per Ombudsman, media coverage, and lack of strong reason for deletion) or, failing that,] Merge and redirect to Not in Our Name I think. I'll look for coverage. Шизомби 20:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) An hour was devoted to testimony from the "commission" October 24, 2005 on Democracy Now[3] and it was briefly reported on again on January 11 2006[4]. I can add that to the article, but I'll look for some other references. Шизомби 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)) The conservative Cybercast News Service reported on it on January 11 also[5]. The New York Observer reported on it Jan 30.[6] I'm supposing blog coverage, websites, and newsletters doen't count even if they are apparently notable ones like Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Truthout and Revolution? Шизомби 22:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per above. Tom Harrison Talk 20:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. The fact that it's not a "formal commission" is immaterial, the question should be notability, and the article should be backed up with mainstream media coverage. Since there seems to be an article for the parent organization, it can go there unless notability is substanted with such references. I did find a Newsday article but I'd need to see more coverage before I could vote keep. Gamaliel 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Changing my vote to keep due to coverage from Newsday, the NY Observer, and Democracy Now. Gamaliel 03:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: A number of organizations collaborated to put the Bush Crimes Commission together. The high ranking officials and well known activists and organizations which participated evidence both great notability and the broad range of alleged crimes being scrutinized. The Bush Crimes Commission has diligently performed a job which the lobbyist-plagued US legislatures have been unwilling and unable to perform. It is interesting that after congress shirked its responsibility, the efforts to investigate and expose what the Bush Administration has perpetrated (largely through deception) is itself portrayed by Morton devonshire as propaganda. Along the same lines, it is remarkable that this AfD has been proposed on a week when the asleep-at-the-wheel media establishment is finally beginning to report on the widespread propaganda, election fraud and political ploys that have been orchestrated by the Bush Administration (e.g., the intentional 'leak' of classified documents aimed at discrediting Valerie Plame's husband; the fact that the Administration had just received, claissified and shelved a report dismissing the possibility that two small trailers were actually WMD equipment, yet went ahead days later claiming to have found their justification for 'preemptive war'; and that the top GOP election official for New England has been shown to have communicated frequently with the White House during the vote fraud campaign in 2004 that secured another term in office for Bush, an outcome that was even more clearly the result of full press, across the board, systematic undermining of the voting system, which produced obviously fabricated results in each of the last two presidential election cycles). This AfD is just a matter of gaming the system and an attempt to impose upon the Wiki the same propagandistic mindset that has corrupted mass media in the US. Ombudsman 21:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Has minimal relevance, but relevance none the less. not significant enough to stand alone as a wikipedia entry, but would make a perfect subtopic to other pages. Anthonymendoza 22:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge if we must. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG DELETE Irrelevant and too obscure to deserve attention in an encyclopaedia. I'm heavily into politics, especially with this being an election year, and I've never heard of this. Although, I would agree that "not being a formal commission" is not a good enough reason to delete, there are plenty of other reasons. It's clearly trivial.--WilliamThweatt 22:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I am not a particular fan of Dubya, but this is nn political soapboxing IMHO.Bridesmill 00:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. The introduction makes it clear that it isn't an official commission. I think this will at best be a footnote in history. However, it happened so I think we need to preserve it for the record. Bubba73 (talk), 00:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
comment: I don't think I had ever read this article before I was asked to vote on it (but I have heard of the subject). I read the article and the comments here before voting, but I don't feel very strongly about it one way or the other. Bubba73 (talk), 01:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete , or merge as suggested above. Deli nk 00:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a SoapboxTCPWIKI 00:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge To Not in Our Name per above. I'll also to have put out the fact that I was asked to vote on this afd by User:Morton devonshire but can honestly say that this vote that I am making is my own decision and will ask the user not to contact me for afds (though from his previous edits he does seem like a well-intentioned and good wikipedian).