Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:34, 13 April 2006

Bush Crimes Commission

Delete - Not a formal Commission Aeon 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Propaganda -- Wikipedia is not a soap box Morton devonshire 19:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How does WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox apply? Might that not be better applied to[1]? Шизомби 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Propaganda Morton devonshire 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment How is it propaganda? Can't the article "report objectively" on this subject? Isn't this a POV issue, not an AFD one? Шизомби 01:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unless evidence of non-trivial national media coverage can be provided. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad hoc commissions aren't inherently notable unless non-trivial coverage is provided. --Mmx1 20:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[Keep per Ombudsman, media coverage, and lack of strong reason for deletion) or, failing that,] Merge and redirect to Not in Our Name I think. I'll look for coverage. Шизомби 20:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) An hour was devoted to testimony from the "commission" October 24, 2005 on Democracy Now [2] and it was briefly reported on again on January 11 2006[3]. I can add that to the article, but I'll look for some other references. Шизомби 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)) The conservative Cybercast News Service reported on it on January 11 also[4]. The New York Observer reported on it Jan 30.[5] I'm supposing blog coverage, websites, and newsletters doen't count even if they are apparently notable ones like Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Truthout and Revolution? Шизомби 22:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The fact that it's not a "formal commission" is immaterial, the question should be notability, and the article should be backed up with mainstream media coverage. Since there seems to be an article for the parent organization, it can go there unless notability is substanted with such references. I did find a Newsday article but I'd need to see more coverage before I could vote keep. Gamaliel 20:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep: A number of organizations collaborated to put the Bush Crimes Commission together. The high ranking officials and well known activists and organizations which participated evidence both great notability and the broad range of alleged crimes being scrutinized, a job which the lobbyist plagued US legislatures have been unable to perform. It is interesting that this sort of whitewashing is portrayed as propaganda, and this AfD proposed, on a week when the asleep-at-the-wheel media establishment is finally beginning to report on propaganda and ploys orchestrated by the Bush Administration, such as the intentional 'leak' of classified documents aimed at discrediting Valerie Plame's husband; the fact that the Administration had just received, claissified and shelved a report dismissing the possibility that two small trailers alleged to be WMD equipment, yet went ahead days later claiming to have found their justification for 'preemptive war'; and that the top GOP election official for New England has been shown to have communicated frequently with the White House during the vote fraud campaign in 2004 that secured another term in office for Bush, an outcome that was even more clearly the result of full press, across the board systemating undermining of the voting system, which produced obviously fabricated results in each of the last two presidential election cycles. This AfD is just a matter of gaming the system and an attempt to impose upon the Wiki the same propagandistic mindset that has corrupted mass media in the US. Ombudsman 21:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Has minimal relevance, but relevance none the less. not significant enough to stand alone as a wikipedia entry, but would make a perfect subtopic to other pages. Anthonymendoza 22:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if we must. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE Irrelevant and too obscure to deserve attention in an encyclopaedia. I'm heavily into politics, especially with this being an election year, and I've never heard of this. Although, I would agree that "not being a formal commission" is not a good enough reason to delete, there are plenty of other reasons. It's clearly trivial.--WilliamThweatt 22:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not a particular fan of Dubya, but this is nn political soapboxing IMHO.Bridesmill 00:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The introduction makes it clear that it isn't an official commission. I think this will at best be a footnote in history. However, it happened so I think we need to preserve it for the record. Bubba73 (talk), 00:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I don't think I had ever read this article before I was asked to vote on it (but I have heard of the subject). I read the article and the comments here before voting, but I don't feel very strongly about it one way or the other. Bubba73 (talk), 01:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , or merge as suggested above. Deli nk 00:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a SoapboxTCPWIKI 00:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Not in Our Name per above. I'll also to have put out the fact that I was asked to vote on this afd by User:Morton devonshire but can honestly say that this vote that I am making is my own decision and will ask the user not to contact me for afds (though from his previous edits he does seem like a well-intentioned and good wikipedian).--Jersey Devil 00:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until there is significant news coverage (one article in Newsday isn't enough; Newsday isn't even that big, only the tri-state area). I also agree with what Jersey Devil said.--Rory096 00:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep becaues I hate Bush and this makes him look bad. Also, its good info. HK30 00:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's not really a valid reason to keep. --Rory096 01:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the user's first edit was on April 12, 2006 [6]--Jersey Devil 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merecat 01:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable; no mainstream national/international coverage; not an "official" commission. --Mhking 02:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is this a joke? It is not a judicial, government or UN appointed commission, Mock Indictments, Mock Tribunal. I don't see how the case for deletion could be any stronger. Sure, it's a cute publicity stunt, but nothing more. Peter Grey 03:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a real non-governmental organization that people participate in. Has its own website, as well. Even though I voted for George Bush in the last election, I think it should be kept as it appears to be notable.--Primetime 03:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So a few Bush haters and terminated employees got together and complained...no surprise.--MONGO 03:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 *'''Delete''': Is this a joke?  ''It is not a judicial, government or UN appointed commission'', ''Mock Indictments'', ''Mock Tribunal''.  I don't see how the case for deletion could be any stronger.  Sure, it's a cute publicity stunt, but nothing more. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 03:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Keep.''' Appears to be a real non-governmental organization that people participate in. Has its own website, as well. Even though I voted for George Bush in the last election, I think it should be kept as it appears to be notable.--[[User:Primetime|Primetime]] 03:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' So a few Bush haters and terminated employees got together and complained...no surprise.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 03:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)