Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Clinton Chronicles: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:20, 24 October 2006 editNuclearUmpf (talk | contribs)3,904 edits →[]← Previous edit Revision as of 20:21, 24 October 2006 edit undoNBGPWS (talk | contribs)1,647 editsm →[]Next edit →
Line 36: Line 36:
::::*You have me utterly confused then. It seems you're saying that we should discount the remarks of _everyone_ because the nominator had no right (in your mind) to open a discussion, yet his supposedly bad faith comments _should_ be counted in that discussion which shouldn't exist because he's in bad faith? Again, as to me, I wish you'd stick to merits and quit discussing personalities. I'm not the least bit hostile or upset, though perhaps I would be entitled to given your remark above to me "I am not interested in your arguements". Now _that_ sounds a bit hostile. I nonetheless welcome any further responses by you to me, as I think a levelheaded discussion on the merits serves everyone. ] 20:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC) ::::*You have me utterly confused then. It seems you're saying that we should discount the remarks of _everyone_ because the nominator had no right (in your mind) to open a discussion, yet his supposedly bad faith comments _should_ be counted in that discussion which shouldn't exist because he's in bad faith? Again, as to me, I wish you'd stick to merits and quit discussing personalities. I'm not the least bit hostile or upset, though perhaps I would be entitled to given your remark above to me "I am not interested in your arguements". Now _that_ sounds a bit hostile. I nonetheless welcome any further responses by you to me, as I think a levelheaded discussion on the merits serves everyone. ] 20:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::*I think you should sit down and have some tea, your attempts to understand the deeper meaning in the world seems to be causing you trouble. Instead of attempting to interpret, simply understand this. You are arguing notability, I am arguing breach of policy/guideline, they are apples and oranges. I am saying we cannot argue notability without addressing the obvious policy/guideline violation. Good day. --]] 20:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC) :::::*I think you should sit down and have some tea, your attempts to understand the deeper meaning in the world seems to be causing you trouble. Instead of attempting to interpret, simply understand this. You are arguing notability, I am arguing breach of policy/guideline, they are apples and oranges. I am saying we cannot argue notability without addressing the obvious policy/guideline violation. Good day. --]] 20:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
::::: WOW! He told ME to have some tea too! Maybe he's a tea salesman trying to stir up business! ] 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::ODD! He told ME to have some tea too! Maybe he's a tea salesman trying to stir up business! ] 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


*'''Delete''' unless some evidence of notability is provided. I see no links to any mainstream news source for example. Having "heard of it" doesn't so much count here; I've heard of a lot of things that get deleted. There is Salon, but that's a little boutique magazine. Has this thing not been mentioned in any major newspaper even as a passing reference? If not, and that's not documented here, I don't see how it passes notability. Further, if there are no mainstream references, then how can we possibly satsify ] and ] without violating ]? At present it just isn't up to snuff. Open to changing my vote upon identification of some mainstream reliable sources. No problem with a merger per above comments, as its existence is at least verifiable. ] 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' unless some evidence of notability is provided. I see no links to any mainstream news source for example. Having "heard of it" doesn't so much count here; I've heard of a lot of things that get deleted. There is Salon, but that's a little boutique magazine. Has this thing not been mentioned in any major newspaper even as a passing reference? If not, and that's not documented here, I don't see how it passes notability. Further, if there are no mainstream references, then how can we possibly satsify ] and ] without violating ]? At present it just isn't up to snuff. Open to changing my vote upon identification of some mainstream reliable sources. No problem with a merger per above comments, as its existence is at least verifiable. ] 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:21, 24 October 2006