--Jersey Devil 00:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete until there is significant news coverage (one article in Newsday isn't enough; Newsday isn't even that big, only the tri-state area). Failing that, merge. I also agree with what Jersey Devil said; please don't invite me to AfDs. --Rory096 00:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because I hate Bush and this makes him look bad. Also, its good info. HK30 00:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. That's not really a valid reason to keep. --Rory096 01:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment the user's first edit was on April 12, 2006 [7]--Jersey Devil 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I can make it a valid reason: Per Ombudsman. HK30 18:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Merecat 01:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable; no mainstream national/international coverage; not an "official" commission. --Mhking 02:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Is this a joke? It is not a judicial, government or UN appointed commission, Mock Indictments, Mock Tribunal. I don't see how the case for deletion could be any stronger. Sure, it's a cute publicity stunt, but nothing more. Peter Grey 03:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to be a real non-governmental organization that people participate in. Has its own website, as well. Even though I voted for George Bush in the last election, I think it should be kept as it appears to be notable.--Primetime 03:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I (used to) have my own website; should I get an article? On a side note, are you the same Primetime as the one on Wikt? Just curious. --Rory096 04:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • If you got over 50,000 google hits like this, I would indeed think you should get an article. Brillig20 06:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Damn, my username only gets 20,000. It's close though, and if I had a few other people in a club with me.... --Rory096(block) 16:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete So a few Bush haters and terminated employees got together and complained...no surprise.--MONGO 03:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete It's a non-notable commission by a few anti-Bush groups. There have been similar protests about virtually every important/famous elected official or celebrity, and there is nothing about this that makes it notable. Furthermore, as others have mentioned, it is not an official Commission, nor does it has it received any significant public attention. --Tim4christ17 04:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Geneb1955 04:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. as per above, wikipedia is not a soapbox. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 04:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Not in Our Name, or delete. --Adiabatic 05:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)User's third vote, stricken by closing admin Nlu
  • Delete (Ulairix 05:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC))
  • Strong delete and lets keep the politics out of wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 05:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep It's got 51,000 Google hits. It's notable, like it or not. Certainly more so than, dare I say it, GNAA and other such ilk. Brillig20 06:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    51,000 "hits" but only 210 of these hits are unique. This commission is clearly not notable.--RWR8189 16:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    Interesting, I didn't know it would do that. At any rate, a good number of those 210 are on the most highly trafficed political blogs, so it has a fair bit of visibility. But, with this less overwhelming hit count, I wouldn't strongly object to a redirect & merge with NION (though I still prefer keep) struck, see below. Brillig20 17:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    Another reason to prefer keep is that several articles, such as Brigadier General Janis Karpinski (Abu Ghraib) commander, U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, British Ambassador Craig Murray, the infamous Cindy Sheehan, and CIA analyst Ray McGovern all testified before this thing, which either is or ought to be noted in their respective articles. It seems like it might be kind of useful to have a neutral article describing this thing, so that readers of those articles could go look it up. Also, the transcripts will end up in Wikisource, so it would also be useful to have a Wikipedia link for that. Really, I can't see what the objection is, if it's not neutral then just edit the damn thing so that it becomes so. It's clearly associated with lots of notable people. For those who thing it's not sufficiently important to be here in any form (neither keep nor redirect/merge), I invoke the wikigod's opinion. Brillig20 20:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As Jersey Devil noted in his vote, User:Morton devonshire solicited votes for this AFD. From a glance and random sampling of his contributions it appears to be as many as 50 notifications, many to editors with publicly conservative leanings. This may be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia:Vote Stacking. Brillig20 06:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, may I ask why it is that your first edit was on April 12, 2006. [8]?--Jersey Devil 06:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Certainly, it's because this is a newly registered name. Might I ask why you care? I'm certainly not socking this vote (or anything else) if that's what you're wondering. Also note that this vote was something like my 50th edit so it should be valid. If you are worried about voting ethics though, you've come to the right comment. I thought it was very straight-up of you to note the solicitation btw. Brillig20 07:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
      • For your amusement User:Morton devonshire/Finding your inner sockpuppet Morton devonshire 11:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I've taken a lesson from the experiences of User:Gator1; see WP:ANI#User:Gator1 if you're curious what that means. Brillig20 15:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree. I think that regardless of how new Brillig's account is, he makes some good points and has become a prolific contributor. His vote should count.--Primetime 17:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
          • AFD is not a vote. His comments count, as do everyone's. Regards, Ben Aveling 15:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC).
