Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy (2nd nomination)


 * 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 No consensus to delete; possible merge to Air America Radio - please discuss on talk page. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:43Z 

Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy

 * The first nomination is here. Mathmo Talk 11:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * DELETE - No longer notable, also it is well covered in the Air America Radio, and Gloria Wise articles. Nearly all the sources on this page are extremely biased (right wing newspapers and blogs), and a quick Google reveals that very few unbised and factual sources can be found for this story. Now that this issue is past, a summary on the AAR page is warranted, but not a seperate article. I realize that this links to a lot of pages, but that is due to a "related articles" link in the Air America template. In October of 05, some reasons to keep were that it was "a subject that it seems a few people want to discuss" Now we know it is basically a deflated conspiracy theory and it is simply not much of an issue anymore. nut-meg 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be satisfied with a MERGE, as long as reliable and unbiased sources can be found and the information is clearly written and cited.nut-meg 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep We know that Bigfoot is a hoax, but it's a Zeitgiest thing - an issue which somebody may wish to know the history of, even if it's all resolved. If it were drastically rewritten, it might fit in either Air America Radio or Gloria Wise - but as it stands, it's relatively chunky and would probably read like a tangent. --Action Jackson IV 08:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, purely because the nominator seems to have a major misunderstanding of WP:NOTABLE. As shown by the first words in the nomination of: "No longer notable". Notability doesn't change according to WP:NOTABLE. Mathmo Talk 11:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read the rest of the nomination. Do we have to have a seperate article for every hyped up "controversy"? The initial reason to keep it was "people want to discuss". Is wikipedia a blog? I thought it was an encyclopedia. Plus there are few reliable and unbiased sources cited. Factual information is hard to come by on this.nut-meg 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Notability" doesn't disappear, and it was never a conspiracy theory to begin with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a conspiracy, a conspiracy theorynut-meg 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ...as I said...? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I read it wrong, I thought you said it was never a conspiracy. My bad. But it was a conspiracy theory on these right wing blogs. They had it all the way down to Al Franken personally taking money from poor little kids. Quite ridiculousnut-meg 04:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As others have already mentioned, notability doesn't "disappear" when the subject falls off the news or blog radars. Also, a separate article can do better justice in covering the subject then a very brief summary in another article. This article, however, can use some cleanup and organization. --Farix (Talk) 12:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can find some reliable and unbiased sources, fine. There aren't any cited here. nut-meg 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The standard is simply reliable, and the sources — NY Times, NY Post and NY Sun — referenced are reliable. --Farix (Talk) 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that a source can be both strongly biased and reliable.The Sun, maybe. The Post? Never. Its a propaganda rag. the Weekly World News of political journalism. nut-meg 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, the topic is notable. The scandal happened and there are numerous reliable sources noted in the article to verify that it did happen.  Also, the references to the scandal in the main Air America Radio article have been all but completely removed.  There is just a sentence or two to this situation still mentioned in the original AAR parent article and there is NO link remaining to this child article about the scandal.--Getaway 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * New York Sun, New York Post, Radio Equalizer, and Michelle Malkin are all extremely biased and unreliable sources. The rest are dead links. nut-meg 16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * New York Sun and New York Post ARE reliable sources. Also, the New York Times and the Washington Post are there. And not ALL of the rest are dead.--Getaway 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Sun is an extremely right wing biased paper. The Post is too, and worse, it is basically little more than a laughable tabloid. nut-meg 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Getaway, I am very concerned that we would be creating an article, as you argue, because editors in another article do not permit that material. What dispute resolution processes have been tried? --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dhartung, Im not sure what he's talking about, because until recently I don't believe I have edited the Air America article at all. But I had initially pared down the section on Gloria Wise in the Air America artlcle, as it had terrible NPOV problems and a lot of false or misleading information. If the decision is to merge, then any notable and reliable details should be added back into the Air America article. nut-meg 06:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge this POV fork back into Air America Radio and resolve WP:NPOV issues through normal channels. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Air America Radio article after boiling it down to a few well referenced points. This is too much writing about a legal squabble over an $800,000 loan. A big law firm will have a number of cases at any instant which are far bigger than this and just as non-encyclopedic. Most of the references are to partisan newspapers only a cut above the National Enquirer. The one reliable source, the New York Times, just says Franken talked about the matter. As for a notable subject not being able to become non-notable, a better analysis is that it was never really notable in the first place, with the application of 20-20 hindsight. Inkpaduta 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (or at most, merge per Dhartung and Inkpaduta above). It seems to me that if an article needs to include "incident" or "controversy" in its title, odds are that article usually cannot stand on its own and is better off included in the parent article. A succinct summary in the parent article does not have to mean that the sub-topic cannot be done "justice". This is not wikinews or similar. Only very rarely is it necessary to break-off a single event into a separate article. Agent 86 01:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Besides Notability being permanent, there is way too much subject-specific information here to be merged to the already-long Air America article. --Oakshade 08:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is a large part of that is from unreliable sources, and inaccurate. nut-meg 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. I did a read-through and it is heavily sourced.  --Oakshade 04:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My issue is that many of th sources are questionable at best. nut-meg 03:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this article. It remains relevant, as the NY Attorney General's investigation is ongoing.
 * Also, it now in the news again. Al Franken has announced he is a candidate for U.S. Senate in Minnestoa and there are reporters that are already asking about the Gloria Wise/Air America loan transaction and Franken's connection to it.--Getaway 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is asking? A Google news search finds nothing much at all. Why? They know Franken had no connection to it. Credible journalists do not use political extremist blogs as sources.I don't think wikipedia should either nut-meg 08:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable and verifiable.  If a merge is useful, that can happen in due course with the maintenance tags, discussion and boldness. John Vandenberg 06:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.