Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bush Six


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The Bush Six

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

per WP:NOT, wp:npov, wp:blp. This amounts to an article covering a short-lived investigation that went nowhere, which repeats negative, highly controversial and potentially defamatory information about living persons. Ray Talk 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 18:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  --  Ray  Talk 18:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The wikipedia is not a hagiography.
 * BLP doesn't say that articles can't neutrally summarize WP:RS that say things about individuals that could be regarded as negative. It merely says those passages have to be well referenced.  This article is properly referenced.
 * The last time I looked deletion wasn't the recommended first step for contributors who encountered what they regarded as biased material. The recommended first step is discussion.  A compromise could be reached during that discussion, or the person who penned the original passage might be convinced it actually was biased, or the person with the concern could be convinced it wasn't biased.
 * WRT "NOTNEWS"' I suggest the use of the term in academic papers, like the following, demonstrates it is not a short-lived term, invented by a hack journalist, and then forgotten. Geo Swan (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Geo, I'm not doubting the historical significance of efforts to invoke international law and universal jurisdiction against American officials. I'm doubting the significance of this particular investigation, which gave rise to "The Bush Six." This incident probably does deserve a mention in the context of "lawfare" and the legal issues attendant to the war on terrorism, but I don't think it merits a standalone article. The investigation, to put it mildly, is going nowhere, like most others of its stripe. Your sources address the general issue or the torture memo business, which is quite a bit more prominent - not the Bush Six case. Ray  Talk 22:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - extremely well sourced. --GRuban (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, it appears to me that notability is establish. If the point of view is an issue, editing the article to improve it seems the better path. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The grounds for my nomination had nothing to do with notability, and everything to do with not news. I acknowledge that the article is well sourced and received lots of news coverage. Ray  Talk 22:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep' thoroughly sourced, would appreciate nominator not wasting AFD's time in the future -- Kendrick7talk 07:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - extremely well-sourced, which WP:BLP requires, and does not give undue weight to the issues. Note that the public figure doctrine would preclude lawsuits for dignitary torts. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2010 (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.