Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John Kerry flip-flops

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Kerry flip-flops was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete. Cool Hand Luke 05:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This thread has become very long. In order to increase our chances of getting it straight at the end of the discussion period, I've added a Voting Recap table. In addition to making your comments below, please add your name to this table. I've taken a first crack at who is currently voting for what based on my interpretation of the comments below but if I got it wrong or if you change your mind, move your name. Note: Only names go in this recap. Rossami 05:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep votes  
Keep
  1. Old Right
  2. Crevaner
  3. Rbsteffes
 Redirect Delete
  1. Tagishsimon
  2. Rick
  3. zoney
  4. Bobdoe
  5. Livajo
  6. SpaceMonkey
  7. Antandrus
  8. Quadell
  9. Dunc_Harris
  10. Crimmer
  11. Timbo
  12. Geogre
  13. User:Binadot
  14. Dpbsmith
  15. Gamaliel
  16. Yath
  17. ColinHunt
  18. KeithTyler
  19. DS
  20. Wile E. Heresiarch
  21. Gwalla
  22. Lacrimosus
  23. Kizor
  24. Average Earthman
  25. Ambi
  26. Fire Star
  27. Texture
  28. Lankiveil
  29. –Andre (talk)
  30. tregoweth
  31. CunningLinguist-CunningLinguist 02:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 Abstain or Ambiguous vote
  1. Quadell

This partisan page should be deleted and any useful content merged into John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 --Tagishsimon

  • Impossibly POV, selective quoting, cannot stand. RickK 19:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • I, obviously, disagree. The content is NPOV and provides a place to inform about a current phenomena regarding the accuracy of claims in the media about John Kerry's stance on issues. It doesn't belong directly on campaign pages because it is not directly about his campaign. I felt is also too lengthy to be included directly on John Kerry. Many of these claims are dubious at best, and some are provably untrue. I thought it would be a good place to contain both the claims as well as responses and factual analysis Rbsteffes 19:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • If (some of) the claims are "dubious" and "provably untrue", then they are not John Kerry flipflops, but partizan neocon bullshit, in which case the page should be renamed partizan neocon bullshit. You cannot have it both ways. --Tagishsimon
      • Nonsense, the claims are still in the media, and people still look for information about them. You are telling me it's ridiculous POV to provide information that a claim being made about a person is false? Rbsteffes 19:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ridiculously POV. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 19:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I doubt that the POV can be removed from this article. -- Bobdoe 20:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Irreparably POV. Livajo 20:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some of it may be factual information, but everything is out of context. This is partisan politics, an opinion. Just as we don't want one on Bush's Lies and Spin--SpaceMonkey 20:19, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Pee-Ohh-Vee. Delete. What's next, List of Drugs George Bush Took While AWOL?? Antandrus 20:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quadell (talk) 20:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. CR 21:05, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, after all. Although its unique format lends itself to some great differences between it and a print encyclopedia, partisan lies and spin that will fade as soon as the election is decided have no place in our fair Wikipedia. I'd also recommend deleting the links to this page in the appropriate John Kerry pages. Wikipedia does not have an agenda and neither should its contributors. Timbo 23:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete This is ridiculous. It is a misuse of Wikipedia, and I recommend an early deletion to avoid propagation to mirrors. Geogre 00:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Do I have to say why? Even if the title were changed, the page would be inherently biased. One may as well start a page devoted to evidence of George W Bush's stupidity (no matter what the title of the page is). Let's keep this on the John Kerry page, perhaps under its own heading. There's no need to make pages for talking points. Binadot
  • Delete. The title is virtually the current Republican campaign "message." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Go start your own GOPedia. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel Image:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 02:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Haha very astute Gamaliel :-) --Yath 06:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is a matter of opinion John Kerry flip flops. There's just as much evidence of flip flopping in Dick Cheney's voting record. This page is not factual.--ColinHunt 17:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP! It is factual and most definately needed. -- Old Right 16:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.
    1. The article title indicates that it is a list of particular events or topics. Those items should therefore meet the definition of the article title. If they cannot be verified as meeting the definition, they should not be included. Since the article admits that it cannot verify its content, the article is not encyclopedic.
    2. The term "flip-flop" is colloquial (and ambiguous) and does not belong as part of an article title.
    3. Furthermore, the term itself is denigratory in nature and therefore use of it is POV, making the article and its title both based in POV.
    4. The topic will attract large amounts of POV, and probably a revert war.
    5. Since the notion of a flip-flop is not well defined, and often a fundamentally POV determination, it is not possible to accurately include all items which would qualify for the article.
    6. Reiterate what I said in the VFD for Votes for deletion/List of left-wing organizations in the USA about POV as a defense for an article.
  • - KeithTyler 19:08, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. - I for one don't see any reason to delete the page! -- Crevaner 21:19, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. - POV, even the name is POV, uses quotes with ellipses to change the meaning, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and in general it's a poorly written beast anyway. –Andre (talk) 17:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Title change?