  • Strong Delete. Keep the propaganda and politcal soapboxing out of Wikipedia. --Riconoen 06:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge The so called "Commission" was formed by Not In Our Name so it should probably be merged into that article, at least the propaganda will then be in one place. Boddah 09:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and keep deleted until it does something notable. -- GWO
  • Keep per Ombudsman, above. Blatant political bias in above votes for deletion. -- Harris7 10:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting criterion, but the corporate media is complicit in the deceptions and coverups that have defined the modus operandi of the Bush Administration. - It is interesting that after congress shirked its responsibility, the efforts to investigate and expose what the Bush Administration has perpetrated (largely through deception) is itself portrayed by Morton devonshire as propaganda. - Keep because I hate Bush and this makes him look bad. - Got news for you. It's not just in the votes for deletion. -RannXXV 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ombudsman and decry vote-stacking attempt. Valid news event with media coverage. "Sopaboxing" applies in this case as much to this AfD as to the events being covered. · rodii · 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no bias (In Fact I hate politics)....I just think that this article is a soapbox (and BTW it is not that Neutral(SP?)) and doesn't belong. However....if there is a link to the Not in Our Name and it has been covered then merge it. Also I agree that the vote stacking should not occur this goes against what Wikipedia is trying to do. Aeon 12:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not a formal Commission Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 13:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia should outline things like this. In an NPOV manner major political events can be outlined. Making something formal doesn't magically put in into notability. Definitely seems like a lot of vote-stacking going on from the comments so far, voting should never refer to your personal political viewpoints. This is not the way the process works. It is consensus, not a vote tally. Ansell 13:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Irishpunktom\talk 14:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Not in Our Name, or delete. — CJewell (talk to me) 14:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, documents a notable activity by a group, formal or otherwise. Other "commissions" and "tribunals" set up by special interest and activist bodies also exist, such as World Tribunal on Iraq. The title and its legal status is not at issue. It is notable and verifiable, media reported, and is sufficiently separate from other matters to warrant an article. FT2 (Talk) 15:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This commission has no more notability or authority than a mock trial held in a law school classroom.--RWR8189 15:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per RWR8189. -RannXXV 16:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete as per Cjewell. It may be "news" right now, but in a historical context, I don't think it's really self-standing from NION, WCW, and other affiliates. Choess 16:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with NION. As demonstrated by the media coverage, this is somewhat notable. But not quite notable enough to warrant its own article, particularly with a title that connotates official (governmental?) status. --ElKevbo 17:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Only 4 Nexis hits for each the full name and the short name. NION seems notable enough, but this commision is not, so either merge or delete. Don't keep as is. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not very notable, and there's not a lot to say on the topic, but the same applies for britney spears. The material is encyclopedic, as is the topic. I don't see what can be gained by deleting it. Kevin Baastalk 17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge to Not In Our Name. The short span of activity and the setup as laid out make it seem more like a singular event rather than an ongoing commission. IMO it seems more appropriate in the general tapestry of the NION article than out of context on its own. JDoorjam Talk 18:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge It lacks ... well, almost everything it would need. Risks distracting attention from competent and balanced criticism, which should be fierce even if it has to wait until we are history. If there is something there that is not already in a well-written article, salvage that. 2nd choice, delete, not be there, anyway. Midgley 18:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Thinly veiled propaganda. The Soul Reaver 18:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Not In Our Name; commissions and investigations need not be "official" to be worthy of an article (see for example the Winter Soldier Investigation), and the "propaganda!!!!!!1!" charges are just stupid, but this one doesn't (yet) seem to have enough recognition or notability as an entity separate from NION. --phh 18:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. There is no such thing as the "Bush Crimes Commission," even if there are partisans who use that title. "Commission" like "Government" strongly implies some kind of official or governmental body. You can get any number of people and call themselves a "commission" but that doesn't make it so. It's like these organizations (both left and right) who call themselves the "So-and-so Brigade, 4th Battalion" but consist of a few dozen people. -- Cecropia 19:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP Apparently the person who went around spamming the talk pages of a handful of 2-or-3-edit-open-proxy-IP-users, felt that anons should be allowed to vote, so here I am, voting, yay! --152.163.100.70 19:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per RWR8189. Johntex\talk 20:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete blatent propagandaCapitalister 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Weird, estoric really teensy little non-event. MSTCrow 21:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable. Not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Gregmg 23:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 51,100 for "Bush Crimes Commission" This is not a vote to decide whether or not you like the subject of the article, it falls well above the level of notability required for wikipedia articles, and even though the subject is a bit silly, it's still extreamly disturbing the way in which the system is being manipulated to for lack of a better word 'freep' an article into deletion, the point of an AFD is to establish, for the most part, whether or not something exists, the notabilty criteria is to prevent hoax articles, not to find a threshold for famous vs not--205.188.117.6 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, please The article clearly states that this is not a 'formal' commission, but a formalised discussion. This is not misleading. We should respect the right of thinkers and writers to discuss. There is grave concern across the globe concerning the conduct of the Bush administration and there is enough evidence to warrent discussion. Enormously more evidence than was used to warrent invasions. These concerns about the legality of Bush policy do exist and are evidenced enough to deserve a place in our wikipedia. Those that say delete, please ask yourselves, 'Do you love freedom, or would you prefer to delete these thoughts?' Most people that would ask these questions are asking them about administration, not America. Discussion about 'administration' help us, who are outside the States yet inside the sphere of direct effect, to seperate from over-generalized and close-minded anti-American sentiment.

danieljames626 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljames626 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 14 April 2006

  • Speedie keep Nonsense arguements for deleteing things they prefere did not exist. --Striver 00:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not at all notable.--Bedford 02:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable --rogerd 02:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep article has problems, but is source-supported. --James S. 02:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep why deleting thruth??--TheFEARgod 14:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, if article can be rewritten to be about the commission, rather than about Bush. Reminder to all - this is not a vote, weight of numbers matter very little. Quality of argument is what matters. Regards, Ben Aveling 15:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, Well said, Cecropia. Perhaps those opposing should form a new Bush Crimes Commission Commission. This whole article has absolutely zero encyclopedic value, and does nothing other than give a soapbox to those ranting against Bush. --Michaelk 19:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. --Snargle 23:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP SkeenaR 03:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sourcing is given for most of the main points of the article. Being noted in semi-local papers like Newsday is not really a good match with the criteria for inclusion (especially when that's the only potential saving grace). This article would appear to be detailing little more than a gathering of like-minded friends who threw an anti-Bush party and got it into a couple papers. If this is encyclopedic... This article doesn't even pass the Pokémon test. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hatebushcruft. Frankly this info could be relivent to a few other articles and it should me merged where needed. ---J.Smith 08:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP Keep If this is a real organization and not made up it should be a part but I agree on the merging as stated above.