Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019)


 * 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 no consensus. I'm not relisting because the nominator is a now indef-blocked sock. Any editor in good standing can renominate the article for deletion.  Sandstein  08:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I feel that it is too early to create an article about events that haven’t taken place yet. Just because the new House has promised to do more investigations doesn’t mean that they actually will - in todays government promises made aren’t always promises kept. PRODed for these reasons, de-PRODed by the author. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 14:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? Is what you are saying is that all Democrats in the House are liars who are too scared of Trump to do anything to hold him accountable? Letters to various government agencies asking for documents to be preserved for future subpoenas have already been sent out. The Chairs of most, if not ALL of the committees in question, have said they would issue these immediately after taking power many times. The assumption that they are all LYING is a fatuous one.

the original deletion requests said: "Personally I am of the opinion that it is a little premature to create a long list of events that are still several months away, if they even happen at all"

First, the word several means: more than two but not many. Is January several months away? No. In fact it is only 35 days away. Therefore adding a new article is timely, as much of what will happen in January has already started. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: altered the above message after  had replied to it. This makes it likely that Matthew's comment "that’s not what I am saying at all..." below may be misread as referring to the comment at the end of Arglebargle79's message. To avoid such possible misunderstanding, Matthew Wong's comment was an answer only to the first paragraph (from "You're kidding..." to "...a fatuous one". (Arglebargle79, changing a post after someone else has responded to it is almost always not a good idea. Instead, post a separate new message.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)  NOTE: I did not. There was a large section of my post that was removed by others and I was only putting it backArglebargle79 (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is your original edit]. Here you can see all the changes made by other editors between that one and your next edit. Nobody removed anything from your post. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No, that’s not what I am saying at all. It is clear that you are politically motivated here, and personally I hold strong beliefs here too, but I don’t want to let them interfere. While it is very possible and in fact very likely that the new House will investigate the President’s wrongdoings (or lack thereof), however because the Senate, White House, and Supreme Court are still controlled by Republicans, it is still too early to make a list of events that may happen (or even likely will happen) before they actually happen. Unfortunately, anything can change at the last minute and filibuster something, regardless of which party initiated. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 14:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Please don't put words into other editors' mouths. didn't say anything about anyone lying: there are many reasons why people don't in fact do what they said they intended to do other than that they are lying. As for the suggestion that people are "too scared of Trump to do anything to hold him accountable", Matthew didn't say anything that even remotely resembled that. You are likely to considerably reduce the likelihood that what you say in this discussion will be taken seriously by the administrator who closes the discussion if you are seen to be using straw man arguments against things you claim other editors said when anyone who reads their comments can see that they didn't say anything of the sort. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * actually, he did. He said that none of the subpoenas would be issued, and I quote:

"Just because the new House has promised to do more investigations doesn’t mean that they actually will - in todays government promises made aren’t always promises kept."

If the leadership, who at the moment, are preparing to issue subpoenas do not, and are repeatedly saying that they will do so less than two months prior to taking office, then they are lying. That is whats clearly being implied.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are taking me way out of context here. First of all, the last statement was me being ironic with the President’s latest campaign slogan, which is “Promises Made, Promises Kept”. Additionally, there are many instances in current politics where one group of people will want to do something and will actually attempt to do it (hence they aren’t outright lying), but some sort of red tape will ultimately prevent anything from being done, whether it be division among ones own party, filibusters from the opposing party, or otherwise stalling. — Matthew Wong (at PMA), 15:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does NOT recognize irony. Also, you clearly do not understand how the House of Representatives works. The Chairs of the various committees are extremely powerful and when it comes to investigations, and can pretty much do as they please. Filibusters from the opposing party does not happen in the House. The Rules Committee makes the rules for debate on the floor and the Chair makes the rules for the committee. The ranking members, nor other members of the minority cannot prevent anything the chair and the majority want to do. Had they been able to, the many Bengazi investigations would not have taken place.

The Democratic party, including those who oppose Pelosi, are all in favor of issuing subpoenas. What happens afterward is a completely different story. You will notice that I didn't mention anywhere in the article what the reaction by the administration would be or any possible lawsuits. It's a timeline. Those will be added when the time comes. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is not a timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019), nor in fact a timeline of anything. At present the content of the page consists virtually entirely of a list of people, not a timeline, and moreover that list is simply a duplication of a list in the article Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. There is no good reason for having a duplication of that list in the form of a second article, especially not in an article with a title which says it is something else. If and when investigations in 2019 are underway we can revisit this and consider whether having a "timeline" article is a good idea, but until that happens there is no basis for having this article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * First off, it's the THIRD article in the timeline. Secondly, the investigations of 2019 are currently underway and have been for two years or more. That's right. they're currently underway. So why isn't there a 2017 or 2018 article? Actually, there is. In fact there's a 2016 article and all three have the same list. There are at least a dozen articles on the Russia scandals.

So to repeat: The year is coming to an end. The investigations are ongoing and aren't going to abruptly disappear on December 31. We need an article for the new year because there's going to BE a new year. The articles in the timeline series should have a uniform look. That includes a list of characters at the top plus the other series elements. The listing of events beyond January the third aren't clear. There will be lawsuits over the subpoenas and a bunch of other things. It could be that Whittikar could shut down the investigation and Trump could pardon everybody. Hell, Trump could be like Napoleon III and declare himself king. Notice that THOSE conjectures aren't in the article. What is in the article is what is in the rest of the series and a mention that the New Congress will convene January the third and that the promised subpoenas will be issued. More will come later. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Could also be WP:CRYSTAL. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL Chetsford (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.  Whispering ( t ) 21:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep While I'd have waited a week or two, this article will most certainly be created. It wastes both Wikipedia and peoples' resources to delete then recreate.  X1\ (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Move to Draft until it has some unique content. No reason to destroy something that is 100% going to happen. We have all kimds of pages on 2019 sports events and upcoming elections. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, or move to draft for people who are happy to engage in political speculation. — JFG talk 12:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep 2019 is only 3 weeks away now, the 2018 investigations are still happening and will turn into 2019 investigations - and we are well aware of them in Australia, so they definitely get significant coverage! RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep 2019 is less than a MONTH away. It's NOT WP:CRYSTAL because of that. 2019 WILL happen and Meuller's office has stated things will go on into the new yeart. Plus the Democrats are in charge as of January, and as I've said before, even if the Republicans in House WANT to prevent any investigations by Adam Schiff or Jerald Nadler, they can't, and if they try, it will be reflected on the timeline. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2018 (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.