Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Kennedy's driving record

this discussion was lost in the page duplication fixup here, so I am readding it &mdash;Stormie 01:11, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

KEEP as is. It is valid information just link to it from Edward Kennedy's listing. Vagrant 27 Jun 2004 Encyclopedic? POV? merge with Edward Kennedy? wtf? Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 20:21, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Encyclopedic? Yes, it's useful for anyone doing research on a variety of Ted Kennedy's subjects. Eg: Mary Jo Kopechne or Chappaquiddick Island. POV? The page has valid facts and circumstance surrounding them. Merge with Edward Kennedy? No, The article is rather large and is useful on it's own merit for related Kennedy subjects. The article itself came from the history of Edward Kennedy where it was deleted by user Andrewlevine without evidence of a discussion. I suppose the article should be moved in order to correct title capitalization "Ted Kennedy's driving record". Buster 21:06, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * delete or merge with Edward Kennedy. this doesnt deserve its own article. an encyclopedia is intended to summarize, not to spout out random facts. --Jiang 22:16, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Too big to merge. anthony (see warning)
 * I'd suggest to cut down the article (its overly descriptive, IMHO) and merge with Edward Kennedy &mdash;siro&chi;o 23:14, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge: The reason I say this is that the offenses amount to three in as many years. It fails significance as a NPOV fact.  Where it gains significance is in POV, because these driving offenses have been a long, long, long part of a political battle against the liberal senator.  It also features in conspiracy theories.  For facts and significance of the facts, do we have articles on GW Bush's driving record (DWI), or Bill Gates's driving record, or Bill Jenklo's driving record?  I.e. the significance of the facts isn't that enormous, as a driving record.  (Mary Jo Kopechne is significant, but that's already another article.) Geogre 23:45, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * You mention conspiracy theories, GW Bush and ask if we have articles about GWBs (DWI). Well all I can say is read GWBs bio he has Mike Moore's books and film spelled out and linked. So conspiracy theories is not an argument for deletion and there is mention of GWBs alcohol abuse. If partisan politics can be put away the article in question here is valid and should be either kept or at least merged. Buster 01:05, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * As you say, those things are mentioned in the main article for GWBush. My question was whether anyone would think an article entitled, "The misdemeanor offenses of George W. Bush" was NPOV?  As a separate article, "Driving record" of Ted Kennedy is significant only within conspiracy theories and partisan politics.  It's too insignificant otherwise (except perhaps to his auto insurance company). Geogre 02:31, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with Ted Kennedy. The article seems to be made to push a POV. WhisperToMe 01:35, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the info in some form or another, maybe merge; Edward Kennedy doesn't look too long. Everyking 01:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Definitely merge with Edward Kennedy. This is the kind of thing that belongs under a subheading in an article about a person.  We can't start this trend, or else we'll be opening the door to Hugh Grant's Solicitation Record and George Michael's Indecent Exposure Record.  blankfaze |  ?? | ??­ 03:47, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge the essentials with the main article on him. -- Viajero 10:33, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete. It's a POV attempt. I agree with Blankfaze above. Information may be useful, but just put it in the main article, without the POV expansions.
 * I can't stand the man. In his defense, someone has an axe to grind.  This is way too POV.  Merge details to main article, and remove the link in the Kopechne article. - Lucky 6.9 17:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge a summary of this information into Edward Kennedy or Chappaquiddick. We have no similar article about anyone else, and if one believed that senatorial driving records were in themselves encyclopedic, the article would continue up to the present instead of stopping at 1959. This article is not about his driving record, it is about his culpability for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne and only makes sense in that context. The source of the information is stated to be Leo Damore, ''Senatorial Privilege." The correct title of that book is "Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-up." I note that the article on Bill Janklow has a good account of his recent manslaughter conviction, but that we have no article on Bill Janklow's driving record. Dpbsmith 19:15, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge. I'm no Kennedy family fanboi, indeed the whole expectation that each family member "deserves" to hold an elective office as if they are some species of America "nobility" seems anti-democratic and sycophantic, but this article clearly has an ax to grind. I can be convinced that it should be kept only by seeing Ted Kennedy's Denunciation of the Tuskegee Experiment, Ted Kennedy's Protection of the Rights of American Labor and Ted Kennedy's Principled Stance Against John Ashcroft's Apologia for Torture. Until those articles pop-up, let's be rid of this one. -- orthogonal 01:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * [Vote moved from VfD by Jerzy(t) 04:22, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)]
 * Obvious POV. Info *might* be possible to put into one of the other articles.  Otherwise, delete.Hayford Peirce 01:34, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge into the Edward Kennedy article. Which, I might add, needs a bit of a cleanup. I don't know much about the incident, not being American, but this leaves me not much the wiser. Was he charged with leaving the scene of an accident or manslaughter? If the former, why does the article say "Although driving with an expired license was only a misdemeanor, it did provide the evidence of negligence needed to prove a manslaughter charge"? &mdash;Stormie 02:26, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * I would say delete and merge the material, not the text. Chappaquiddick certainly deserves mention in Ted Kennedy, but separate articles like this is just problematic. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 12:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into Chappaquiddick Island and redirect. This information is relevant, but only in the context of the Chappaquiddick incident. -- As a side note, there are separate descriptions of the incident in Edward Kennedy, Mary Jo Kopechne, and Chappaquiddick Island; probably some attempt could be made to merge these in one place, say Chappaquiddick Island. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Way too specific to be its own article, and I question what from this belongs in Chappaquiddick, or in Ted Kennedy's article for that matter, but not too much -- it reads like the section of the local paper listing all the vandalism and arrests in a small town, IMO. Should we have an article (or section of one) about George W. Bush's legal misadventures as a young man? I think not. BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 03:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)