--Gnosis 16:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. Not propaganda, just reporting on such. Mildly notable. -- Avenue 11:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge. As one of the main contributors to this article since the last AFD, I still believe the article and its title to be misleading. If there is referable content that is notable enough to keep, it should be merged into the page of the organisation which ran the talkfest which has the misnoma of a commission. Xtra 11:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This commission has no more notability or authority than a mock trial held in a law school classroom, as per RWR8189. -- Dcflyer 11:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment To point out what should be obvious, that simply isn't true. A mock trial held in a law school classroom does not typically try the POTUS. It does not get reported in newspapers or in blogs, or get broadcast on the radio and TV. It does not have notable people involved with it. The BCC is clearly more notable. It is correct that it has not more authority than a classroom trial, but lack of authority is not a reason to delete. The discussion in this AFD would be more valuable if people gave valid reasons for their choices. Шизомби 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
      • While a mock trial in a law school classroom might not typically try Bush in absentia, as this commission has chosen to do, it certainly could. If this was strange enough to be commented on in a few local papers, or picked up on for brief comment by a few partisan news broadcasters, would it make the mock trial notable? Personally, I'd say no. A small smattering of news coverage does not make notability... if that were all it took, there could be Wikipedia pages for hundreds and hundreds of pets that had vaguely interesting experiences in small towns or on slow news days. As this commission is not sanctioned by anyone, has no power, and really does nothing but voice criticism, an argument could be made for their simple existence being notable, but not so that it would merit its own article, but at most a footnote in some other one. Criticising a President is hardly new, nor does dressing it up with some play-acting make it notable. -RannXXV 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Not in Our Name. Rogue 9 12:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Um - I thought wikipedia was supposed to be an online editable wiki-based encyclopedia based in documentable truth, not a one-sided political lobbying or persuasion tool. Toss this article in the same bucket as the conspiracy theory pages that are trying to pursuade people into believing in a particular POV. Rcronk 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Cecropia, and the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a distributor of propaganda. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    comment: Given that the Bush Administration's massive propaganda campaigns have been orchestrated to obscure and excuse the many war crimes, illegal wiretapping, crimes against human rights, invasions of privacy, fake news videos, and on and on, accusing the Bush Crimes Commission itself of engaging in propaganda in its attempts to convey the truth, about Bush Administration's calculated mis-statements, deceptions and outright falsehoods, that seems to be an outrageous example of doublespeak. Ombudsman 14:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You're free to make an NPOV article about the Bush administration, which unlike the topic of this article is significant. You are not free to further your view of neutrality by exaggerating the importance of groups that agree with you. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
And you seem to be missing the point. Arguing that the article should be deleted because it is supposedly 'propaganda' appears to be an example of doublespeak, or what psychologists would call projection of the Bush Administration's faults as faults of the Bush Crimes Commission. As for the Commission's notability, the fact that many top level officials and high profile anti-war and anti-Bush Administration organizations came together to expose the propaganda, lies, deceit and crimes of the Bush Administration is extremely noteworthy, especially given the growing momentum of the Bush censure and impeachment movements, triggered in part by the Commission, and the concurrent plummet in approval ratings for Bush. In fact, the Bush Crimes Commission has obviously played a significant role in the consolidation of the movements, while helping bring focus to the staggering breadth and depth of crimes perpetrated abroad and against Americans at home. Ombudsman 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep.
    1. Deletion voters argue that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That's true, but we keep articles that neutrally report on soapboxes and propagandists. The Nation and Justice Sunday (conservative Christian event) are examples of NPOV articles about nonneutral subjects.
