Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/VoteToImpeach: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:35, 3 September 2009 editSoxwon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,494 edits replied and those were really bugging me← Previous edit Revision as of 20:33, 3 September 2009 edit undoJusdafax (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers101,877 edits →VoteToImpeach: two more refs added to article to establish notability; Atty. Gen. Clark's statement re: his website and quote from conservative source 'The Weekly Standard'Next edit →
Line 8: Line 8:
:::I have to question ]'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?] (]) 14:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC) :::I have to question ]'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?] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 15:56, 3 September 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 ]. ] (]) 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 ]. 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. *'''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 ]. 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. ] (]) 18:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 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. ] (]) 18:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Line 14: Line 14:
:: '''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 ]'s 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? ] (]) 19:30, 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 ]'s 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? ] (]) 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Did you just cite a myspace page? That does NOT meet the requirement for ] or ]. I did a couple of G-news searches and came up with nothing, so if you can find anything fine, use it. ] (]) 19:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC) :::Did you just cite a myspace page? That does NOT meet the requirement for ] or ]. I did a couple of G-news searches and came up with nothing, so if you can find anything fine, use it. ] (]) 19:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::: It's Congressman Wexler's own page. Not enough? I've added former Attorney General Clark's own statement, with a reference. No good? How about that well-known conservative magazine and website ]? I found these two googling while on the phone. It took all of three minutes, '''which further contributes to my belief that you are only interested in censoring this notable, historical Misplaced Pages article to meet your agenda.''' If I'm wrong about you, sorry, but you continue to fail to avoid the appearance of agenda-driven editing.
:::: Also, please stop leaving messages on my personal page. Here again, you come off as attempting to intimidate. You want to talk to me, do it openly. ] (]) 20:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


*'''Delete'''. Fails ]. ] (]) 15:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC) *'''Delete'''. Fails ]. ] (]) 15:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:33, 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 Wexler's 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)
Did you just cite a myspace page? That does NOT meet the requirement for WP:RS or WP:N. I did a couple of G-news searches and came up with nothing, so if you can find anything fine, use it. Soxwon (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It's Congressman Wexler's own page. Not enough? I've added former Attorney General Clark's own statement, with a reference. No good? How about that well-known conservative magazine and website The Weekly Standard? I found these two googling while on the phone. It took all of three minutes, which further contributes to my belief that you are only interested in censoring this notable, historical Misplaced Pages article to meet your agenda. If I'm wrong about you, sorry, but you continue to fail to avoid the appearance of agenda-driven editing.
Also, please stop leaving messages on my personal page. Here again, you come off as attempting to intimidate. You want to talk to me, do it openly. Jusdafax (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


Categories: