Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reid Smear Letter


 * 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The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn by nominator) and Rename Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy B1atv 14:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (Non admin closure)

Reid Smear Letter

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Only one dubious source. No external links. Title is POV. Maybe if it was more neutral there may be more justification for this article. Right now it comes across as an attack article. MrMurph101 02:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge, and rewrite. This is a valid story - the CNN coverage of it is here.  Not sure if it merits a separate article, and if it does, obviously it has to be renamed.  Obviously too the article requires a heavy rewrite for NPOV.  Wasted Time R 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning the notability of this but, like you, not sure if it warrants its own article. The way it's presented also seems to have WP:BLP issues even if the mainstream media refer to the letter this way. MrMurph101 03:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any legit org refer to it by this name. See storeis by CNN and by Fox News. Wasted Time R 03:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite. The fact that this hasn't received overwhelming news coverage by the mainstream media (sans Fox and Drudge) does not necessarily mean that its existence is irrelevant. It is, after all, connecting Congress, Rush Limbaugh, the Marines, eBay, and a $2.1 million payment.--WaltCip 04:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's getting a lot of attention now ... over 900 news articles on Google News. Wasted Time R 04:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And how many of those articles refer to it as the "Reid Smear Letter"? None on the first page, from what I can see.  If we keep this article, it needs to be renamed to something less POV and inflammatory.-Hal Raglan 06:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per WaltCip--Bedford 04:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per above. Needs some work, but is notable. - Rjd0060 05:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete...if only for its horrifically POV title. The only way to save this nonsense is to rename the article, scrub it of its contents and try to recreate the article in a NPOV manner.  As is, this is one of the most embarassingly bad articles on wikipedia.-Hal Raglan 06:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Title is very POV and drags this into attack page territory. Could probably be covered under either the Rush Limbaughor Reid's. I don't think the incident has enough long-term notability to be worth an article, but if it does it shouldn't be this one. Horrorshowj 07:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not noticable enough for its own article and the incident in question can be covered under either of the two principals involved. --Martin Wisse 10:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What justifies "noticeable"? A car bomb? A GOP senator being put on trial? A celebrity marriage?--WaltCip 15:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rewrite: I agree that it needs a new title and work, but the event is notable and likely deserves its own article. --Mike 10:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It definitely needs a better title, Reid-Limbaugh letter or Harry Reid-Rush Limbaugh letter or Harry Reid letter to Clear Channel or even Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy, but it's garnered quite a bit of press, so I'd say keep it. But definitely rename. --Ali&#39;i 16:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but the POV title must be changed. I prefer Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy, personally, because those are the principal individuals that coverage has focused on. (It was not a letter to Limbaugh from Reid.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite, and I agree with Dhartung about the letter being renamed Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy. I also agree that almost all of the article must be rewritten to be closer to NPOV.  I think that the topic is notciable enough to merit an article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freiberg (talk • contribs) 02:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Clearly WP:POV. WP:NOT. --Evb-wiki 15:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a note... not being neutral is not a valid delete reason. That can be fixed. --Ali&#39;i 12:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rewrite and Rename: Enough media references to make the letter notable but what's the transcript doing in there? Article should be severely trimmed.  --NeilN 16:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is noteworthy even here in Finland. Almost Anonymous 15:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above, and per the biographies of living persons/neutral point of view policies, I have (at least) temporarily moved the article to Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy. --Ali&#39;i 13:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * keep and endorse move - Notable and sourced. Will need to be watched for Media Matters spin, but I think it can be kept neutral. - Crockspot 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, currently we are having to deal more with Limbaughspin, but the point remains. --Ali&#39;i 20:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Withrdrawing This is obviously a keep and the original issues are being addressed while this afd has been going on including the changing of the article's title. MrMurph101 01:09, 23 October 2007 (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.