    2. Deletion voters argue that the Bush Crimes Commission was a publicity stunt. We keep articles about publicity stunts that get enough coverage (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lost Liberty Hotel). The BCC had more substance to it than do most publicity stunts. JamesMLane t c 04:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality and this vote

This was posted on a talk page on another article. I think it's worth considering:

"Wikipedia does not exist to determine truth. It is not our purpose to decide if [the article]'s claims are true or not. It is instead our purpose to fairly represent both [the article]'s claims and the claims of its critics. The purpose of consensus within Wikipedia is not to determine truth, but to determine the wording of articles. Nobody needs to modify their personal views in order to achieve consensus on the wording of the article. However, anyone who is not committed to Wikipedia's core principles is likely to be more concerned with hammering their viewpoint than they are with agreeing upon wording which fairly represents all side." (user:Jdavidb link)

The only question AFD is intended to answer is whether the subject matter - the Commission in this case - deserves an article. The criteria is not "what editors think of the subject" or of the Commission, not personal views on Bush and politics, but whether studied dispassionately, it is encyclopedic and notable. Arguments that it is biased, or politically slanted, are arguments to correct an article and write it better. They are not arguments to delete it. The question can be framed relatively simply: Does the subject matter exist (is it verifiable)? If so, is it notable and deserving of an article? The fact that it is an informal group, that relatively few people may look at it, are not arguments that it is non-notable, because relatively few people look up many obscure articles. Within its own field - the Bush, crime allegations, impeachment and similar controversies, is the Commission likely to be considered interesting or notable, or otherwise valuable, to the people looking up related issues on Wikipedia? At the risk of restating what should be obvious, that is closer to the issue. Not whether the article is politically this way or the other, or who wrote it, or who thinks what of Bush.

FT2 (Talk) 18:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdraw AFD

After reviewing some of the comments and checking into it a little deeper I would like to withdraw the AFD and say this should be maerged into the Not in our Name article Aeon 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Way too late for that my friend.  :-) Certainly, you can change your own 'vote', although I think there is consensus to either merge or keep, so the meat of the article should survive one way or the other. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
You must be using "new math".  : ) Morton devonshire 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there definatly isn't a consensus to keep or merge and more like it's a 60/40 split in favor of delete. --Riconoen 19:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

60/40 in favor of delete possibly translates to keep by reason of no consensus. Ultimately, though, it's up to the closing admin to weigh the reasons given here more than the single word recommendations. Шизомби 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
To echo your point, as Ben said, it's not a vote. If it were a vote, and I were so inclined, I'm absolutely sure I could go spam selectively to round up 20 keeps to match Morton's round up of 20 or so deletes. That's obviously not how we should be proceeding here, so it's a good things it's not a vote, but a discussion. Brillig20 20:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
But is it a rounding up of votes, or notifying people of this taking place? As has been noted in several places, people have not voted the way Morton wanted them to. While his purpose in going around placing the notice on Wikipedia users' talk pages might be suspect, in the end all he is doing is notifying people that it is taking place, it is still up to the individual user to make their choice about how to vote. -RannXXV 19:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is if it was nominated for AFD before and passed it shouldn't be up for a vote again. That's like continuing elections until your candidate wins or you get the outcome you're looking for. I think everyone stated their cases here except for the various votes for delete that had no reason for deletion which I don't understand why a person can't express why it should or shouldn't be deleted. Regardless if it already passed AFD and was renominated then all of this is irrelevant because it has passed before. We can't keep nominating articles until we get the outcome we want. Aeon explained that he didn't ooriginally nominate and wants to withdraw, it is not too late for that. Especially since it has already passed AFD before.--Gnosis 15:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an election, though. As has been pointed out several times, this isn't even an actual democratic voting measure... it's a chance for people to make their case against it or for it. If people can continue to make a case against it, it can continue to be nominated for removal. If it is a strong article and conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines, it should be in no danger. However, if it is a weak article on a non-notable subject, as people argue, then the first AFD was simply in error and this is correcting that error. -RannXXV 19:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Confused did the admin change his mind about his decision to delete?--RWR8189 01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

See comment [9] Ansell 01:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
KyroPracticioner is not listed as an admin at Wikipedia:List of administrators. Шизомби 02:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
You know, Ombudsman continues to fail to convince me that this article will be approached in a neutral manner should it be kept. -RannXXV 17:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Note that someone else tried to close the AfD early too who wasn't an admin; you might want to make a request for a checkuser. --Rory096(block) 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Not Noteable, no action has come out of this minor group.PPGMD 19:12, 20 April 2006 (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.