Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIA leak grand jury investigation


 * 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 of the debate was speedy keep. – ABCD✉ 05:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

CIA leak grand jury investigation
We already have plame affair, cheneygate, and now cia leak grand jury investigation. I recommend this article be deleted as per deletion policy. (Bjorn Tipling 21:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC))
 * The case for keeping: " Cheneygate " was a trashy fork that has been overwhelming (and properly) voted to be redirected merged -So its rather insincere to include "Cheneygate." Now all you have left is the " Plame affair " and the " CIA leak grand jury investigation ", which though are quite directly related, are nevertheless different things. This is a complete no-brainer  (hence the delete votes should reconsider) The "Plame affair" (aka "CIA leak scandal") is a term that refers to the political scandal and its origins going back almost three years. The "CIA leak investigation" (not "scandal") is about the proper and formal investigation which began only two years ago, and has been rather quiet until recent events. The CIA leak investigation is a formal aspect of the larger Plame affair. Keep. - St | eve  00:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. (Bjorn Tipling 21:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC))
 * Delete per nom. Bjelleklang -  talk 21:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We already have an article on Plame Affair. If it were to be kept, it should be renamed to Fitzgerald Inquiry. Capitalistroadster 23:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP - per reason stated above "case for keeping" -St|eve 00:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP! - I am going to defend this article. This is my first article. I started this article on Oct. 12 as a way to gather and organize information about the CIA leak grand jury investigation. About the people, places, and process of the investigation. Before I started it I contacted several people that had been editing Plame Affair. I also put a note on the discussion page that explained my reasons for starting the article. There were no negative comments. This article is different from Plame Affair, which has a lot of political content. This article is a very bare bones article with little narrative, and no long narrative. It is a collection of information about the Special Attorney, Deputy Attorney, the lawyers of record. It is about the laws, the lawyer, and the court. I have started a half a dozen articles that link to this page. And expanded about a half dozen more that link to this page. There has been no negative comments about this page. Also, there has been no POV in this article. I spent a great deal of time, over 20 hours, researching the attorneys and courts. I verified every fact including emailing a law firm to verify information. I have read the rules for deletion, and do not see why this page would qualify.--FloNight 00:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - This clearly should not be listed on AFD. The only question is whether the content of CIA leak grand jury investigation should be in its own article or whether it should be contained within Plame affair. Personally, I think it should remain in its own article, given the size of Plame affair already, but it would be nice if someone could make a section in there with an overview and a "Main article: CIA leak grand jury investigation" link. --Stormie 00:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep pretty obvious case for keep IMO. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep Plame affair is pretty huge already (#93 on Special:Long pages), and probably should be turned into a main article with the sections spun off into their own articles, not have more content merged into it. -- AJR | Talk 01:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep because a merge would be unwieldy. What is it in the deletion policy that says this should be deleted?  That I do not understand.  Yamaguchi先生 03:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see how this is a different matter than Plame affair. Can one of the people voting "Keep" explain the difference, because neither article seems to claim being a distinct matter from the other. Andrew Levine 03:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, the criminal investigation should have a separate article than the larger controversy. zen master T 04:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, the expanding CIA leak scandel has spilled over into serveral articles, which is only natural given the gravity and scope of the case and on-going investigation. This article is focused on the Grand Jury investigation, while other articles focus on specific persons of interest, legal matters, overview of the CIA Leak Case, Plame affair. None of the articles mentioned are duplicative, nor is this one. I see no good groups for deletion of this article. Calicocat 05:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments
Recommend speedy remove from AFD. Currently at 3 delete, 4 keep. Suggest remove when keeps double deletes. -St|eve 01:43, 31 October 2005 (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.