Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 May 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] May 7
- 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 keep. BD2412 T 03:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Movement to impeach George W. Bush
no chance in hell of this being reality, POV fork, delete as WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:BEANS, and finally WP:NOR violations--Ham and jelly butter 02:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Admins? does anybody around here know how to spot an ad hominem? Really, one should think that a VFD started via an ad hominem should be closed on the grounds of that reason alone. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I second User:Prometheuspan. The drivers of the nom for deletion have demonstrated NPOV support for Bush as their motivation, indistinguishable from pulling a Coleman - anyone check for an IP matching whitehouse.gov? I'd dismiss the idea out of hand, if several Republicans hadn't already done it. - Reaverdrop 00:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as wishful thinking. Bucketsofg✐ 02:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- CommentAnother ad hominem, however, since it didn't start the vfd, it shouldn't be grounds to close the vfd. This is not wishful thinking, you haven't read the article or you are not paying attention to reality. By the way, 3 different states put forth an effort to impeach. Wishful thinking is actually you, wishfully thinking that this is wishful thinking. Its not. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: How on earth do Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose apply to whether this article should be in Wikipedia or not? NatusRoma | Talk 02:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Survived AfD before. Where else on Wikipedia do we report on impeachment movement activities? That some people are trying to censor this information from being on Wikipedia through the AfD process is sad. --Stbalbach 02:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not sure we can really say, in encyclopaedic terms, that there is a properly-formed "movement" for this. Zaxem 02:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please take the time to read the first sentence of the article. It says "for the purposes of this article". Please continue reading the article. A lot (a LOT) of time and effort has been put into this article by many many people to conform to Wikipedia standards. -- Stbalbach 02:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- If an encyclopedia is going to report on a "movement", it should be a proper movement, not one that requires a "for the purposes of this article..." clarification. Otherwise any disparate belief held a by a few random people can be called a "movement". Zaxem 03:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment However, any of those alleged movements would lack millions of participants as compared to this movement, so your logic is rendered invalid. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- What do you mean "held a by a few random people". Polls have shown that a large portion of the U.S. population supports impeachment. Falphin 03:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- But does that mean they're involved in a "movement"? Zaxem 03:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Look here. Falphin 03:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- There a few separate movements noted here. But the title of this article implies that there's one, reasonably unified movement. Which (depite the opening paragraph blurb about "for the purposes of this article...") gives a false impression that I don't think a good encyclopedia should be giving. Maybe the different individuals and groups will become more unified at some point, and at that point an article with this title would be fair. But right now this article, through its title, gives an impression which does not reflect reality. In my view, it's wrong for an encyclopedia to do that. Perhaps my objection is only with the title rather than the info outlined in the article. But I still think that's a reasonable objection for me to raise. Zaxem 03:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are extensive discussions in the archives about the article title and attempts to rename it. Article titles are place-holders, matters of convenience. They do not specify that something "exists". For example you will find encyclopedia articles called medieval science in many encyclopedias, but science did not even exist until the modern era - but we call it that because people know what it means (it was actually called "natural philosophy"). The text of the article is what is most important. Many professional encyclopedias use the phrase "for the purposes of this article" in the first paragraph, commonly done, it is a useful tool. The article really goes out of its way to define exactly what is meant and makes no claim what so ever of a "unified" movement. -- Stbalbach 04:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nevertheless this article's title gives a false impression about something very current. I still think that's wrong for an encyclopedia of the quality that Wikipedia aspires to be. Zaxem 04:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it's a reasonable objection that the title should perhaps be "Movements to impeach..." or something else. Not really a good reason to delete. Rich Farmbrough 13:26 7 May 2006 (UTC).
- There are extensive discussions in the archives about the article title and attempts to rename it. Article titles are place-holders, matters of convenience. They do not specify that something "exists". For example you will find encyclopedia articles called medieval science in many encyclopedias, but science did not even exist until the modern era - but we call it that because people know what it means (it was actually called "natural philosophy"). The text of the article is what is most important. Many professional encyclopedias use the phrase "for the purposes of this article" in the first paragraph, commonly done, it is a useful tool. The article really goes out of its way to define exactly what is meant and makes no claim what so ever of a "unified" movement. -- Stbalbach 04:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- There a few separate movements noted here. But the title of this article implies that there's one, reasonably unified movement. Which (depite the opening paragraph blurb about "for the purposes of this article...") gives a false impression that I don't think a good encyclopedia should be giving. Maybe the different individuals and groups will become more unified at some point, and at that point an article with this title would be fair. But right now this article, through its title, gives an impression which does not reflect reality. In my view, it's wrong for an encyclopedia to do that. Perhaps my objection is only with the title rather than the info outlined in the article. But I still think that's a reasonable objection for me to raise. Zaxem 03:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Look here. Falphin 03:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- But does that mean they're involved in a "movement"? Zaxem 03:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- If an encyclopedia is going to report on a "movement", it should be a proper movement, not one that requires a "for the purposes of this article..." clarification. Otherwise any disparate belief held a by a few random people can be called a "movement". Zaxem 03:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please take the time to read the first sentence of the article. It says "for the purposes of this article". Please continue reading the article. A lot (a LOT) of time and effort has been put into this article by many many people to conform to Wikipedia standards. -- Stbalbach 02:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Super-strong Keep. Just because there's no chance in hell of it happening doesn't mean the movement ain't present. And reading through this article, it's pretty plain that it IS NPOV, quite civil, has no personal attacks, no beans, and no original research. -- Grev 02:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Super-strong Keep There very much is a movement, I believe there was in fact a few towns somewhere in the general New England area that petitioned their senators and congressman to push for the impeachment of bush. Multiple organizations support this. Falphin 02:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Can this be speedy kept. I know some articles go through multiple vfd's, but the last one was a long debate which was overwhelmingly keep with only a few deletes and a couple merges I believe. Falphin 02:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - First AfD Nomination discussion and results.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stbalbach (talk • contribs)
- that was a long time ago and it looks like it was kept on basis of being cleaned up for POV and soapboxing, from the looks of it, no such cleanup ever took place--Ham and jelly butter 03:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Every POV argument that comes up gets addressed and resolved by people who work hard to make it a NPOV article. Just look at the talk page and edit history. This AfD is bogus, you have provided no specifics. -- Stbalbach 03:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- that was a long time ago and it looks like it was kept on basis of being cleaned up for POV and soapboxing, from the looks of it, no such cleanup ever took place--Ham and jelly butter 03:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Über-strong Keep This article has already survived VfD. Articles cannot violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. (Nor do they personally attack Bush in an uncivil manner, but instead cite people and articles who dispute his policies' legality.) WP:BEANS is just an essay, not a guideline nor policy. Furthermore, WP:BEANS only advises us, in a somewhat humorous way, not to do give ideas out on how to disrupt Wikipedia. (I guess, though, we are giving ideas on how to disrupt the govt of the US, but that's not the issue here.) "No chance in hell of this being reality" is wrong. Perhaps you are disputing the chances of impeachment, but that is not what this article is about. This article is about people who called for Bush to be impeached. There are some people calling for impeachment, thus the reality of the movement's existence is at 100%. If the article were titled "Impeachment of Bush", then you would have a point. Now to attack the contentions of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. A read of the article reveals many sources, from which information has been taken and collected in this article. There are some 65 external links in the article text. Clearly, original research just isn't here. There are no personal interviews, personal polls conducted, nor uncited lawyerly thinkings. As for WP:NPOV, this article is as detached from the issue and neutral as I have seen. I believe it provides a third party accounting of the issue at hand. The article has not made assertions that were found elsewhere from reliable sources, but instead simply reports on what other people say. The only possible problem that I see, would be the lack of discussion about the people who are against this movement, however, as some have pointed on the article's Talk page, it is nonexistent, and the article does mention a little bit about a possible response from the Administration. (Sorry for the mini-essay) Copysan 02:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — AfD extensively discussed already. — RJH 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep- I'm not usually the sort to automatically adopt the conclusions of previous AfDs, but this was discussed extensively very recently. Reyk YO! 03:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Grev. -Objectivist-C 04:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Violates WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:NOR. Morton devonshire 04:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment How, specifically? -Objectivist-C 05:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This "movement" does not yet exist. The current wording the page reads more like an attempt to stir up a movement than an honest attempt to report about one. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This movement DOES exist. And this article IS an honest atttempt to report about it.
