Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JFK II: The Bush Connection


 * 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 14:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

JFK II: The Bush Connection
Co nomination with The Assassination of JFK JR: Murder by Manchurian Candidate. Fails Notability (films). Notability has been a discussed on its talk page for a while, with explainations for its high google hit. The JPS talk to me  14:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom ST47 15:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Note that I'm one of the folks who overhauled this article to make it somewhat more neutral, and I'm the one who started the debate over its notability. I'm happy to see it go away on the basis of non-notability, on the one hand. On the other hand, I'm concerned that someone's going to come along and write a new article in a few months, and chances are that it won't be nearly as neutral as what we have now (not that there aren't still flaws in the article, and perhaps even some I introduced). -Harmil 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If deleted I'll keep it on my watchlist, then if someone does recreate it it can be speedied as G4. The JPS talk to me  23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  TestPilot  00:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, some schoolteacher with a theory. By the way, anyone want to take a stab at cleaning up Zapata Corporation? Gazpacho 17:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Yikes! Violates WP:NOT.  Morton devonshire 06:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless independent reliable evidence of notability is provided. This doesn't appear to be anything except a self-published conspiracy theory. Gamaliel 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * keep: An apparently valid article, targeted for deletion simply because of its pov, should not be deleted simply on fabricated pretexts.  Ombudsman 18:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment: it should be noted that POV is not the primary reason for wanting this article deleted. The primary concern is that of notability. -Harmil 19:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. per lack of notability. -- Aude  ( talk   contribs ) 21:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Its evidence isn't backed by anything except itself.  Need independent sourcing, especially of the memo from 1963.  August 22 2006
 * Delete NN, Per nom. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A lot of work went into this, the movie is much more notable than a lot of other vanity rubbish we have as stubs. I suspect this article is being attacked (in a biased campaign for deletion against anti-bush topics) for the POV of the subject matter. PizzaMargherita 05:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Preposterous nonsense and cruft.--MONGO 06:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable. SkeenaR 09:25, 25 August 2006 (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.