Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidential perjury

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. Sango123 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential perjury

This information is already contained in Impeachment of Bill Clinton and other articles about Clinton. RWR8189 08:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 08:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If this had happened to more than one President, then a general article covering all occurrences would be useful. As it is, everything's covered in specific Clinton articles, and I think that's where people would go looking for the info. Seb Patrick 09:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Clinton-bashing. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Sole purpose of article is POV attack on Clinton. NawlinWiki 12:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per CanadianCaesar and NawlinWiki. ---Charles 17:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is factually true, the reference to Impeachment of Clinton is too long to be a useful Wikipedia article. This is unique situation that deserves a reference.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Dierks (talk • contribs) .
• Delete per nom. Articles is not so much about "Presidential perjury" as a particular historical instance of it that already belongs elsewhere.. —Centrx→talk 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the most important quote is already in the relevant merge target. This would only deserve its own article if there were secondary sources discussing multiple cases of presidential perjury. GRBerry 02:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Gratuitous and redundant Clinton-bashing.MollyBloom 00:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments Thanks for the lesson. The fact that Wikipedia it is a tool for leftwing propaganda is noted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter Dierks (talk • contribs) .

Yes friend, I'm really a tool for the left.--RWR8189 04:55, 22 June 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.