Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:30, 3 September 2009

VoteToImpeach

VoteToImpeach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political website, sole reference is site itself Soxwon (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A link to this article appears in the Ramsey Clark article. I requested a redirect to this article for searches on "indictbushnow.org" which is a current campaign to indict President Bush for war crimes and violating the Constitution. I donated money to this cause, but had difficulty finding out who these people were.114.161.253.11 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to question Soxwon's motives for deletion, in light of the information on his user page stating: "I'm a right-wing capitalist, and for the most part conservative." Is this proposed deletion politically motivated?114.161.253.11 (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So the fact that I'm open about which way I lean makes my opinion questionable? Everyone on here is biased in some way, we all try to work to control it. So in answer to your question, no, it's not, and thanks for WP:AGF. Soxwon (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Soxwon is an interesting case; he asks for an assumption of good faith while asking for defacto censorship by deleting this article! This is like slapping someone, and then saying "you have to assume good faith" despite your acts! All the while, he proudly proclaims that he is "conservative" on his page. Guess that explains his interest in removing this page, as well as some of his edits (in my opinion) over at Karl Rove. No doubt the article can be improved and updated, but deleting it removes historical fact from Misplaced Pages. As a precedent-setting test case alone, this is important in the Misplaced Pages world.

To me, this deletion request is as clear-cut a case of agenda-driven editing as I have seen in nearly two years as an editor. Jusdafax (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I've asked you repeatedly to comment on content rather than contributor. What notability can you point to for this article to be kept? A single citation to itself is not grounds for notability and so your accusation of an agenda is empty. Soxwon (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

When you edit with a clear agenda, your stated political position is relevant to the discussion. My statement stands. As to the issue of notability, a one minute search found the website's successor listed on Congressman Robert Wexlers MySpace page; Wexler asks readers to sign their petition to indict the former President and members of his administration. I've added it to the article as a reference. You may not like it, but it's a fact, it's notable, and you just want to censor it. There are other places the notability has been established, perhaps you could work on improving the article? Jusdafax (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates