Wikipedia:Deletion review/Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008


 * The following discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was kept deleted and protected. - brenneman  {L} 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008
I nominate that this page be unprotected. There is no good reason to not re-create this page aside from the fact that it was created one time as a bogus article and used for WP:POINT. Whilst WP:POINT does forbid the creation of articles just to prove a point, the guidline is not intended to be used by admins to unfairly penalize one side of the political spectrum over another. If an editor has good sources to compose this article, he or she should be allowed to do so and then be afforded the same right to go through a contested AfD process, at least up until we have consensus on how to deal with these articles. BlueGoose 20:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorse deletion and protection For heavens' sake, this doesn't penalize one side of the political spectrum: Rationales for voting for Hillary in 2008 would be just as bad, and just as quickly deleted. Having Rationales for doing X and Rationales for not doing X is not NPOV, and is needless forking.  The solution is to merge arguments for and against X into the article X.  I've never checked Sen. Clinton's article, but I bet it has a criticism section.  There you are. Xoloz 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Undelete iff Bush article is kept on AfD. Otherwise keep deleted.  Grue   20:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Which Bush article? By the way, the entire content of this article was, Some advocates of not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008, point out that she's a mother fucking dyke on a motherfucking plane with some motherfucking snakes. So, er, endorse the motherfucking deletion. - ulayiti (talk)  21:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * endorse deletion as per Ulayiti. Thryduulf 21:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Block the creator for personal attacks and trolling. (And yes, that is a keep deleted.) Tito xd (?!? - help us) 22:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * WTF? Endorse deletion whatever happens to the Bush AfD, and slap the creator with a trout. --Doc ask?  22:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. Existence of one bad article does not imply existence of others is good. Also Wikipedia is not a soap box. This is an easy one. Stephen B Streater 22:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Restore and ban Doc and Titoxd for personal attacks. Brownman40 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of . -- Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing personal in attacking the creator of a WP:POINT violating article with a trout. Indeed, since I've not looked to see who created it, it can hardly be personal. All such people should be [very impersonally] so slapped. Gah! --Doc ask?  23:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse of course. Kudos to Brownman40 for what is either the best example of irony in this whole sorry mess or a superb example of missing the point by a margin unmeasurable without recourse to astronomical measurement units. Just zis Guy you know? 23:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion, but remove protection - For consistency's sake, I have to say "delete". But, also for consistency's sake, if "Rationales to impeach George W. Bush" survives its AfD (yet again), we must also allow this article to be re-created as long as it is equally sourced, NPOV, etc.--WilliamThweatt 23:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A couple of points
 * I endorse the deletion, but I'm requesting that that the protection is removed. I'm not condoning the article creator, but is permanent protection really necessary?
 * Let's bring some civility back to this discussion, please. BlueGoose 23:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse -- Cruft...need I say more. Voice -of- All T 02:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted and deleted any article entitled "Rationales for not voting for X". Gamaliel 02:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse speedy-deletion and endorse the blocking of the troll who created (and then re-created) the article. The protection does seem unnecessary though I must also admit that I can not see any possibility of Wikipedia ever having an allowable article under this title.  Rossami (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted and beat someone with a trout. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. As Xoloz notes above, this kind of article is POV and turns wikipedia into a soapbox.  Bucketsofg✐ 17:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How could this possibly not end up a POV fest? Delete any sort of article along these lines. Endorse deletion and Keep Deleted  + + Lar: t/c 17:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep deleted, I guess it is only typical that Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush has survived two AfD's and is now on its third run, such is the state of NPOV on WP. Perhaps the advocates against this one can put the same strong case against the other?--Kalsermar 18:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking only for myself, I voted to merge content on that the controversial Bush fork to Movement to Impeach George W. Bush. This is entirely consistent with my suggestion above that (had the Clinton fork in question contained anything worthwhile) the place for that content, critical of Sen. Clinton, is her article. I expect the Bush fork will be merged, and no double standard will exist.  Xoloz 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted Pegasus1138 Talk 19:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted - This whole thing was a WP:BEANS. -- Cyde Weys  19:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion - WP:POINT violation. This is nothing like Movement to Impeach George W. Bush. It does seem like some form of article about her potential candidacy may become possible, especially as we get closer to the election, but this was clearly created in bad faith. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on all points, but the POINT the creator was trying to make was the hypocrisy in keeping the Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush article, not the "Movement" article and although I don't condone the method or the content of the bogus article, I do agree with the point.--WilliamThweatt 03:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Endorse deletion, for obvious reasons. - Mailer Diablo 02:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion. We should avoid having "Rationales" articles of this nature on Wikipedia. Any rationales that are encyclopedic should be integrated into a broader topic to maintain NPOV. --Metropolitan90 02:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion. Wiki should not have soapbox articles.--Mmx1 03:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse. As my daughter is fond of saying, "get these motherfucking snakes off my plane." --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion, definitely get the motherfucking snakes off the motherfucking plane. Created obviously to make a WP:POINT --Deville (Talk) 03:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion; I can't improve on Mailer diablo's explanation, so I'll steal share it: for obvious reasons. Joe 03:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion per above. Ral315 (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion. Fatally POV subject matter. GarrettTalk 10:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse deletion, per above; I don't think this article should be on WP, just as I don't feel the Rationale to impeach article belongs on WP. What's good for one is good for the other. Politics doesn't enter into the decision at all as far as I'm concerned. Period. --Mhking 14:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Er... keep deleted for what it's worth, although I don't think the nominator was asking for an undeletion, only an unprotection. These deletedpage notices are removed after a few months anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong undelete per obvious majority to keep Movement to impeach George W. Bush. Keeping one and prohibiting the other is blatant POV. 1652186 19:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * comment are you rex? again....? You only have 2 or 3 contributions over the last, oh I don't know, in between having rex's welcome message on your talk page, and suddenly your account springs back to life? nice timing.. --172.156.202.208 23:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I beg your pardon? I've been a user for over six months, I have almost 400 edits, most of them in the last month, and all of a sudden you accuse me of being someone else? Like I decide who puts messages on my talk page. I know you left wingers have long toes, but please do some research before going around accusing people. 1652186 18:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep deleted, for the same erroneous logic used on the AfD which this nomination attempted to disrupt. Nomen Nescio 13:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an Archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.