Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VoteToImpeach


 * 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   merge to Ramsey Clark. Consensus is that this organization is not notable independent of its founder, but many are reluctant to delete the content outright. After the merger it may be trimmed at the discretion of the target article's editors. Jusdafax's opinion is not taken into account per WP:AGF and WP:ATTP.  Sandstein  04:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

VoteToImpeach

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

Non-notable political website, sole reference is site itself Soxwon (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A link to this article appears in the Ramsey Clark article. I requested a redirect to this article for searches on "indictbushnow.org" which is a current campaign to indict President Bush for war crimes and violating the Constitution. I donated money to this cause, but had difficulty finding out who these people were.114.161.253.11 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to question Soxwon's motives for deletion, in light of the information on his user page stating: "I'm a right-wing capitalist, and for the most part conservative." Is this proposed deletion politically motivated?114.161.253.11 (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So the fact that I'm open about which way I lean makes my opinion questionable? Everyone on here is biased in some way, we all try to work to control it. So in answer to your question, no, it's not, and thanks for WP:AGF. Soxwon (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Soxwon is an interesting case; he asks for an assumption of good faith while asking for defacto censorship by deleting this article! This is like slapping someone, and then saying "you have to assume good faith" despite your acts! All the while, he proudly proclaims that he is "conservative" on his page.  Guess that explains his interest in removing this page, as well as some of his edits (in my opinion) over at Karl Rove. No doubt the article can be improved and updated, but deleting it removes historical fact from Wikipedia.  As a precedent-setting test case alone, this is important in the Wikipedia world.

To me, this deletion request is as clear-cut a case of agenda-driven editing as I have seen in nearly two years as an editor. Jusdafax (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jusdafax, I've asked you repeatedly to comment on content rather than contributor. What notability can you point to for this article to be kept? A single citation to itself is not grounds for notability and so your accusation of an agenda is empty. Soxwon (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When you edit with a clear agenda, your stated political position is relevant to the discussion. My statement stands. As to the issue of notability, a one minute search found the website's successor listed on Congressman Robert Wexler's MySpace page; Wexler asks readers to sign their petition to indict the former President and members of his administration. I've added it to the article as a reference. You may not like it, but it's a fact, it's notable, and you just want to censor it.  There are other places the notability has been established, perhaps you could work on improving the article?  Jusdafax (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you just cite a myspace page? That does NOT meet the requirement for WP:RS or WP:N. I did a couple of G-news searches and came up with nothing, so if you can find anything fine, use it. Soxwon (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's Congressman Wexler's own page. Not enough?  I've added former Attorney General Clark's own statement, with a reference.  No good?  How about that well-known conservative magazine and website The Weekly Standard? I found these two googling while on the phone. It took all of three minutes, which further contributes to my belief that you are only interested in censoring this notable, historical Wikipedia article to meet your agenda. If I'm wrong about you, sorry, but you continue to fail to avoid the appearance of agenda-driven editing.
 * Wexlers page simply shows it exists. So what? That's not the issue here. The issue is notability. A mention on a comgressmans page is not "significant coverage by multiple reliable sources", now is it? Get off your high horse. If you spent nearly as much time trying to meet the notability standards of WP:WEB as you did worrying about the user boxes of those who don't agree with you, I might take you more seriously. Right now, your total arguement comes off as a case of ILIKEIT and little more. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please stop leaving messages on my personal page. Here again, you come off as attempting to intimidate. You want to talk to me, do it openly. Jusdafax (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the violations of WP:CIVL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA, press releases and the like aren't considered indicators of notability per WP:WEB. As for the The Weekly Standard, it doesn't seem to be taking the site very seriously (hence the statement at the end: And they have Tchotchke! and later calling it an angry petition site) and is even bordering on sarcasm. I contacted you on your talkpage b/c you were making these accusations over multiple forums and contacting you there would be easier. I find the charges of "intimidation" and "censorship" laughable as well. Soxwon (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote you, "I did a couple of G-news searches and came up with nothing, so if you can find anything fine, use it." Sure looks like you didn't look very hard. Let the backpedaling and spin begin. This article documents a noted website run by a former U.S. Attorney General during a turbulent time in U.S. history, during which over a period of years it is claimed, rightly or wrongly, that over one million people signed a petition to impeach a sitting President.
 * Deleting would set an interesting precedent for Wikipedia. Nor do I think the new fallback position of 'merger', promoted as a 'compromise', is anything more than proclaimed right-wingers (see comments below) censoring Wikipedia. Jusdafax (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok first of all, Wikidemon's not a "self-proclaimed right-winger" and you're now outvoted and by two far more experienced editors. Secondly, let me rephrase, I did a g-news search and didn't see any WP:RS, nor have you presented any. Please stop! Soxwon (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not Wikidemon... My reference, of course, is to carrots, whose comments are telling. Now you're playing the "more experienced editor than you" card.  But of course, that's not intimidation.  Jusdafax (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. "Love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal"... and this article looks to me like nothing more than self-promotion of a fringe organization. Despite the article having been under the radar for 6 years. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - with Ramsey Clark. I found a couple passing mentions in major sources but none of them suggest any notability of the organization apart from its being a brainchild of Clark.  I don't think a small collection of passing mentions confers notability, but even if it did there is not enough reliable content to support even a start-class stand-alone article.  So best to merge it in with Clark's, without prejudice to whether the editors there see fit to keep it or remove it as a WP:WEIGHT matter.  It's probably worth a sentence there, which is about the length of the substantive part of this article (if you cut out all the redundancy and meta-discussion of sources now in the text) Wikidemon (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'd go with that, as long as the silly stuff (myspace, mocking Weekly Standard) was rmved. Soxwon (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like a sentence in the Clark article would be fair, and the current article could redirect to that one - as could the more current name of the organization. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - to Ramsey Clark. Per Wikidemon's reasoning. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep An agency ran by a former U.S. Attorney General is notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Agency" sounds like something official. This was a former AG grinding a political axe quite unsuccessfully. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Ramsey Clark per above. No evidence of independent notability, nor does the nominator's political stance have anything at all to do with whether this organization is notable. The   Seeker 4   Talk  16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and user:Baseball_Bugs. When you're reduced to citing a couple of fringe websites and someone's myspace page, something is deeply amiss. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:19, 4 September 2009 (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.