I can see how the title would seem POV, but I still say the information is good and should be findable regardless of your political views. Can someone suggest a less loaded title? Rbsteffes 19:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I like Articles which have been deleted. RickK 20:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • (O/T) Is there a VfD Comment Hall of Fame yet? - KeithTyler 17:58, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • You might consider making your own webpage chronicling these, and then link to it from John Kerry with the title "Criticisms of Kerry's statements" or somesuch. Quadell (talk) 20:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • No, the information is not good, and it is findable already in a number of places. Using Wikipedia to add credibility to this POV material is not what we're about. Timbo 23:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Not at all. Completely wrong. You want to write an article about Kerry's sandals, fine. You want to write how a person serving in the senate has votes on large bills with multiple points to them and how, later, you can select single points from each and make it a case for "indecision?" You want to write how someone can vote against a wasteful weapons system while voting for the same weapons when the money doesn't get wasted and get called "soft on defense" for that? Great. Have fun. Not here. Geogre 00:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Write a similar article about Bush and watch me vote to delete it, too. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:31, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

vote continues

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not campaign material for either side. DS 01:39, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: agenda promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently POV, partisan propaganda. I would vote the same way for "Lies told by the Bush administration". — Gwalla | Talk 04:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Absurdly POV, and of minimal utility. I can't believe anyone could think this a neutral resource. Lacrimosus 07:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What everyone said. -- Kizor 07:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV. I don't want articles titled George Bush's Reign of Error either. Average Earthman 08:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 09:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Alright, delete it. It would have helped if people were willing to actually contribute to add more detailed information, document quotes, in short, provide a source of unbiased information instead of assuming there was an agenda to trying to air the claims and document whether they have basis. Rbsteffes 16:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You still don't get it, do you? By labelling allegations as "John Kerry Flip Flops", you give legitimation to the allegation, specious though the allegation may be. All this talk about "air the claims and document whether they have basis" is, at best, charitably, so much bullshit, when sailing under such a title. You said on my talk page "I'm quite aware of how defensive bias works", when really you have signally failed to understand the uncurable flaw in the premise of this POV article. --Tagishsimon
      • John Kerry flip-flops could have a mention in one of the GW Bush pages as a theme used for attacking John Kerry. But ditch the rest, all taken out of context. --SpaceMonkey 19:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if the title were changed, the article is inherently biased. I know it is still early, but it looks like we have a strong consensus to delete... Fire Star 21:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • And there's the danger of getting Bush more votes. But the allegations do exist, so is the fact that Kerry's claimed to be a waffler covered by the other articles on him? -- Kizor 21:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • As per SpaceMonkey above, the tactic should be mentioned as one Bush's campaign uses in a legitimate article germane to that campaign. This discussion is for an article that has a fatally POV title, not even mentioning the content. I would vote the same for Cheney flip-flops. This discussion isn't about a different article, though, it is about deleting this POV one. My vote is unchanged. Fire Star 22:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - No way to make this article neutral - Tεxτurε 17:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless Kerry has a pair of sandals worthy of an article. —tregoweth 02:25, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Acceptance of speedy deletion?

I propose speedy deletion on the basis of overwhelming votes to delete and the fact that the authors have accepted this. Any support? Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • I'd support that. Speedy this sucker. -- [[User:Bobdoe|BobDoe]] 23:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I support speedy deletion. Fire Star 01:19, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support speedy deletion. Consensus is clear and there is some reason to be specially attentive to partisan POV in an election season. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:15, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Oppose speedy deletion. Changed my mind, Tεxτurε is right. No real harm in letting it sit there for a while with a VfD banner hanging on it, it's not as if anyone is going to forget to delete it. Go ahead, call me a flip-flopper, I can take it.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Boom. Heh heh heh. -- Kizor 13:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I do. This is, in fact, one of my paragons for why I'm proposing a new category of deletion, and I will list it there as an example. Geogre 17:40, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose - You cannot make an article a candidate for speedy deletion based on a vote. I can't find a reason to delete this early in Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion or Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Wait til the end of VfD and it will be deleted. - Tεxτurε 17:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Support speedy deletion. Some rules are meant to be broken. If we don't think it's appropriate for wikipedia, why should we leave it up when it will be most influential? Timbo 19:01, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) Fair enough. Delete normally, oppose speedy. Timbo 21:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I honestly don't think it makes much difference one way or another. I'd rather err in the direction of following process. It has a big bad VfD banner on it, and you could always add an NPOV notice on it, too. In fact I think I'll go do that now, if nobody has already. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Oppose speedy deletion. This might be a good candidate for Geogre's proposed Managed Delete process but we shouldn't try to change the rules on a speedy in the middle of the process. The VfD banner is sufficient for now. Rossami 05:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • (Anon comment:) Redirect to J-K flip-flop, of course.
    • No vote on article but this comment should be preserved in WP:-). Andris 21:11, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possibly could make a decent NPOV article concerning allegations that have been made, and any refutations/rebuttals, but in its current form, it is hopelessly NPOV. Lankiveil 05:40, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete NPOV.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.