Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Chris Wallace interview of Bill Clinton


 * 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 Chris Wallace interview of Bill Clinton
This is an article about an interview. We generally do not have articles on press conferences, interviews, talk show appearances, and the like. Rather, important material from such events is added to the relevant articles either on substantive topics or on the participants. Any important new points that Clinton made should be merged into the relevant articles on those topics. If it is important that Clinton accuses Wallace of bias, that should be merged into the Wallace article. Derex 10:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete & merge anything important elsewhere, as nom. Derex 10:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This article originated only because, in the aftermath of the interview, some people were hot to debate the respective Clinton and Bush records on terrorism.  They kept trying to do so within the Chris Wallace article.  When the material was repeatedly removed from that article as being  off-topic, it ended up here.  By now, I think the furor has died down.  A separate article on one specific interview is pointless. JamesMLane t c 10:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge elsewhere. Its (marginal) notability will only decrease with time.  --Alcuin 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews and WP:NOT a debating forum. Barno 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. Merge any relevant information that isn't already in other articles jaco ♫ plane  13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It was a one time interview. It's notable because of what happened, but it certainly can be explained at Chris Wallace and Clinton articles. RobJ1981 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I concur, except I'd note that what should be explained in the Chris Wallace article is the material relating to Wallace's conduct and alleged bias.  The Wallace article isn't the place for rehashing the substance of U.S. anti-terrorism policy in the 1990s.  I mention this because I wouldn't want deletion to be read by the Clinton-bashers as a license to go back to trying to turn the Wallace article into an off-topic conservative hit job.  JamesMLane t c 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Response It's not rehashing policy, it's talking about Clinton's response to Wallace's question, which Clinton provided in the same breath that he accused Wallace of conducting a "conservative hit job." Gee, if Chris Wallace were here, what would he say in his defense? Juliandroms 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete an indicidual interview is not notable, unless it ends or starts a career, which this certainly did not.-- danntm T C 15:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. But a possible article of value would be "Famous Interviews" - in which this, and other interviews (such as Frost's interview of Nixon) could be listed and briefly discussed.PaulLev 16:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not significant by itself. Gazpacho 18:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --ASDFGHJKL 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete. Part of a disturbing trend of making articles about every "incident" briefly in the news instead of covering the event in the relevant preexisting articles. Gamaliel 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thank you Derex for failing to notify me of your request to delete this article. (I originated the article.) (1) In response to the comments above, there is no explicit attempt to "debate the respective Clinton and Bush records on terrorism" on my part. There was however, an attempt to discuss Clinton's response to the question that was provided part & parcel with Clinton's characterization of Wallace as a "Republican hit" man. Given that Clinton raised ire and accused Wallace of engaging in a "conservative hit job", whether or not Clinton was factually incorrect or evasive in answering the question is certainly relevant information for someone to know, if they want to know whether Chris Wallace is biased, or just doing his job. Otherwise, the report is just heresay. My opinion, so long as the discussion talks about what Clinton and Wallace actually said during the interview, which is the topic of the section in Wallace's biography, then it's fair for inclusion, on-topic and relevant.(2) I certainly did attempt to include this information "merged" with the article on Chris Wallace, but Derex and a few others repeatedly removed that material from the Wallace entry, claiming it was "off topic." Suffice it to say, certain people wish to characterize Wallace superficially as having committed a "conservative hit job" without any counterpoint or in depth discussion. Boogers.(3) Also note from the history, that it was Derex and not I who added completely extraneous material about Napolitan. I tried to delete it numerous times, but it was Derex who kept adding it in. (It's included in the wiki entry on Napolitan anyhow.) Juliandroms 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so let me get this straight. If we add this material to wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_clinton#Fox_News_Interview_with_Chris_Wallace, then you're all going to be quiet and stop complaining, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliandroms (talk • contribs) 06:07, 14 October 2006
 * Comment: No way. You just have to get off your fixation with this interview.  The interview is only one piece of "Clinton administration anti-terrorism actions", which in turn is only one piece of "Clinton administration", which in turn is only one piece of "Bill Clinton".  If the article on Bill Clinton tried to cover everything at the level of detail you want for this tiny piece, the article would be book-length.
 * What Wikipedia does instead is to use a hierarchical "daughter article" system. See generally Summary style.  For example, the Clinton bio article contains a reference to the Cole bombing, with a wikilink to the article USS Cole bombing.  The latter article includes a mention of the different POVs about the Clinton and Bush administration responses (or lack thereof) to the Cole bombing.  That section could be expanded with information from different sources, including but not limited to the Wallace interview.  Other parts of the interview, of course, related to other subjects.  The interview itself just wasn't such a significant event in Bill Clinton's life that it deserves that much space in his bio article.  By way of comparison, note that the current version of the Bill Clinton article gives much more attention to this fifteen-minute interview than to Clinton's own autobiography of several hundred pages.  The treatment of the interview in that article shouldn't be further expanded; it should be reduced substantially or eliminated.  JamesMLane t c 07:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight: Someone responds to Chris Wallace's question by criticizing him as a "conservative hit" man and that goes in his Wikipedia entry. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton can say whatever he wants, and Wikipedia is expected to parrot this at face value, with no contarty viewpoints to express. Does not adhere to an overal neutral policy, IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  66.80.234.11 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: I just looked at the text on the interview in the Chris Wallace article. It does present Brit Hume's critique of Clinton's claims.  For want of a better phrase: it reads pretty fair and balanced to me.  First, in the description of the interview. Next in the Media Matters (pro-Clinton) and Brit Hume (con-Clinton) paragraphs.PaulLev 05:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My response to the anon: No, you haven't gotten it straight. Whether Chris Wallace is biased is a subject that's about Chris Wallace, so it goes in the Chris Wallace article.  Whether Bill Clinton, when he was President, acted appropriately after the Cole bombing is not about Chris Wallace and does not go in the Chris Wallace article.  Where that subject is properly addressed, i.e. in the USS Cole bombing article, we should report all notable points of view.  That means we report what Clinton has said on the subject but we don't "parrot" it (if by that you mean that we assert the truth of one side of a contested issue).  We also report any notable criticisms of Clinton, though again without adopting them.  The same is true of the other aspects of the underlying disputes about the Clinton administration's and the Bush administration's respective responses to terrorism.  JamesMLane t c 05:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination, but open to the idea of a list of famous interviews. GChriss &lt;always listening&gt; &lt;c&gt; 16:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge transcript into Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks --Tbeatty 05:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - content more appropriate to Wikinews. Having an article seems like politicruft. -Kubigula (ave) 02:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. per above. This may have been an important news item, but I don't see this still being important 10 or 20 years from now. More likely than not, it'll be forgotten once November passes.  AuburnPilot Talk 00:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although I originally felt the interview was notable in itself to have a separate article devoted to the controversy, with the passage of time I now believe it would be better addressed in the Wallace article. This off-shoot article seems redundant.-Hal Raglan 00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is very heavy on the Fox News "side." There should be an article about this interview, but it should be based ONLY in facts about the interview itself, not about the ideas disputed within the interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.125.85 (talk • contribs)


 * 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.