Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine
AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article had just gone through an AfD that was closed on Sept 1: "Unanimous agreement that this doesn't belong in mainspace." Unfortunately, as it turned out, the closer was feeling generous and chose 'draftify' rather than plain 'delete' as the outcome. The article creator proceeded to quickly re-submit the article to AfC where, even more unfortunately it got through, as a lot of junk flies through there. G4 was declined on technical grounds since the AfD result was 'draftily' rather than 'delete'. So here we are again. Now, to substance. The page is still a manifest WP:NOTNEWS violation. Nothing really changed since the previous AfD in that regard. The "impeachment" itself was a widely viewed as a political stunt, flashing through the news for a few days and forgotten just as quickly. It is clear that these "articles of impeachment" won't ever even get a committee hearing, let alone a vote of any kind. Since the first AfD the article's creator User:Elijahandskip added a section 'Results' about a subsequently passed House Bill 272 that limits the public officials' powers to change the time and place of the elections. However, there is no mention at all in the source cited mentions nothing at all about this fine "impeachment" effort as having any impact on the passage of this bill, and the attempt to draw such an implication is a pure unadulterated WP:OR. Given how things went down with this page so far, I request that, if this AfD is closed as 'delete' that the title is salted, and that the closing statement specify that User:Elijahandskip must first request and obtain explicit consensus for recreation of this page at WP:DRV before posting it to mainspace again. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Looks like the article title had been moved since Sept 1 and the title is a little different now. Here is a link to the previous AfD: Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Mike DeWine. Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is the second AfD the nomination should reflect that fact with the correct templates. Lightburst (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree, but I am not sure how to proceed. I only realized that the title of the article changed slightly from the first AfD after Twinkle finished processing the AfD nomination and has created all the templates. I admit I'm not quite sure what to do now ... Nsk92 (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge Delete into the pages for the 4 state reps who brought this. There are three brief non-local sources that covered it over a period of a couple of days, but IMO it still falls on the wrong side of notability, and it's clearly not going to get any more coverage. I think where it's really of use is on their pages; this is about them, not about DeWine. I seriously am not even sure it needs to be linked to from DeWine's. It was just a silly political ploy by a few barely notable politicians. —valereee (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's already a significant amount of info about the "impeachment" effort in the articles of about all sponsors of this effort, John Becker (politician), Candice Keller, Nino Vitale, and Paul Zeltwanger. There's already more than enough info about it there and no extra merging is needed. I would object strongly to any closing outcome for this AfD other than 'delete', given its prior hisory. Leaving the page in mainspace to wait for merging would leave the situation open to endless arguments, manipulation and delays. The page's creator, User:Elijahandskip has shown extraordinary persistence and tenacity in bringing this page back. It's not a good idea to tempt fate further here. Nsk92 (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, I was the one who updated those four articles. I was trying to be kind to the article creator, who I know worked hard on this, but given their vote below to redraftify, I'm starting to lose patience. Elijahandskip, I know you really thought this was an important article -- maybe it's even what brought you back to Wikipedia, and we do want you here. But this is just nowhere near as important as you thought it was. You've now moved it from draft too soon, nominated it at ITN, and we draftified a couple weeks ago to see if it would become important, you again recreated it from draft too quickly. Now you want us to draftify it again. If this becomes important -- if some book on Ohio politics mentions it -- you can refund. Changing my !vote to delete. —valereee (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I could do with a bit less editorializing in the nomination statement, and a bit more candor. Of the 12 expressed views in the first AfD, 5 were for draftification, and only 3 for deletion. A closer who closed that AfD as delete would have been swiftly overturned at DRV. Indeed it could not have been properly closed in any other way. The close was neither "generous" nor "unfortunate". None of which settles whether this now belongs in mainspace, of course. I am still considering that, but leaning towards keeping it there. I declined the G4 because it did not fit. G4 is for recreations of previously deleted content (deleted by discussion). This simply wasn't previously deleted. That isn't merely "technical" --- CSDs may only be used when they clearly fit the written criteria, if there is doubt, a discussion is needed. And here we are to discuss. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As the closer of the first AfD stated, "Unanimous agreement that this doesn't belong in mainspace." I believe that people who suggested draftification were in fact feeling generous and wanted to give the page's creator an opportunity to wait a few months to see if the topic might become notable then. I don't think anyone really envisioned the article being re-created just a couple of weeks later, in essentially the same form, with a flimsy extra 'Results' section trying to draw a purely WP:OR connection to the subject of the page. I don't have a problem with G4 being declined, but I do have a problem with the continued existence of this page in mainspace. Nsk92 (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment related too original deletion reason: Earlier it was stated that House Bill 272 has no connection to the impeachment articles.  Found this:  Elijahandskip (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. I admit, that is definitely something. Still it looks like at the most the impeachment effort was a very short term political manuever on the part of some ultra-conservative members of the Ohio House of Represenatives upset with the governor that could have helped dislodge and move a long some bills that were introduced earlier. It's more interesting than I thought but it's still not worthy of an article about the impeachment itself as that isn't going anywhere. Nsk92 (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd still argue that it's of only local interest. Even that article calls the whole thing inside baseball. It's just...meh. I live in Ohio. Other than this article I've barely heard about this. It might be something being discussed in American Government classes in Ohio high schools, but that's about it. If some textbook covers it in a few years we can refund. —valereee (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or Draftify {Creator's vote}. I honestly vote Keep as the articles of impeachment led to new laws (Some about the impeachment articles).  I do admit I moved it from the original draftify back to an article too quickly.  I should have added more about the connection before moving it back.  {See "Comment related too original deletion reason" above}.  Article Info Change is also an option.  Maybe changing the overall topic from focusing on the impeachment articles to focusing on the changes that happened.  {In general, the impeachment articles were a political stunt, but the articles (The contents of them) caused new laws which basically prevents an Ohio Governor from doing a "Mass shutdown" and other things that happened during the COVID issues.} Elijahandskip (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you think you can write that article, why not just write that article? But I have to say, if you move it to article space too fast, and we have to go through this again, it's going to be approaching disruptive editing. I'd highly recommend getting someone who has created multiple well-referenced articles to look it over first. —valereee (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mike DeWine-- The whole article can be summarised in three sentences. The target already has two. Remove the rest and add the third there. The alternative title, under which this article was first created, already redirects to the same article. BTW, "The article creator proceeded to quickly re-submit the article to AfC where, even more unfortunately it got through, as a lot of junk flies through there." Eloquent but untrue. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO, any redirect would be the same as the article during the first AFD. The point of the article now is how the impeachment articles were a political stunt that started a bunch of new laws.  Elijahandskip (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per G4. Content being draftified instead of completely deleted does not justify rapid recreation. This is just a couple idiot legislators whining like babies that they have to wear a mask and – gasp! – act with regard for other humans. Per Usedtobecool, this complaint can be summarized in a couple sentences, if at all. Title is not a likely search term. Reywas92Talk 03:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't be Speedy delete. G4 was declined on technical grounds since the AfD result was 'draftily' rather than 'delete'.  The AFD (second) reason even stated that.  Elijahandskip (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftification does not impose any particular time delay. Rather, it is intended for the text to remain in draft until the issues are fixed. If that can be done in a day or two, fine; if it takes months, also fine. The question here is whether the changes sufficed to fix the prior issues and demonstrate the notability of the topic, or not. If not, this does not currently belong in mainspace. If it is notable, then it does.and the G4 decline (by me) was not merely technical, it was declined because there was no previous AfD (or XfD) deletion, which is the basis of a G4 speedy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 *  Comment Just thinking that making the title ‘salted’ is slightly too far. I am going to begin working on that other article talked about above.  Possibly salting the title would prevent that.  Just a though, so maybe (if deleted) don’t salt title. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete As more time has passed this appears to have been a stunt. I thought so at the time but it was breaking news so I voted Draftify just in case it developed. It didn't. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 01:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mike DeWine. If it isn't on his page already, it deserves a sentence or two. In the case that that page is kept, rename to Impeachment effort against Mike DeWine or something similar. KidAd   talk  23:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I support a rename. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete this has not risen to the level of a notable event worth having a seperate article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt: Non-notable political stunt that will not be WP:LASTING.  // Timothy ::  talk  07:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I mean it did change history for Ohio Governors. As stated earlier, the articles are a political stunt, but 10 new bills came out of the 10 "fake articles of impeachment".  Basically, everything they were going to impeach him on is a NEW law.  An Ohio Governor can't do anything that happened back in March (With the shutdowns).  Elijahandskip (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not American but it looks like a shallow political stunt, with little lasting value and I don't see it as a search term as for most readers, its byzantine.   scope_creep Talk  11:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to list of dumb political stunts if we ever have such an awful thing. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment to majortiy of Delete votes:Most of you are using the reason that it was a "political stunt that had no lasting impact". I have stated multiple times (People don't seem to read or comment on the point much), but the articles of impeachment were a political stunt, HOWEVER, the Ohio Congress passed new laws that were not considered before they "political stunt".  An Ohio Governor no longer can do a shutdown {Like what happened with the March Covid Shutdown}.  If you think about it, the article needs to be retuned to point that fact out, instead of being a article about the "Impeachment articles". Elijahandskip (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2020 (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.