Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senate Report 93-549

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Eluchil404 01:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Senate Report 93-549

Purported claims about Senate activity/Congressional Record entries lack .gov references. Blatant misinformation regarding the purpose of EO6102. Reference to Senate Document No. 43, whose entry has its own problems at current. Pay particular caution to Google results in this case -- most sites are not reliable/large conspiracy theory presence. The document itself is real, but if a salvageable entry can be authored at this time, it will need careful attention to prevent relapse. Serpent's Choice 10:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Is the document itself real? I can't find a single official source of it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: An idea just struck me... how about an article on fake government documents. Redirect Senate Doc #43 (and all others) there. Then, that article can explain that the documents do not exist and have a short entry about what they supposedly claim. As for Senate Report 93-549, I believe it does exist. The problem is that the anti-Bush sites imply that it was written by the sitting Congress in opposition of the war on terror. --Kainaw (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this report was real ... but the "93" prefix in the number refers to the 93rd Congress, which means the report dates from 1973 or 1974. That would also mean that the report would not have been able to take into consideration 50 U.S.C. sec. 1601, which states, "All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency, as defined in section 105 of title 5, as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on September 14, 1976, are terminated two years from September 14, 1976." The article should be deleted if it remains in current form, but kept if it becomes more accurate before the AfD ends, so no vote from me yet. --Metropolitan90 18:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If the document was real, a government source would be very easy to come up with. That's why if it's a hoax, it's probably speedyable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I think the comments above show the verifiability of such an article. The external source was down by the way. In the future, if it survives this AfD, it might want to use an actually reliable source such as http://uscode.house.gov/ in regards such external links. Hope that helps. Ste4k 19:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

*Delete - this sounds like one of those things that usually ends with "if you value your freedom, SEND THIS EMAIL to 10 friends RIGHT NOW. If you love your country, SEND THIS EMAIL to 20 friends RIGHT NOW." Unfortunately, http://thomas.loc.gov/ doesn't go back prior to the 101st congress ... so it isn't easy to verify that the resolution really exists. Even granting that it exists, though (which from reading the text, I see no reason not to), this article is hopelessly POV. Thus, delete. BigDT 01:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (changed to keep below per revert)

  • Delete as unverifiable, and failing WP:NPOV. --DarkAudit 03:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep the revised, neutral version. --DarkAudit 20:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A Google search led me to this document, updated in 2001. --DarkAudit 03:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified conspiracy nonsense. Gamaliel 04:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable conspiracycruft. --MCB 05:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • NOTE — It does exist, you can see refs in this State Department document, however the person who added the AfD, for some strange reason, also reverted it back to the hoax version. This version describes it in a more neutral light, which I have reverted to, carrying over the tags. If you've voted delete, I request you see if the new version is less flagrantly deletable. 68.39.174.238 17:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per link, but revert back to the accurate version. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Current version is accurate. Having this article allows someone who just got one of the dumb chain emails or just read some idiot's blog to get a complete explanation about the document. --Kainaw (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above now that the weird version has been deleted. I guess that means I don't have to forward the link to ten friends any more. BigDT 04:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Current version is NPOV, and reasonably well verified. GRBerry 15:33, 6 July 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.