Prometheuspan 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Read the first sentence of the article. Also, provide specific examples of where it tries to incite a movement. -Objectivist-C 05:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment
The nominator has been spamming the AfD on talk pages(only on one so far, my mistake). He was also blocked for putting up the George Bush article for AfD. -Objectivist-C 05:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC) - Keep per Grev, but this article should be cut down. In particular, many of the individuals and groups listed under "Endorsements of impeachment" could just be named with citations provided, rather than devoting a separate paragraph to the fact that each supports impeachment and the reasons cited by each. --Metropolitan90 05:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. When the "Rationales for impeachment ..." came up on AfD last week, the Deleters claimed that it was unnecessary because this article existed. Fair enough; now this one's up for AfD? Sorry, but AfD shouldn't be a stalking horse for blatant partisan nonsense -- although a glance at the nom's user page is illuminating -- nor for people who have a hard time wrapping their heads around the difference between an article which is written in violation of NPOV and one reporting the publicized viewpoints of others. That WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA have been inexplicably cited leads me (for the very first time) to question the good faith of an AfD nomination. RGTraynor 05:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep per Grev and Copysan, fixable problems with NPOV and NOR are not grounds for deletion, and I dont see any strong NPOV/NOR issues here anyways. However, it may be irredeemably NPOV to call it a "movement" so only weak, rather than full keep. (Also, I'd like to strongly echo Copysan's point that the idea that an article can violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, or WP:BEANS(which is a frackin' essay) is simply ridiculous. JoshuaZ 05:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Smerus 08:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Copysan. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but move to Moves to impeach George W. Bush. Tyrenius 09:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the mere fact that there appears to be a concerted effort (three AfD's on the Rationales in one month, and now here) to cleans Wikipedia of even the suggestion there are people interested in impeachment, and what they think constitutes an impeachable offense, is disconcerting. Claiming wikipedia policy, so frequently and on such a massive scale, for what evidently is not grounds for any AfD, shows the lack of understanding of current policy, or it might indicate abusing the AfD-proces as form of censorship.
Nomen Nescio 10:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC) - comment I agree nescio, this is just gaming the system to censor. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or merge to the ever-changing other article. The "movement" is defined by the article, and OR. We don't need multiple articles about this subject under hair-splittingly different titles. ProhibitOnions 11:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Just because (you think) there is "no chance in hell of this being reality" does not mean this article should be deleted; I think there is "no chance in hell of" Ragnarök being reality but that doesn't mean we should delete the article. As for your other reasons for deletion could you explain why you think this article violates the NPOV or any of the other charges? Again, just saying it does doesn't make it so. I could say the Groucho Marx article violated WP:CIVIL but without any explanation or rationale as to why I thought that, then there would still be no grounds for deletion. --Stenun 11:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. That article presents the efforts of politicians, members of the US Congress or of state legislatures and other people to obtain an impeachment of George W. Bush. These efforts are facts and not just words and are verifiable. So there is no bases for deletion of the article. But, calling these separate efforts a "movement" implies that they are concerted, and that is NOT a fact. Maybe the previous editors of the article can rewrite it, erasing any references to a "movement" if they can't provide verifiable source of its existence. --Sam67fr 13:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. No valid reasons given for deletion, anyone thinking this is not a notable issue should consider the image at the top of the article. This AfD can only cause further problems and will not resolve any issues. Please vote Speedy rather than Strong keep. EricR 13:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- please ignore this comment, it has no grounding in wiki policies--Ham and jelly butter 13:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, more than reasonable in theory even if it has a small chance in hell of happening in reality. Also, WP:BEANS isn't policy, so does that mean we can ignore your comment? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- no--Ham and jelly butter 13:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- "KEEP PLEASE" My son is studying about the US Constitution in school and has gotten very interested in the impeachment process so this site has been very useful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.237.92 (talk • contribs)
- then your son should try reading the actual constituion, not some wiki article pretnding that a state can magically impeach the president--Ham and jelly butter 13:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please, why are you rude? Let's not forget civility, even if an anon user appears magically in this AfD. And you're right, a state can't impeach POTUS. But a State legislature can advise the House of information which can lead to an impeachment procedure. That's what Impeachment in the United States says... Or is this article wrong? --Sam67fr 13:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- then your son should try reading the actual constituion, not some wiki article pretnding that a state can magically impeach the president--Ham and jelly butter 13:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment no, and in fact, wikinews has an article up now about how in fact, the states have just forced the conversation of impeachment. What we run into here are republican psychological warfare
talking points, not fact or truth. The idea here is to make us believe that impeachment isn't possible. Prometheuspan 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and improve, documents a real and notable phenomenon. Rich Farmbrough 13:32 7 May 2006 (UTC).
- Keep. The article, in my opinion, has accuracy and obvious non-NPOV problems, but it's a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. Deli nk 13:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep (was strong keep, but looking at the "reasons", none are actual policy reasons for deletion; at most for article improvement). This nomination is solely to "punish" keep voters in the child article that has a somewhat more POV-prone title (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination), if you'd like to opine there). Utterly bad faith AfD. LotLE×talk 14:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable movement. --Eivindt@c 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I dislike him as much as the next guy, but until articles of impeachment are being considered by a House committee, this "movement" is non-notable Sumergocognito 15:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are currently bills in the Illinois, California and Vermont State Legislatures, and at least the Illinois bill has 25 co-sponsors. I think that makes it a notable movement. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 15:32 UTC
- I saw that in the article, but since U.S. state legislatures have no role in the impeachment process I didn't think them particularly significant. In my above comment, I was referring to the United States House of Representatives. Sumergocognito 16:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are currently bills in the Illinois, California and Vermont State Legislatures, and at least the Illinois bill has 25 co-sponsors. I think that makes it a notable movement. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 15:32 UTC
- Merge. It shouldn't be ignored, but it's not worth much more than a stub on another page unless legitimate organization occurs. possible mergers with either george W. or the presidency of george W. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 16:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. As long as it is NPOV keep it.Bill shannon 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe it needs cleanup, but there is a "movement" of sorts and deserves documentation.--MONGO 17:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - this is certainly an issue being discussed in grassroots circles, and might become an issue nationally if the Democrats win a house in congress this fall. --Tjss 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - and this is even though I'm voting delete on "Rationales". There clearly is a notable movement. I'd like to assume good faith, but this looks a lot like a POV nomination. Tsk, tsk. AnonEMouse 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I did not read through the entire article, but I have found that a lot of articles that I need information on have been deleted, and I believe they probably would have had the information I needed. This may come in use to someone and so I believe it should be kept but fixed up.
Fiwtart 13:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per AnonEMouse and LotXE. Amcfreely 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment nominator has also listed for AfD Bush family conspiracy theory, List of Republican sex scandals , etc. Amcfreely 21:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Bletch 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Is this a joke? This article has survived AfD before and the timing, with the Rationales controversy, is highly suspect. Notable political discussion. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep This article has already survived AfD. A host of notable people have whined and complained about impeachment. I would prefer a more NPOV name for the article. --RWR8189 21:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete or Rename since article title is POV. Should be called more nuetral 'Arguments for the Impeachment...' since title implies more organization between individuals than proven --MarsRover 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You are totally missing the point in such a silly way i am inclined to ask you if you actually read the article? There is a movement to impeach. Collusion between literally millions of people. Those collusions are admitedly weak, but this only strengthens the overall movement. There are literally hundreds of specific efforts any one of which is indvidually trying to to obtain impeachment. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Without considering current content, which may well be biased, the topic is realistic, and verifiable, as Democratic congressional candidates have chosen to highlight this possibility in Campaign '06. Certainly, a stub could exist here, or -- at worst -- a merge to George W. Bush is reasonable. Xoloz 21:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable movement, possibly a 2006 campaign issue, and has survived AfD before. BryanG 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete overbloated, cruft-filled POV fork of Bush. I hate Bush just as much as the next Democrat, but this is really unencyclopedic. Just add a note in Bush's main article until this becomes reality. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This IS a reality. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely INCREDIBLY strong keep I'm fed up to the eye teeth of the "Well we didnt get it through AfD last week we'll try again this week....and next.....and the next after that" mentality that appears to be pervading Wiki at the moment. Jcuk 22:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - article is not POV it is an article about a "movement" (you try and find a better term) that has a POV. It is well written, well referenced and definitely worthy of an article. How many times does it need to be nominated? - Glen TC (Stollery) 01:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but a move to "Movements ..." would be fine. This article appears to have enough good editors keeping it well-documented. When I looked at it Sunday night, I saw very little that was even close to crossing WP:NPOV or WP:NOR policies. Topic and content are clearly encyclopedic, though I wish consensus could be reached for any better title and first paragraph. Survived past AfD and deserves to be kept this time. Appears as if partisans would like to simply purge all undesired articles. Barno 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Real and significant topic in American politics. Several books published on this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination. Don't violate WP:POINT. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ Rock on, dude! 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and NPOV Check I don't like this article but however this one is encyclopedic. I voted delete on the other because of it soapboxing and similar nature to this article. This one could stand a NPOV once over just to be safe, so all concerns can be laid to rest. Aeon 12:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not an encyclopedic topic.--Tbeatty 15:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Bad-faith nomination. — goethean ॐ 15:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with morton.--Capsela 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename is probably in order. --Mmx1 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Super-strong Keep - the info speaks for itself; a censure resolution has been introduced in the senate and the republican chair of the senate judiciary committee has dropped the "I" word. Deleting this would be a whopping pro-Bush NPOV violation. - Reaverdrop 20:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Odd that both this article and Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush have been nominated for deletion at the same time... -- Mr. Tibbs 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This articles has facts; I actually didn't know about it much. A great amount of research seems to have been done to create it. Patchouli 23:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very Strong Keep So, the con serving game playing process manipulating denizens have yet again decided to list an article for deletion based really only on their own pov pushing. This article is factual, it covers a noteworthy topic, millions of people are part of this movement, and no WP rules are factually violated. Prometheuspan 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- comment this movement does exist in that millions of people are involved in a movement to impeach. Further, 3 states have now forced the issue to be discussed at least by our representatives. So it is factual, it is currrent, and thats that. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Super-Strong Nuclear Keep. I voted to delete Rationales to impeach, but this is an outrageous bad-faith nomination. The article is full of well-sourced statements by non-fringe politicians and opinion-makers either supporting impeachment outright or advocating investigations to determine if grounds for impeachment exist. If we're deleting articles now because they make Republican presidents look bad, we'd better go after the Watergate scandal article next. —phh (t/c) 00:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - And don't they wish, too. Par for the course from a bunch who cheered when a president was impeached for not a shred more than cheating on his wife and lying about it. RGTraynor 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Unsupported attacks on the good faith of other participants in the discussion are not particularly helpful. Please try to assume good faith. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- The only thing "unsupported" in this discussion are the grounds upon which the article was nominated in the first place. RGTraynor 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Unsupported attacks on the good faith of other participants in the discussion are not particularly helpful. Please try to assume good faith. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - And don't they wish, too. Par for the course from a bunch who cheered when a president was impeached for not a shred more than cheating on his wife and lying about it. RGTraynor 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Justforasecond 04:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The article as it stands is POV and oversells the evidence it has, but those problems are fixable. The info is certainly encyclopedic. TheronJ 13:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- transwiki to wikinews. Seems to be a topic that is changing rather frequently. Seems more appropriate there.... Roodog2k 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Kim van der Linde at venus 14:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename is probably in order. — CJewell (talk to me) 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Change the words to improve on NPOV (when saying movement you object to opinion). How about "Calls For Impeachment for George W. Bush"? LILVOKA. 17:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. If people have NPOV problems with this, then they should work on it step-by-step rather than trying to delete it. Boud 00:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Definitely. There are articles from sources like Harper's Magazine & Salon.com, and a set of researched & vetted articles of impeachment published by the Center for Constitutional Rights. The movement exists, demonstrably. The article could use NPOV polishing & some trimming, to be sure, but this public issue is as real as other movements Wikipedia includes. This article is an example of what Wikipedia can do that Brittanica can't: provide information about a wide range of topics within public life without waiting for them to become extinct before studied. --Ssbohio 01:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. More rounded evidence could be provided, but other than that, a very thorough collection of information pertaining to this topic found nowhere else in one place.--Zacharias 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. You've got to be kidding me. Kevin Baastalk 12:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I've read most of the current article and see a neutral reporting of why some people think the President should be impeached. I think this conflict is good for ensuring the thoroughness and accuracy of the article, but the efforts of contributors and editors should not be wasted by deletion. This article is becoming quite comprehensive and has several pages of citations for it to just be a soapbox for the mythological liberal bias. If certain contributors want to impose a FNC style fair and balanced approach, then perhaps they should create an article on the reasons not to impeach Bush. Cfpresley 12:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. –Shoaler (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. As long as the language remains NPOV, I have no problem with this article being here (that being said, there are portions, at first blush, that come close to violating that, but those can be rectified through more thorough editing). --Mhking 15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and Clean Up - I agree with Nescio (gasp!) in that this looks like an abuse of the AfD system. I do have problems with this article but they are problems that can be remedied through constructive editing by level-headed editors from both points of view (ideally, from editors neutral on the topic). I've always had a vague discomfort with the title (mostly with the connotations of "movement") as well as the fact that all the examples given are far-left objections. The article should also mention that at 31% approval rating, there are some Conservatives that are calling for investigations on issues like failing to secure the borders, uncontrolled spending, etc. There are a few noteworthy people calling for impeachment and a few in Congress that are willing to listen...and if the Dems win a majority in November, hearings could become a reality. I think it's worthy of an article here, but as presently written, needs to be cleaned up, NPOV-ized, and de-soapboxed.--WilliamThweatt 16:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - POV article about a non-notable movement making this unencyclopaedic. Once there are articles of impeachment being considered in the HoR then recreate. Right now, this is just political talk by opponents. And in case it will be asked of me, I came to vote the way I did after reading the first sentence and lead paragraphs where the article disqualifies itself.--Kalsermar 18:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per obvious majority to prevent Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 from being recreated. Keeping one and prohibiting the other is blatant POV. 1652186 19:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment sockpuppet *cough* *cough* Rex, *cough* *cough* it's one thing to flaunt the fact that you're unblockable, but it's another entirely to use said socks to vote multiple times in one AFD--172.156.202.208 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Here too? Same outrageous accusation, same answer: I've been a user for over six months, I have almost 400 edits, most of them in the last month, and all of a sudden you accuse me of being someone else? Nice thing for a person without a name, talk page or history. If I ever find out who you are, I'm going to use all of Wikipedia's measures against you for spreading false accusations.1652186 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- You make a good point, I mean supposing for a second that someone were among the privileged few with checkuser ability, and at the same time, suppose that person had the ability to browse wikipedia logged out in complete anonymity, such a person, could checkuser whoever the hell they wanted to, then log out and point fingers at the guilty party, without having to get invloved in the whole probable cause business. You're absolutely right, doing such a thing would be unforgivable, and certianly worthy of having "all of Wikipedia's measures" used against them, good thing that's all hypothetical--172.165.245.94 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, unlike the "rationales" blah blah blah, this is a possible NPOV article, and it could be a very informative one too. Ashibaka tock 22:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per WilliamThweatt, some votes seem to be on the current state of the article, not its possible encyclopedic value. Ansell 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup, useful article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- KEEP! With all of the spiteful acts Bush has done as president, it isn't a hot debate but nontheless notable. It also is quite a controversial debate over his liklihood of being impeached. I am determined to make this second nomination the last. --NicAgent 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep as nominator has been banned. --Sneftel 02:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I believe this article is important to keep. Fighting a costly war in Iraq under false grounds should be reason enough, and it's only the tip of the iceberg! --Jaycorrales 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep There are many articles concerning various different "movements", why are they not up for deletion? I think that some people are trying to put forth their own POV by deleting this article. VinnyCee 10:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This movement is notable enough that Kent Kanoy ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in my district’s Democratic primary. However, he lost. Jesse Viviano 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I see this article as being viable and worth reading. I do NOT agree with deleting it.
