Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MD4Bush Incident


 * 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. - Philippe 23:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

MD4Bush Incident

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

With 175 unique Google hits, I'd say the fifteen minutes of transient notoriety are over. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability isn't temporary and WP:GOOGLEHITS. there are multiple sources covering the controversy including a news magazine of national scope (though I personally don't like it, that isn't important).  Also, the article could use serious help in cleaning up POV or apparent POV issues and in giving a better run-down of the incident and connections to other like incidents.  There is a good deal of general scholarly research on the changing boundaries of privacy and how public officials are reacting to that--this is one example.  Protonk (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikinews could certainly write a good article on this. But encyclopaedic (as in non-transient notability, rather than transient notoriety) does not seem to be established, and living individuals are involved. Wikipedia is not a tabloid aggregator, after all. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But these aren't tabloids. I understand that wikipedia isn't a newspaper, but it isn't fair to extend that to mean that events covered in newspapers can't be documented here.  I'll admit the article is not that well written and reads more like a timeline (heck, it IS a timeline) than anything else.  the tone isn't right.  But that doesn't mean that the source material doesn't support a more encyclopedic look.  The second washington post article makes motions in the right direction, talking about this as a new front in the political smear world.  There was a special counsel retained, subpoenas were sent out and news coverage continued months after the intial break (see second wp article). Protonk (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable from the news coverage. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, insufficient notability in my opinion. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of lasting impact. May I refer the "notable from the news coverage" voters to WP:N, which states: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability"? The short burst is over two years old, and nothing more has been heard of it since. Biruitorul (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First news coverage was Feb 05, and coverage continued sporadically until Nov. 05. Protonk (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, naturally the media was going to do a few follow-ups; that's their job when it comes to big or middling scandals. But it was still largely a short burst, short enough to render it trivial. Biruitorul (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete NOT notable.  Yahel  Guhan  01:21, 22 April 2008 (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.