Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain presidential eligibility

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 was Delete --JForget 23:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John McCain presidential eligibility

John McCain presidential eligibility (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

POV fork, belongs in the main article John McCain or the article about his campaign. Having an entire seperate article for something that at best should be commented on briefly smacks of undue weight. -- Naerii 19:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment How can you delete and redirect something? (to anyone advocating such)-- Naerii 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Arzel (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Merge and delete violates the GFDL, but delete and redirect does not. There's a difference. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
So confusing. Thanks Dhartung. Arzel (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Surely that would be merge and redirect ...? -- Naerii 21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If we delete and redirect, that means that the current content and edit history of John McCain presidential eligibility would be deleted. Then a new John McCain presidential eligibility would be created with nothing but a redirect to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to John McCain Dreamspy (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a controversial subject that the campaign does not want to discuss and it is better to keep it in a separate article. It is actually not a part of the presidential campaign, so much so that here two years into the campaign I just learned that it was even an issue just a few days ago when I was reading over the McCain talk page (talk:John McCain) and found a request to create the page, along with some advice on what to include. I would prefer to bury the topic in a aubarticle - as someone pointed out, less than 1 in 100 click on any of the subarticles, and I think the McCain campaign would prefer to do that as well. Right now no links have been made to the article because I am waiting for it to get a few more contributors to add to it. It certainly is in no way shape or manner a "fork". It is an in-depth treatment of the subject, and is vitally important to Wikipedia to keep. Almost all controversial topics get nominated for AfD, but that is just a vane attempt to squash any treatment of the subject. "Something that at best should be commented on briefly" is the entire reason for burying the topic in a subarticle, while allowing a full treatment of the subject. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – How is it controversial – it is being addressed. Second, the piece is two sentences long. This is better served as part of the main article. List it under controversy it will be more accessible, than having an individual having to type in John McCain presidential eligibility in the search criteria. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you haven't been following the Ron Paul campaign. Controversy sections are not a good idea because just calling something a controversy draws undo attention. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment It's a stub. It could have been created with only one sentence. Or even one word. "Had it been created well enough to survive" is not a valid point. There have been more contributors to this discussion than the article. I would ask everyone to go work on the article and then come back and discuss keeping it. And by work on it I mean add to it, not delete from it, please. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Realistically, with an article like this, you've got one shot, one opportunity to put together something that sells itself as comprehensive, balanced, and necessary. You don't, it's off to Deletopedia for your efforts. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – Work on it how? As you even stated, the article can be done in just one sentence! There is nothing to work on as a separate piece. ShoesssS Talk 20:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting what I said. All articles, for example United States can be created with one sentence, or even one word, and then added to by other editors. 2ndAmendment (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: It duplicates Natural-born citizen. -- Zsero (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't know that it should be excluded from John McCain or John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, but at most it merits a sentence. I'm a Democrat and even I have to admit it's preposterous to interpret the wording to exclude someone like McCain. A full article is undue weight for the amount of serious discussion this has received. It's a parlor game, nothing more. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You are a Democrat. You would want it to be included in the above articles. Most people for McCain would prefer it not even be mentioned. 2ndAmendment (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
In which case it would also violate WP:NPOV because non-inclusion fails to give due weight. —  scetoaux (T/C) 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense, 2ndAmendment. Tell me why I didn't vote to keep the article, then. --Dhartung | Talk 04:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Strong WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues. Due weight would be about a sentence or at most a paragraph in the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article. —  scetoaux (T/C) 21:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete As POV fork and as above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to John McCain. POV forking is not an approved way of settling disputes over what content should be included. Stifle (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to relevant John McCain article. I don't see how you can go beyond one paragraph about this topic. Either he's eligible or he's not. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to John McCain or Keep. Wasted Time's suggestion to proceed in this fashion was well thought out and still seems to make sense, although I have always thought this is important enough for the main BLP. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnecessary to have such a short article when it can be discussed in one of the existing articles. There is no chance of McCain being declared ineligible, especially once McCaskill's bill passes. Clinton and Obama are co-sponsors. Paisan30 (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable non-debate. No evidence this is a notable issue.--Docg 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to the McCain article. It's one of the many interesting aspects of John McCain, who falls under a lot of different categories, including "Zonians", "Vietnam prisoners of war" and "torture victims". As with George Romney, the natural-born citizen argument could be made, although it's unlikely that it actually would be. Mandsford (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - It is unnecessary, and POV. I tried to add balance to the article (a contention from the United States Code) and it was deleted. There is some obvious POV at work. Happyme22 (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to John McCain.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on the John McCain article pretty recently, and would advise against merging it with that article for length's sake. Secondly, a merge to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 would also not be in good taste, because it is well covered within there. Happyme22 (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually it's not covered there, because it has not been a campaign issue. All it says is "In the event of his victory in 2008, he would also become the first President of the United States not to be born within the United States (he was born in Panama within the Panama Canal Zone)", nothing at all about eligibility. Ironically the only person to have been elected in violation of a natural born requirement was Ricardo Maduro, who was also born in Panama. 2ndAmendment (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed ironic that Maduro was also born in Panama, and in that case it was the major theme in Honduran politics for months but became President anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article uses a tortured synthesis of legal sources to suggest a degree of uncertainty that does not exist. Blackstone does not define who is a US citizen by birth. The 14th amendment and federal statutes do, and as the Canal Zone article says, Congress settled the question in 1953. WillOakland (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I debated adding this to the article, but decided against expanding an article which doesn't need to exist. Within the Blackstone natural-born citizen information is this little tidbit shortly after the section which 2ndAmendment added to the article. [T]hat all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England:William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357--58, 361--62 So even by blackstone he would be classified as a natural-born citizen. Arzel (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Be careful what you ask for. You sometimes get it. 2ndAmendment (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Vints (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete If you want to make the case that McCain is not a natural born citizen, the place to do that is a federal court of law, not an encyclopedia article. If you want to report on the topic, one sentence in McCain's article will do.Steve Dufour (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. The very notion that John McCain is not eligible to be president because he was born in the US controlled canal zone is in my view ludicrous, and has indeed been dismissed by McCain's detractors as well as supporters. Since the NYT has run articles on this thing, a thing which ought to be a non-issue, we can mention the question in the article on McCain's campaign, but WP:UNDUE concerns indicate that the coverage should be brief. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect, per above, this minor note can be covered better in other articles; this one is full of OR also. - Merzbow (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Good point about OR. Reference #s 1 and 2 [1]are the most useful for a RS encyclopedia and could be used in the main article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect - only way to handle this non-issue. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. — Athaenara ✉ 22:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Useless POV fork. It's up to the editors to decide what, if any, article this information belongs in. Come January or so this will probably be considered trivia anyway (I don't have a crystal ball, that's just what I think!). daveh4h 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge in with John McCain's Presidential Campaign.Callelinea (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing new or important discussed here. Yahel Guhan 04:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to Creator's Userspace There hasnt been much mention about this from Republicans or Democrats. It's not notable yet, but it could be later on after more sources are attributed. Arnabdas (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. That's where it is addressed, and where it should be addressed. thezirk (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2008 (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.