Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of trips funded by Jack Abramoff


 * 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 Keep (interested editors may merge with Jack Abramoff). cholmes75 (chit chat) 06:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

List of trips funded by Jack Abramoff
This article contains content that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. The article on Jack Abramoff is already very long, and contains many, many subpages. Some of this information could be integrated to one of the other articles, but most of it is just indiscriminate information relating to the Abramoff scandal. Each Abramoff list also contains little if any references, which makes me think that it is original research.

Since this is a sensitive political topic, I know some editors will accuse me of nominating this with a political agenda or motivation. In order to dispel this idea, I will point out that while I have also nominated List of Jack Abramoff's tribal clients and List of Jack Abramoff-related organizations (and copied this description to each), I have not nominated Jack Abramoff timeline because I feel that is a better example of the kind of list that belongs on Wikipedia. Ultra-specific, unsourced lists related to already specific scandals and persons and their dealings do not belong on Wikipedia. Renesis (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, to me it is a bit of soapboxing... as are all the nominated articles. No offence to the originator, but the sourcing falls short of verifying the article text in many places.  Still, this might be useful information if it were actually sourced correctly.  I'm tagging the articles now while I think about this a bit more.--Isotope23 19:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep By itself I would say it would fall under WP:NOT, but it is part of a larger series of pages related to the scandal. The information is importaint (I guess, I haven't really followed the scandal), has a narrow focus, and arranged in a useful manner. It certainly needs to be cleaned up, sourced, and expanded, but not deleted. Koweja 22:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Koweja. Xtifr tälk 00:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect the WHOLE bunch to Jack Abramoff, or perhaps to some parent article specific to the scandal. As a stand-alone article, it doesn't hold up.  The information is good and useful, but it doesn't merit its own article. --Jayron32 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, --Ezeu 18:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect the WHOLE bunch to Jack Abramoff, or perhaps to some parent article specific to the scandal. CraigMonroe 18:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per Jayron32 and CraigMonroe. Bwithh 19:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable topic that may have implications both criminally and electorally. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: What does that have to do with Wikipedia? -- Renesis (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Jack Abramoff. The trips are not notable enough in themselves as part of the overall political scandal. Ohconfucius 04:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, as per Koweja. Riverbend 20:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep wikiworthy. If every single public high school is notable for wikipedia surely corruption involving the US government is too. Arbusto 00:12, 11 November 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.