-
- - Phoenix7477
- Reality can not be deleted. There is a movement in this country to impeach a president that has deeply divided the nation at this point in time. To "Delete" does not make it not happening and not current news. It only means that less people will be informed. If there are no factual errors opinions should be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Independant (talk • contribs)
- Keep. This is a real movement, whether or not in the end it is successful. I came to this article specifically to find out what efforts had been done to impeach the president, and the article informed me. To delete it would be irresponsible. Safay 00:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Bad Faith nomination by a (now) indefinitely blocked user, also tried to AfD the George W. Bush article. 84.145.241.165 02:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. As this movement, has clear basis (see Illinois State Senate Article)Cpeter9 May 11 9:34 CST
- Keep. Wow, a president can be impeached on the spot for fellatio, yet an internet article is likely to be censored for PROVIDING INFORMATION about a movement to impeach a tyrannous terrorist, what a GREAT country you live in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.234.49.207 (talk • contribs) .
- Keep, but I think the article should be moved, 'movement' in the article title seems to be on the edge of POV. —Jnk[talk] 03:10, 12 May 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.
- 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 delete as recreation of material previously deleted per AFD. --Ezeu 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thala
Fancruft and unencyclopedic. Has already been speedied before. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- That is if verification can be provided for this "nickname", if none can be found then Delete.--blue520 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as repost of previously deleted material M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:32, 14 May 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.
- 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 speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 
00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The 10 greatest voices in music history
- Original research and personal opinion. The list given is hardly verifiable. soUmyaSch 10:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- 'This dude is smart.-Raju—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.199.146 (talk • contribs)
- Personal opinion, unverifiable, etc, etc. Delete. Palfrey 10:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 11:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - just plain wrong, might even be WP:BALLS. Ac@osr 11:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article. Zaxem 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOR and possibly WP:NPOV too. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 11:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, in all of music history, 9 of the best 10 singers are alive right now. Delete. ProhibitOnions 12:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic, plus the author of the article can't count Metros232 12:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above, or spell. Who is Roger Dalfrey? Kotepho 12:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per all. Bucketsofg✐ 12:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, patent nonsense. "Ummm... dunno who else". Jdcooper 13:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, nonsense. —Mets501talk 15:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete title is inherently POV. --Bachrach44 15:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Inherently POV and, as it stands, garbage. No Sinatra, no Billie Holiday, no Nat King Cole, but it includes Eminem? Fan1967 16:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is all opinion Fiwtart 14:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Per W:NOT. --Lee Bailey 19:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, Grafkim, and, well, everyone else. Likely could be speedied as patent nonsense, but some define that term very narrowly. Joe 19:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research and inherently POV title. TheProject 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - to me, this qualifies as {{nocontext}}. Grandmasterka 00:39, 8 May 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.
- 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 speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Consolidated Credit Bank Limited
Nominated as misinformation. There are no Google hits for this organisation other than its being listed here as a fake bank set up by 419 fraudsters. The "bank" has no website and I've found no evidence via Google that the named organisation even exists. The article is unreferenced and orphaned. This appears to be an effort at astroturfing and I'm inclined to be very suspicious about the article's creator's motives. -- ChrisO 12:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Added: There's an alternate version of the same article by the same user at Consolidated Credit Bank Limited (CCB). Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consolidated Credit Bank Limited (CCB). -- ChrisO 14:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - as with the other version of the article, if you google, it's a fake bank / hoax.
- Speedy del, as per nom. --soUmyaSch 12:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as a regular hoax. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 12:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
KEEP- This bank is very real and the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the US Federal Reserve are its confirming bank officers to other banks for instruments written by CCB. The information written by Waffelknocker is real, truthful, and accurate. It has nothing to do with any fake bank or scam in London, nor is it a scam, or part of a scam. Executor-usa
- I believe this user may be a sockpuppet of or otherwise connected with the article's creator and have asked for a check on his/her IP address. The whole thing reeks of an astroturfing operation. -- ChrisO 13:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply: OITC did not initiate the original article about it. It is a victim of a misinformation campaign. Replies were written to present accurate facts that will stand up as truthful evidence, and historical facts. You suggest that a pr campaign is being undertaken by OITC. Nonsense. The replies and writings are facts in response to anothers' misinformation and defamation. My comments are mine alone. On my talk page I have stated that factual documents were sent to the parent of Wikipedia, and am sure that the same are available to Wikipedia's parent corporate lawyers and Board of Trustees. I support the writing of a factual, accurate article as a historical necessity. However, if such is to be written, its tenure would be the opposite of the current ideas being espoused that it is either a fraud or a hoax. It is a very important organization, and is quite real. signed Executor-usa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Executor-usa (talk • contribs)
- delete as above. Thryduulf 14:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per above. The article is rubbish, and its creator's WP track record is... spotty, at best. -- Kicking222 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
\ Reply: Most of the people voicing their beliefs here are very young. Please be aware that the people who are knowledgable about OITC and CCB are very senior people in governments, central banks, and major banks.The degree of experience to make such judgements by the majority of the commentors is just deficient. I suggest that you refrain from calling something a hoax, a fraud, or not real, when you have no basis, or knowledge, to make such pronouncements. In the end the facts support OITC and CCB whether you like it or not. Executor-usa
- Uh huh. From this post and looking at your talk page, if I weren't convinced already that it's a hoax, I'm convinced now. Hint #1 for creating a hoax: don't name drop - it's a dead giveaway. If the facts don't speak for themselves and if you have to name drop, there's a problem somewhere along the line. Accoring to just about every google result, this is a fake bank that is used for scams. This article should be speedied fast. BigDT 17:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete it's a hoax about a hoax! yay! M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Reply: The intentional disregard of facts and documents sent to Wikimedia and Wikipedia is not a virtue. Perhaps your self description on your talk page as being insane is accurate. Further, if you think Google results will provide you the truth you are very mistaken.Labelling an institution a fake bank and a scam is very defamatory and is unsupported by fact or truth.
- 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.
- 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 speedy delete. Royboycrashfan 17:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Consolidated Credit Bank Limited (CCB)
Nominated as misinformation. An alternate version of Consolidated Credit Bank Limited, created by the same user, and equally dubious (and orphaned and unreferenced). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consolidated Credit Bank Limited. -- ChrisO 12:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - if you google, it's a fake bank / hoax.
KEEP- This bank is very real and the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the US Federal Reserve are its confirming bank officers to other banks for instruments written by CCB. The information written by Waffelknocker is real, truthful, and accurate. It has nothing to do with any fake bank or scam in London, nor is it a scam, or part of a scam, nor a hoax. Executor-usa
- I believe this user may be a sockpuppet of or otherwise connected with the article's creator and have asked for a check on his/her IP address. The whole thing reeks of an astroturfing operation. -- ChrisO 13:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- speedy delete as a duplicate/fork of Consolidated Credit Bank Limited, even in the unlikely event that the other is kept there should only be one copy of the article. It isn't even worth making into a redirect. Thryduulf 14:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per above —Mets501talk 15:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per above. -- Kicking222 16:00, 7 May 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.
- 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 no consensus, so keep. --Ezeu 21:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bush family conspiracy theory
Violates WP:NOT, wikipedia is NOT a repository of all things conspiracy, and this article presents them as reality, please decide fairly and remove this nonsense right away--Ham and jelly butter 13:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. As long as sources can be provided for examples of when these conspiracy theories have been alleged (to avoid WP:OR) and the article is slightly rewritten to emphasise that they are conspiracy theories, I see no problem with a verified list of things people have alleged. Maybe rename to List of Bush family conspiracy theories. Jdcooper 13:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Can some sane rules for theory inclusion be established and enforced? It would be undesirable to have Wikipedia automatically repeat every idiocy that Alex Jones and his ilk happen to post on their conspiracy blogs. Weregerbil 13:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Rules can be established, yes, and we already have one: No "new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." But most pages like this one are full of original research. They rely far too heavily on primary sources and become link farms. For many of these things, there just aren't a whole lot of secondary sources anyway. What can we do? The pages are followed by the people who care most about them, and this is what we get. Wikipedia seems to have, de facto, two tiers: Real encyclopedia articles, and sandbox articles. This is one of the latter. Tom Harrison Talk 14:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Sure we can't just repeat any old tripe that anyone has ever said, but it seems obvious that people have alleged conspiracy theories about the Bush family, so why can't we detail the popular or common ones? Maybe all that in necessary is a bit (or a lot) of weeding? Jdcooper 14:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Rules can be established, yes, and we already have one: No "new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." But most pages like this one are full of original research. They rely far too heavily on primary sources and become link farms. For many of these things, there just aren't a whole lot of secondary sources anyway. What can we do? The pages are followed by the people who care most about them, and this is what we get. Wikipedia seems to have, de facto, two tiers: Real encyclopedia articles, and sandbox articles. This is one of the latter. Tom Harrison Talk 14:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or break out the tin foil hats. Bush Senior killed JFK. The Bush family orchestrated 9/11. Give me a break. Our current President may not be the best we've ever had, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the family is into satan-worship and that they knock off foreign leaders in their spare time. BigDT 16:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. The theory is not that "Bush killed JFK." I think it is that right-wing anti-Castro extremists did so, and that Bush knew them for both business (oil drilling between Florida and Cuba) and political reasons. I don't share this view, but it is one of many theories about the Kennedy assassination. Btw, are you suggesting that Bush Sr had no prior experience with the CIA before he became CIA Director on 30 January 1976 (until 20 January 1977),[4] and that based on this mere 355 days on the job the CIA Headquarters in Langley, VA was permanently named after him? Just curious. No-one credible suggests that "Bush orchestrated 9/11" -- but this false belief is widely held, hence it is important to debunk.
- Delete WAY to POV for its own article. Filled with randomcrapcruft IMHO. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- ?question?: Why is the Prescott Bush War seizures controversy listed as a conspiracy theory?--152.163.100.66 17:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Because it is one? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's a conspiracy theory that the federal government seized his assets during WWII? that's quite a conspiracy theory--152.163.100.66 19:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pretty much. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- So by seizing his assets, the federal government was just helping to perpetuate this conspiracy theory?--152.163.100.66 19:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- One share does not a major war seizure make. But this isn't the place for this discussion. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- So by seizing his assets, the federal government was just helping to perpetuate this conspiracy theory?--152.163.100.66 19:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Pretty much. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's a conspiracy theory that the federal government seized his assets during WWII? that's quite a conspiracy theory--152.163.100.66 19:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Because it is one? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - This violates WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:OR. 216.239.38.136 17:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- After thinking about this a while I'm starting to think this is really best classified as original research. The individual claims that suggest conspiracies can be verified — in the sense that the claims have been made in someone's blog or wherever, not that the claims are true. But collecting them into a list that suggests a far-reaching web of systematic conspiracies is unsourced and appears to be WP:OR. This article suggests that a credible source believes there is such a list of systematic conspiracy. This is misleading to the reader, as well as being original research. If there is a TV documentary that discusses seven Bush family conspiracies then documenting that documentary would be encyclopedic; picking seven(ty) random whining idiots' blog entries into an article is just WP:OR. So I'm thinking delete. Weregerbil 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- nominator has also listed for AfD Movement to impeach George W. Bush, List of Republican sex scandals , etc. Amcfreely 18:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- * Comment - Having a discussion on all three is not unreasonable. I took a look at List of Republican sex scandals . That article accuses President Bush of rape based on a National Enquirer article? Umm ... that's a tabloid.
