Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting


 * 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 redirect to Hillary Clinton email controversy. Near unanimous consensus.Any interested editor can perform a selective merge(if needed). (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 04:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A single meeting of this sort doesn't merit its own article. I suppose it could be merged to something, but the meeting on its own doesn't meet a relevant notability standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   FITINDIA   14:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 *  REDIRECT  KEEP OPPOSE - to Hillary Clinton email controversy. Meeting highly notable in multiple RS. involves the DOJ emails that were turned over after FOIA lawsuit, that provide evidence of government collusion with MSM - I'd say that's highly notable. Atsme 📞📧 14:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC) changed to redirect, underlined relevant text, struck irrelevant text 00:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Atsme is the creator of this article. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect Serious undue weight given to a footnote of the Hillary Clinton email controversy. Condense mightily and redirect, merge, to that article. TheValeyard (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , it's not about Hillary Clinton emails. Your redirect is inappropriate. It's about Bill Clinton and Lynch meeting on the tarmac, and the email exchange between the Department of Justice and MSM - WaPo and NYTimes. Atsme 📞📧 02:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to - see my iVote change and explanation. I removed the passages that are not relevant to the proposed merge. 00:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I note the existence of Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia and Trump campaign–Russian meeting. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Extremely strong keep This event has received a massive amount of coverage over the past year from reliable sources, easily more than enough to establish notability:            and this is just from a short, cursory search. There is far, far more coverage out there than the handful of articles which I have linked here. CJK09 (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This reminds me of Donald Trump's handshakes. It's a POV fork created for the benefit of a particular US political viewpoint. Much though I feel for US voters who had to hold their noses and choose between those two ridiculous presidential candidates, we do need to rid our encyclopaedia of these politically-motivated so-called "articles".  If it's important then it belongs in Hillary Clinton email controversy and if it isn't then it needs deleting.  In neither case is this article justified.  Transwiki to Conservapedia if they want it, then delete.— S Marshall  T/C 22:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * redirect to Hillary Clinton email controversy. I edited the article to remove the worst of the POV language, quotes, and structure to see if there was a standalone article there but the article creator undid all that. However, even the version I ended up with is undue weight for such a small part of the email controversy. Although sources do exist, they are far from "massive". The meeting itself was pretty much a nonevent as For Mr. Clinton, who travels frequently by private jet, such airport socializing is common. There is no international coverage of the meeting, (as there was for Trump's handshakes) and there are no mainstream sources discussing the alleged coverup, which indicates that this subject should not be forked. If there actually was some coverup, an international mainstream reliable source would cover it. Transwiki it to Conservapaedia, or not, but this article should not be standalone on WP. Ca2james (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:N - The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Perhaps you forgot, the article itself is about collusion between the DOJ and the MSM. Do you expect them to incriminate themselves? It's under investigation, the same way the 20 minute Trump_campaign–Russian_meeting is under investigation, and has far less importance than the DOJ colluding with and writing the talking points they want MSM to report. You might want to read those emails. Atsme 📞📧 00:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme, "the 20 minute Trump_campaign–Russian_meeting"? While we know that the meeting occurred in the afternoon, at the same time that Donald Trump was in the building, I don't recall that we know the length of the meeting, whether it was an hour or several hours. Do you have some sources which mention that subject? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, they've removed alot of essential information from that article as with this one, information that our readers need. Anyway, there's a comment by Trump Jr. in the Purpose section "such a nothing... a wasted 20 minutes".'Atsme 📞📧 03:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah! Okay, a flippant and irritated denial type remark when questioned by Hannity. As a child I made that type of remark when caught redhanded. Childish naiveté thinks that self-deprecation will be taken seriously as meaning "less guilty". Adults know better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The only sources discussing alleged collusion are the ACLJ and some right-wing sources. This "story" hasn't been picked up by mainstream media and therefore isn't notable. It isn't enough that the ACLJ (run by Trump's lawyer) claims collusion; reliable sources and other mainstream media has to talk about them doing it. And that's not happening. The emails themselves are irrelevant because what matters is how reliable sources are interpreting them. Ca2james (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme, you attest to things such as "the article itself is about collusion between the DOJ and the MSM" and "the DOJ colluding with and writing the talking points they want MSM to report", which seems to indicate a point-of-view (and a fringe one at that) is driving the article, rather than WP:NPOV. TheValeyard (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I think you misunderstood. I was explaining that the article isn't about Clinton emails - the focus was going to be on the 400+ documents released by the DOJ under the FOIA. In those documents are a "flurry" of emails between DOJ OPA staffers and MSM. Bill Clinton boarding Lynch's private plane isn't the focus of this article, and neither is Hillary Clinton. The DOJ is not supposed to be political and they also aren't supposed to be writing/approving/reviewing articles for publication in WaPo or the Times. Investigative reporters are supposed to find out what's going on, not just accept and get approval of their articles from the DOJ before publication. It is clearly a stand alone article (if I can ever back to editing it without disruption) and it certainly does not belong merged with anything related to Hillary Clinton because that is not the focus. Perhaps changing the name of the article would do the trick. Atsme 📞📧 22:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect POV fork of the Clinton email controversy. Clear example of WP:NOTNEWS as well. A minor event that has no lasting notability. Rockypedia (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hillary Clinton email controversy. No need for standalone article, brief campaign hysteria notwithstanding. Neutralitytalk 01:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Hillary Clinton was not involved in the emails. Your redirects are inappropriate. You might to read the article before you request a redirect. It's about Bill Clinton and Lynch on the tarmac, not Hillary. Atsme 📞📧 02:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Er, are you feeling ok? You wrote the article, which is about the conspiracy theories surrounding the Clinton-Lynch meeting, the theory being that Bill exerted undue influence on Lynch to ease up on the Hillary e-mail scandal investigation. Whether we look at your somewhat biased version or the cleaned-up one, the gist of both versions is squarely and completely about Hillary's emails. TheValeyard (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme: Your snark is not only unhelpful, but inapt. The only reason why the meeting between Bill Clinton and the AG was at all noteworthy was because the DOJ was investigating the Clinton email controversy at the time. That and the accompanying hysteria/conspiracizing was the reason for the news coverage that this "tarmac meeting" got. Neutralitytalk 02:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't intended as snark. I created this article 2 days ago, and I was still in the process of expanding it when an editor who I have a not so pleasant history with decided to show up here and AfD it. We usually wait at least 5 days before we do anything to a new article at NPP. But I guess I've ruffled some feathers over at Taylor because they're having a bit of trouble understanding my proposal as it relates to WP:LABEL, and how easy it would be to make it compliant with a simple inline text attribution. So now my work here is under attack as evidenced by this diff. is that why you're here now, Neutrality, or is it just a coincidence? Glad your here! When I responded to you, I thought the original version of the article was still up there which explains what I'm talking about when I say it does not have anything to do with Clinton's emails. All of that essential information was removed, apparently in retaliation of the RfC I called at Taylor per the diff. Here is the version I was working on before the disruptive editors showed up and started reverting large blocks of text for no reason. See the section Emails and documents released by DOJ. There is a lot more information that needs to go into this article - I was actually working on it when the disruption began. Just stating facts, and it's hard to make disruptive events not sound snarky, especially considering the work I've put in it. Atsme 📞📧 03:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Hillary Clinton email controversy. This is a POV fork, and about 90% of the content is unencyclopedic. Lizzius (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested by many. This should be treated like any other orphan article. If it gets large in the parent article, then it can be spun out. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat ambivalent about whether or not it merits a standalone article: it seems to have had as much coverage as other US political semi-events that have been kept. However, if it is redirected, it should not go to the Hillary Clinton email page, because it's not about her or her emails. Instead, it could be merged to Loretta Lynch. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * comment- I went ahead and removed passages that don't belong if this article is merged with Clinton emails, and changed my iVote to Merge with Clinton emails. I now see why editors were getting confused about the focus of this article: the title was wrong. Since it was only a day or two old when it was nominated at AfD, and because there was so much disruptive editing and removal of large chunks of text, I was unable to stay focused long enough to maintain proper context and prevent conflating the two events. So here we are. Atsme 📞📧 00:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's starting to look like there is a consensus to merge. If that's the case, perhaps this AfD discussion can be closed early, and editors can move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2017 (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.