- Strong keep - There is a lot of conspiracy theories around this family, as long as they are all sourced, I don't see a problem with it -- - K a s h Talk | email 18:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - "Sourced" needs to be more than wild imaginations of bloggers + tabloids. BigDT 18:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - and if reliable sources can't be found, then that particular part should be removed. The fact remains that there are still verifiable Bush family conspiracy theories, why can't they be listed? Jdcooper 23:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - "Sourced" needs to be more than wild imaginations of bloggers + tabloids. BigDT 18:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. We don't want articles that will attract every conspiracy theorist like moths to a flame. Capitalistroadster 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This is tin-foil hat nonsense. Violates a host of Wikipedia guidelines especially, WP:OR --RWR8189 21:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No credible reliable sources. Violates WP:RS and WP:OR Copysan 22:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Just because an article is not neutral does not mean it should be deleted. Besides this article was kept before, [5] and I believe should be still. Perhaps an arbitration comitee should look at these articles, since even if this one is deleted this time, it previously was kept by a majority. Falphin 22:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- On the references, a lot are cited, some of the further reading is likely some additional references and other parts relating to 911 would go under the documentories. I can't find the seciton of NOT that says wikipedia is "not repository of all things conspiracy". Why note delete 911 conspiracy theory while we're at it? Falphin 22:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would also like to point out that the nominator has already tried to vfd 2 other Bush related articles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush military service controversy(speedily kept), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). Falphin 22:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Also List of Republican sex scandals, too. I am noticing a very strong partisan pro-Bush theme here from Ham And Jelly Butter. Also, check out his user page. I for one think he is trying to get rid of all the political articles he personally doesn't like. --Stenun 14:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak delete per Weregerbil. I could see a well-sourced list of notable conspiracy theories, but this looks more like a collection of blog entries, which violates WP:RS. BryanG 23:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- So, why couldn't the unsourced ones be deleted? Falphin 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete contains numerous unsourced allegations, looks like original work Crum375 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete as per nom. --Strothra 01:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete interesting but allowing it leads to problems. Newyorktimescrossword 02:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Now this is a POV fork. Unlike on the other two Bush links submitted, this article glosses over everything, just tossing out one-sentence accusations without backup or rebuttal. -- Grev 02:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Partisan blogcruft. Bans all round, for polluting wikipedia with *yuck* blog postings. -- GWO
- Keep. Other conspiracies and conspiracy theories have articles on Wikipedia, so why not this one? The article might not be well written and could do with a little tidying up but that is no reason to delete it. An article exists on the Clinton Chronicles and despite it being completely discredited no one is calling for it to be deleted, same with the Arkansas Project and doubtless many more. I fail to see how this article is any different from any of those. No one is claiming the allegations in this article as true, they are conpsiracy theories. What is the problem? --Stenun 14:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - In the absence of good secondary sources, this can never be anything but a "synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." Tom Harrison Talk 14:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this proliferation of liberal anti-Bush cruft is doing more than the proliferation of Pokemon articles to convince me that wikipedia is not serious about its stated purpose. Thatcher131 15:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete too many unreferenced statements, and irrelevant references --Astrokey44 15:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Wikipedia reports on conspiracy theories, even those that concern Republicans. — goethean ॐ 18:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith nom - Glen TC (Stollery) 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nom. Who gave these dirty hippies computers? Halliburton, no doubt.--Capsela 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- yet another political blog that ended up on Wikipedia. Full of original research and unreliable sourcing. Morton devonshire 23:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above rationale.--MONGO 02:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OR, is an owned article.--Jersey Devil 02:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's sourced, substantial and important; providing that it is kept NPOV, I don't see the problem. Matthew Platts 14:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The article clearly and expressly presents these as conspiracy theories, it does not assert that all are true. (Indeed, it seems to go overboard in this.) Many are widely-believed. This is a great place to debunk any false charges. Actual conspiracies do abound, "tin-hat" pejoratives notwithstanding. Every accusation of a criminal or covert operation is initially a "conspiracy theory" until, bit by bit, the evidence mounts that it is likely true or false. (Some die-hards will always deny this truth, so it is almost never black-and-white. Many actual conspiracies are never proven -- false negatives. So there will always remain a grey area.) Some proven examples include the Iran-Contra Affair (illegal arms sales to Iran as an attempt to free hostages from Hezbollah and obtain money to illegally fund the Nicaraguan contras); the Bay of Pigs; the CIA-supported overthrow of Iran's democratically-elected leader, Mossadegh (who was replaced by Shah Pahlavi, whose repression led to the Iranian revolution of 1979 and current rule by mullahs); the CIA-supported overthrow of Guatemala's democratically-elected Arbenz (who won Guatemala's first universal-suffrage election with 60% of the vote, marking the first peaceful transition of power in Guatemala's history); the CIA-supported overthrow (and murder) of Chile's democratically-elected Allende; Enron's manipulation of energy markets with fraudulent business practices like "Death Star"; the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (a fabrication which prompted Lyndon B. Johnson to dramatically increase US troop levels in Vietnam; etc. All of these were denounced as "conspiracy theories," for many years. All are now known to be true. Given the role of GHW Bush as CIA Director, it strains credulity to believe that the full truth is yet known about operations he supported then and as President. The revolutionary beauty of Wikipedia is that it is both a repository of knowledge developed from the grass-roots (unlike top-down knowledge which stems from goverment- or corporate-funded research), and a platform for the development of that grass-roots knowledge. Go ahead and debunk all false claims, this is part of Wikipedia's mission. But please do NOT delete this page.
-
- How could I have omitted BCCI from this list! (Perhaps because without constant vigilance, true conspiracies get forgotten? ;-) )
- Strong Keep. Some of the theories are nonesense, like alien reptile ancestry of the Bushes, but there are many serious and well substantiated historical facts here. The Bush family membership in Skull and Bones, the manipulation of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections via bogus "felon" disenfranchised in Fla, where brother Jeb is Governor and questionable vote counting and vote suppression, whre the Secretaries of State in key states Ohio and Florida were also the Bush Campaign Chairs, the extension of executive power, Neil and the savings and loan scandal, Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, Cheney's ties to Halliburton, which gets most large military contracts, the Project for a New American Century involvement of many administration officials, GHW Bush employment by the CIA at the time of the Bay of Pigs, and Prescott Bush's involvement with and profiting from being a banker for the Nazis, are as well established as the Teapot Dome scandal duting the Harding adminintration, or Clintons dalliance with Ms. Lewinski. They are issues of history, not speculation. Put them right onto the main article pages if they are removed from here. Why aren't they on the main pages for the appropriate Bush? Were they exiled to a conspiracy page for future deletion? That is pure spin doctoring, not worth of an encyclopediaEdison 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This article discusses actual conspiracy theories. For great justice. 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This article belongs on Wikipedia just as much as "Clinton family conspiracy theory" does
-
- Erm, if there was widespread independent discussion of Clinton Family Conspiracies, then yes, but there isn't. For great justice. 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Nonsense. Strong keep. a) See Clinton Chronicles, Lewinsky scandal, Troopergate, Vince Foster, Whitewater (controversy), Mena_Arkansas#Clinton_scandal, Barry Seal, Clinton v. Jones, Arkansas Project, David Brock, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, Kenneth Starr, Travelgate, Controversies surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton, Susan MacDougal, etc. b) Clinton was a lecher (like many other politicians).[6] Bush Jr. deceived the US public and led us into a war that 2/3 of the US and 90% of the world now realizes was a bad idea. His clan deserves more scrutiny, given the role of his father (both with the CIA and as President), brother Jeb (esp. in Florida 2000), brother Neil (in the Savings & Loan scandal), Uncle Jonathan (in the Riggs Bank money-laundering scandal), and grandfather Prescott. Contrast that family network with Bill: you have Hillary and Roger. That's it. This article belongs here precisely because of the power the Bush family has exercised.
- Comment, (Keep). Maybe Clinton and Bush Sr are in cahoots together. ;-) Ever wonder why they're so palsy, travel together, tsunami, etc? [Maybe]... *laugh* (Just having fun.)
- Comment Nonsense. Strong keep. a) See Clinton Chronicles, Lewinsky scandal, Troopergate, Vince Foster, Whitewater (controversy), Mena_Arkansas#Clinton_scandal, Barry Seal, Clinton v. Jones, Arkansas Project, David Brock, Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, Kenneth Starr, Travelgate, Controversies surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton, Susan MacDougal, etc. b) Clinton was a lecher (like many other politicians).[6] Bush Jr. deceived the US public and led us into a war that 2/3 of the US and 90% of the world now realizes was a bad idea. His clan deserves more scrutiny, given the role of his father (both with the CIA and as President), brother Jeb (esp. in Florida 2000), brother Neil (in the Savings & Loan scandal), Uncle Jonathan (in the Riggs Bank money-laundering scandal), and grandfather Prescott. Contrast that family network with Bill: you have Hillary and Roger. That's it. This article belongs here precisely because of the power the Bush family has exercised.
- Erm, if there was widespread independent discussion of Clinton Family Conspiracies, then yes, but there isn't. For great justice. 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- fair enough - so write the article! For great justice. 20:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT. Jsut a bunch of garbage.--Tbeatty 04:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Articles exist on other theories and the Bush family ones are notable. Skinnyweed 16:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of conspiracy theories. Sandstein 19:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:NOT and WP:V wow.....this one I think takes the cake.....Aeon 21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Regardless of whether you agree with the theories, some of the theories mentioned have been taken seriously in the world's media. And in particular the linking of Oil to the Iraq invasion is accepted my almost everyone in the UK regardless of whether they support the war or not, certainly friends of the Bush family if not the Bush family itself will profit from Iraqi oil. I think it is accepted that there are links between the Bush family and some relatives of Osma Bin Laden in Saudi Arabia too. So even if its all rubbish it probably deserves a page, even if it is there to debunk these theories.--Hontogaichiban 22:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Violates WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:NOR and others. This is an amalgam of disparate allegations which does not exist in this form anywhere from any reliable source. This ad hoc assembly of anti-Bush accusations is a POV soapbox and is original research. Merecat 22:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the recent outbreak of the "delete all information that is uncomfortable to Bush"-virus is unsettling. The fact that all nominations were made by either the sock-puppet crowd or editors who have been indefinitely banned for thisdisruptive behaviour should suffice as argument. Any problems with sources should not be addressed with an AFD. As to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not meant to delete everything you disagree with. Nomen Nescio 08:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It would be a violation to delete this page, it would illustate the narrow mindfullness of some people who utilise this site. The article doesnt have any malicious nature or claim any validity to the claims. It would be wrong to delete this page. and i agree with the above comment, any article which could be harmfuk to george bush or the republicans must me delteed. THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS SITE STANDS FOR, political preferences shouldnt harm the information given to others.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeychild222 (talk • contribs) .
- Note The above is user Monkeychild222's first contribution to Wikipedia.--RWR8189 18:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. Who's the sock puppet now? hmm? --Strothra 21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The fact that there are conspiracy theories about the Bush family is not in dispute. They deserve mention no less than the articles about Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, flat earth theory and Elvis sightings. - Gimboid13 21:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep Clearly the article would need a lot of work. The nom complains WP "is NOT a repository of all things conspiracy" which is true, though there would seem to be notable conspiracy theories about the Bushes. Nom also complains "article presents them as reality" but this could be dealt with by differentiating fact from allegations. Also Bush crime family which redirects to this seems to be a more common term (187,000 hits on Google for +"bush crime family" -wikipedia). The concept of a Unified Conspiracy Theory linking all the crimes and alleged crimes committed by or connected to the Bushes, as the title suggests, would appear to be a less common concept. Even the introduction indicates that's not what it's about though by stating "various conspiracy theory allegations." If the article is to be kept, a better title may be in order. Шизомби 01:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Sahasrahla 18:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Rename "Bush Family Synchroncities with 9/11 and the established dominance hierarchies".
- Marshall McLuhan said the medium was the message. Whoever gets this far, you know your medium.
- A friend played this for me today. For some young American youth this is more accessible than Alex Jone and others.
- <snip nonsense>
- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.11.149.51 (talk • contribs) .
- Strong Delete - The Bush family supports crime and Satanism please wikipedia take the high road --MarsRover 05:40, 13 May 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.
- 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 speedy A7. Royboycrashfan 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Codi-clan
- This AfD has been open for a couple of weeks but was never put on the main AfD page, so that's what I'm doing now. — FireFox (U T C) 14:07, 07 May '06
Non notable gaming clan--Zxcvbnm 21:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:WEB requires that the article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of the (WP:WEB) criteria, it doesn't. - Politepunk 13:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Politepunk -- Tangotango 14:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for same reasons as Politepunk. -- Grafikm_fr (AutoGRAF) 14:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete God, I'm so tired of people creating articles for their @%$& clans. A group of people playing video games is not notable, and that's coming from a huge gamer. -- Kicking222 16:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete randomcrapcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. I've said this before... When you see something like this, use {{nn-club}}. Grandmasterka 00:43, 8 May 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.
- 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 Deleted, way too many socks in this one. Tawker 05:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kamain's World
 |
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}} |
Non-notable website; seems to fail WP:WEB. Contested prod. PseudoSudo 21:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete article doesn't show how the subject meets WP:WEB. Since this is about the world of Kamain/Josh Prosser - whi is a non-notable person with no assertion of notability, can this be speedied as WP:CSD A7? - Politepunk 21:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
- Delete: as per nominator. --Ragib 01:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- A shame to delete such a long article, butDelete per nom. —Mets501talk 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note: above five votes deleted by 70.18.20.246 in this edit. I have restored them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Don't Delete This is such a great article and so descriptive... alot of people read and care about this article... please don't leave it in vein!--4.8.15.16.23.42 20:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
ets501talk 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete You guys have so many articles and this not a mediocre article! It is very long and descriptive. Plus wouldn't a new article just add to your database? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.52.250.111 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete 88.91.140.175 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.229.248.45 (talk • contribs) .
- Do Not Delete This article is long and descriptive, and details a site which many, many people have used, or at least browsed. Many people have put a lot of work into this article, and id hate to see it go to waste by deletion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.44.11.235 (talk • contribs) .
- Delete per WP:WEB. While "long" and "descriptive" are technically words that could be applied to this article, I suppose, it's actually a pretty good example of why nearly all forum articles are deleted. Very little that happens on forums is encyclopedic, or of interest to those outside the forum itself. As a result, forum articles tend to get padded out with utterly trivial trivia. Here's a sample from this article: "Then about 4 months afterwards, Ryan made an account called "imcoolcuzicuff", and pretty much said some revealing stuff towards Dread (For example, his penis is 5 inches, his nickname is Russtard and Rusty Bucket {because his name is Russell}, and Russell Sprouts), and even after that Dread was barely angry at Ryan." Now, can anyone out there think of any reason why the information I quoted, whether factual or not, would be of any interest to anyone outside the forum? I certainly cannot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Although the article was originally put up for deletion when it was totally irrelevant and advertisement for its forum (the article was later edited by one of the members to include actual information as to avoid deletion), the article is still totally useless for anything except the glorification of the website. (PS. I am one of the forum members of this site, so that should be taken info consideration when reading my thoughts)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.44.11.235 (talk • contribs) .
- Strong Delete. Absolutely nothing in the article is notable. Also, see this topic, third post down. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 21:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
So what if it isn't encyclopediac enough? I thought an encyclopedia was about INFORMATION. Oh and the P.S. guy that says he's a forum member. You aren't a forum member. :-p. If so which one? Anyway, if the person isn't notable or well known, now you know him. What if someone wanted to look up Kamain's World on Wikipedia or something and it wasn't there. See, if the article has some stuff, as long as it's descriptive etc, it should stay. You guys are just pompous.
-
- You've brought up a very good point there, perhaps unintentionally: "What if someone wanted to look up Kamain's World on Wikipedia or something and it wasn't there." For a moment, imagine that you're someone who's just heard of Kamain's World and wants to know more about it. Which of the following would you most logically use to get your information? (a) Go directly to the Kamain's World website. (b) Look it up on Google. (c) Check a website about forums, such as Big-Boards.com. (d) Check an internet directory. (e) Check an encyclopedia. Here's a hint: the answer isn't (e). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong DELETE. Just read the Admins section to find out why. Theonlyedge 21:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, does not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. --Yamla 20:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine delete it. Delete the effort, I don't care.
- Strong delete as article does not assert the notability of the site, and in general is very POV in my opinion. Bjelleklang - talk 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Also, a little comment: Even though this forum shouldn't be included in Wikipedia, it does not mean that it isn't a great community. But Wikipedia can't include a forum/site of <insert whatever subject here> if it doesn't pass the notability requirements! I could write a great article about myself, or any other person, but that doesn't make him or her notable. Bjelleklang - talk 22:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:41, 13 May 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.
- 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 keep. --Ezeu 23:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mongolia (region)
Delete as fake/neologism. The name Mongolia has never signified a region. The introduction tries to establish a made-up definition based on an arbitrary combination of criteria, which isn't confirmed by any sources. The second part of the article lists administrative trivia from a very specific time period of doubtful relevance (where all ethnic mongols were under Manchu rule). None of the red links have much chance of ever turning into articles of their own. Almost all of the few blue links are misdirected to other subjects of the respective same names (usually people instead of geographic or administrative entities). I'm not sure what purpose this article serves other than to confuse its readers. Questions on the discussion page to this regard have yet to be answered. Unfortunately, several other language WPs seem to have copied the false definition, though none of the translations has turned into much more than a stub. --Latebird 22:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It exists: http://www.bartleby.com/65/mo/Mongolreg.html Aplomado - UTC 22:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: From the link I just mentioned: "China, which earlier had gained control of Inner Mongolia, subjugated Outer Mongolia in the late 17th cent., but in the succeeding years struggled with Russia for control. Outer Mongolia finally broke away in 1921 to form the Mongolian People’s Republic (now Mongolia). Inner Mongolia remained under Chinese control, although the Japanese conquered Rehe (1933), which they included in Manchukuo, and Chahar and Suiyuan (1937), which they formed into Mengjiang (Mongol Border Land). These areas were returned to China after World War II. In 1944, Tannu Tuva (see Tuva Republic), long recognized as part of Mongolia but under Russian influence since 1911, was incorporated within the USSR (now Russia). The Chinese Communists joined most of Inner Mongolia to N Rehe prov. and W Heilongjiang prov. to form the Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region in 1949."
- It is clear to me that the larger region of Mongolia has a rich history and is worthy of its own article, and the current one should probably be expanded. Aplomado talk 04:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- That part of the world doesn't seem to be a particular strength of the Columbia Encyclopedia. They still have Mongolia with 18 Aimags, (have been 21 since 1994). And how does the undoubtedly rich History of Mongolia justify the specific article under discussion here? --Latebird 07:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Delete i second the nomination. ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
- Keep with cleanup tag, since Inner Mongolia is located in China, the region is different from the country. --Astrokey44 15:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- comment - A little more research revealed that Greater Mongolia is a somewhat established term. The title was previously a redirect to Mongolia (region), but it has a more substantial meaning in historical and political terms. I just turned it into an article, outlining the information that I could dig up. I believe that Mongolia (region) was originally created for a slightly different purpose, but it might still be justifiable to redirect it to the new article. --Latebird 15:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Of course the term exists; Mongol people live in
Mongolia, in Inner Mongolia and in parts of Russia... —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 12:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC) - Merge and redirect to Greater Mongolia. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- keep or merge or cleanup or something... Grue 15:11, 12 May 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.
- 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 delete. Notability was never established by those proposing to keep the article -- No Guru 17:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Saampan
|
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}} |
As I said on the talk page, this article is just the band advertising itself with text copied straight from its web site. The creator removed my speedy delete tag without responding on the talk page. Keppa 23:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - copyright violation if not vanity. - Richardcavell 23:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- KeepI am still working on this page. I also added a stub indicating that it's work in progress. Can you please abstain from deleting this for a couple of weeks. I need to add more to the content and also link to different relevant articles in Wikipedia. Sorry about deleting your speedy deletion tag ... I thought that I could do that once I added the stub. Also, this is not just an advertisement for the band. We are a non-commercial band that is trying to add to the Bangla Band movement in Bengal in our own little way. We epitomize life here in the US for first generation Bengalis in our original songs. We intend to modernize Rabindranath Tagore's songs so that second and third generation Bengalis in the western world are aware of Tagore's gems.Saampan 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - notability. Wiki is an encyclopedia and should concentrate on notable persons/events etc. Wiki is not Myspace. KsprayDad 23:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as the band does not assert any notability. Aplomado talk 23:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am very new to wikipedia, and am requesting that this page be given some time. Keppa, the person who put the Saampan article up in afd, has an article of his own called Colors (band) which I feel is VERY similar to the Saampan article. So, I am unable to understand why this article got put up for deletion. Can someone please guide me better? Saampan 00:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK. Reason #1 and Reason #2. Aplomado talk 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the band has to be "commercial" in order to be eligible for a Wiki article? I have mentioned upfront that Saampan is a non-commercial band. It has more to do with the Bengali community in the US. I have also mentioned that Saampan's members are real people with day jobs. They are doing this for a completely different purpose. I really like your definition of "notability"!!! You know what? I think the article should be deleted ... I don't think we want to be part of something where notability is defined thus. Saampan 01:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- OK. Reason #1 and Reason #2. Aplomado talk 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I also wanted to respond to each person here voting for deletion. For Richard Cavell, this is not copyright violation by any means. The band creates its own music or recreates popular Bengali songs. Where do you see violation??? For all others who are questioning the "notability" of this band, I want to ask whether all other bands listed on Wikipedia are "notable" bands. I can point you to atleast a couple of dozen band related articles that are not ... including Keppa's (Ryan's) six that are listed on his User:Keppa page. Can someone please tell me what I need to do to help this article live on Wikipedia ... rather than simply shooting at it? Where can someone vote to keep the article? Saampan 00:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- If there are other articles of non-notable bands, then by all means they should be deleted. The fact that there are other non-notable bands with articles doesn't establish a precedent. Aplomado talk 01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Talk about not biting the newcomers!!!Saampan 01:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Can you please let me know how I can put all such band articles on afd? Or will you take responsibility for that? ... the good Wiki citizen that you are.Saampan 01:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- You can find instructions for doing so here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. Good luck. Aplomado talk 02:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, first of all, my name's not Ryan. Don't know where that one came from. Let's just refer to me as Keppa, shall we? Second, the four (not six; one of those articles is a Ralph Vaughn Williams song cycle, and the other is an event) bands on my page are notable, if a little controversial. Two of them have been through AfD and survived; of the other two, one performed in the Salt Lake City Olympics, and one has a song on the soundtrack of a major motion picture. Please do not take these deletion proceedings personally. No one here has anything against your band. I understand how that is, as I have had articles that I put time and effort into nominated for deletion as well. As a newcomer it can be hard. But community consensus exists to ensure that the rules are enforced, and your band simply does not meet the requirements (see WP:MUSIC) to have an article. Keppa 04:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- If there are other articles of non-notable bands, then by all means they should be deleted. The fact that there are other non-notable bands with articles doesn't establish a precedent. Aplomado talk 01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom...sorry. —Khoikhoi 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
- Delete per nom. Whatever the copyvio status, the article is an advertisement in very PoV terms for a band that seems to have released no recordings and has had no success so far. If and when it achieves those things, then we should have an article on it. (In other words, this vote shouldn't be taken to rule out an article in the future.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- KeepKeep the article. I say we keep the article and give the band a chance to become notable.20:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)~~
- KeepI love this band's music. Keep the article pleaseAnurupa Anurupa 23:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- The usernames of the only three keep votes are the first names of members of the band. Seems kind of suspicious. Keppa 04:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BAND. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Being an avid follower of this band, I would really like this article to be kept. This group has been formed by a bunch of people who would like to evangelize Bengali music.This group strives to revitalize the old Bengali songs among the newer generation -- the music which today, without the help of anybody, will become extinct. User pradips
- Delete per Stifle and nominator. DarthVader 13:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:37, 13 May 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.