Clinton Chronicles

Non-notable video Non-notable Violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V Violates WP:BLP and more. NBGPWS 09:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please look at history of AfD nominations for similar Conspiratorial books at the Conspiracy Noticeboard for reasoning, precedent and stare decisis. Conspiracy Noticeboard NBGPWS 09:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE I do think it should be mentioned in the article on (and merged into) The Arkansas Project NBGPWS 09:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Did occur. Article is not strongly written, but doesn't detract from notability as smear tool. One of first viral-type videos (copied and shared amongst believers). Is part of American political heritage of the 90's. No sweeping it under the rug. If merged this will be whittled away by partisans and good faith editors alike. BusterD 11:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Arkansas Project, after editing for brevity and source checking. - Crockspot 14:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep 13,000 ghits and is clearly a significant item in the history of smear tactics. --BrownHairedGirl 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable video. No proof of wide viewership or major sales. Although I feel that this afd violates WP:POINT, I also feel that the article does not establish notability. --Strothra 14:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable video even if it's biased and wrong. Two mentions of the video on the "Clinton Body Count" Snopes page (which obviously means it's "featured at length"). Jinxmchue 15:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The nominator's past actions suggest that this nomination may be a violation of WP:POINT. NBGPWS has been trying to argue that a noticeboard for AfDs on my userspace - User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard - is a tool for votestacking by right-wing "malicious POV pushers". (See User talk:NBGPWS). Yesterday the nominator was blocked for 24hrs for repeatedly adding a homosexual sex position to User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Today, he added this AfD to the noticeboard with the following comment: "I added a new Afd that meets ALL the requirements of the goals here and also follows past precedent by this noble group of editors! I hope we can join together to fight this scourge!" (See . )GabrielF 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Please remember to AGF. Even yesterday's actions were in accordance with WP on user project pages, although I inadvertently violated 3RR, and POINT. (which was a judgement call anyway) Thanks. NBGPWS 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment From the noticeboard's history: "I suspect that these articles have been created to legitimize and promote this movement and I feel strongly that this undermines wikipedia's credibility and legitimacy and violates some of our most important principles." AGF. Thanks NBGPWS 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what your point is. "Fight this scourge" sounds to me like someone about to charge a horde of monsters or wage a battle, that is not appropriate for wikipedia. We are here to colaborate, not fight some epic battle. Your tone is confrontational. --NuclearZer0 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's you interpetation which I dismiss. The noticeboard now says: "These AfDs primarily targetted articles on subjects with little or no notability, which violated WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:Vand which were created (in my opinion) for the purpose of promoting people, ideas, and books rather than for furthering wikipedia's mission." This article 'fits the bill' and is why I posted the AfD to the group, and here. NBGPWS 17:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanky ou for clarifying, however after your past antics, I cannot assume you added it there in good faith. The spirit of AGF is not to be blind, but to assume at first the person is making a good effort, after your last stunt that presumption is gone. That is why I stated what I did, I believe Gabriel makes a good point and I do not wish to see an article get deleted simply because you are bitter, as per your past comments on the group you now are claiming you are attempting to contribute to. I think the proof above has already been laid out so I will not be responding to you anymore, no point in making this AfD a mess. --NuclearZer0 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How about debating this one on the _merits_? I see absolutely no productive purpose whining about who made a nomination. People could easily make similar charges against every nom you make Zer0, and I'd tell them it's irrelevant too. Derex 19:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not interested in your arguements either, considering you were also noted as reverting back to that WP:POINT violation. I have stated my case and unless you have something compeling, you may as well stop responding. --NuclearZer0 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You're not interested in arguing on the merits???? btw, I have made exactly one edit to that page ever, and the admin who gently noted it then apologized for failing AGF. If only everyone here had the class of that admin and the belief in AGF. Derex 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we blow that more out of proportion? I am not interested in discussing merits with someone who reverts without even checking what they are reverting, I am not sure you understand Misplaced Pages policy well enough to have such a debate with, if you just go around reverting pages during edit wars without checking the content, or so you claimed. There are lots of people who may want to entertain a debate with you over this topic, choose one of them. Considering my decision is based on the nominators actions being in violation of a policy/guideline, I really do not see how you are even debating me as you are going about this as if its a normal AfD. --NuclearZer0 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • NuclearDude, Calm down! You're gonna get in trouble if you keep on attacking other editors like this! You keep removing my NPA warnings from your user page too. Is that even allowed? NBGPWS 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Giggle, I almost got sucked into that one. Yes it is allowed feel free to ask at AN/I, they will explain to you that constantly putting back the templates is actually harrassment/vandalism. But thats an entirely different issue, you should address it there not here. --NuclearZer0 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Note I found this page through the noticeboard as I originally removed the addition NBGPWS added because I knew it was yet another WP:POINT violation. However I am voting to make sure this violation doesnt cause an article to get deleted. --NuclearZer0 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, albiet I know that many of these editors, based on their edit histories, if there was an attack video againt Bush Jr. for example, they would actively support its deletion. Travb (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd heard of this well before I ever came here. It's a notable element among the fringe of Clinton-haters. (I dislike Clinton, but I was never extreme enough to buy into this video)--T. Anthony 18:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Question What makes this a "bad faith" nomination? And what on earth do the motives of the user have to do with merits of the AFD? I also think Travb has an insightful point about faith. Derex 19:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    Quite ironically you answered your own question, wouldnt it be just as ridiculous if we get a delete vote and remove an article because a nominator has a problem with his targeted audience of voters. Your lack of understanding in this matter is probably what causes you not to understand, but the nominator put this up for AfD then immeditatly spammed the noticeboard, one he previous spammed in violation of WP:POINT, noted by an admin, which was disruptive, also noted. The user puts this up for AfD then spams the noticeboard in question to once again prove some political point. I doubt you would change your mind because you are simply pleading ignorant and know quite well of the situation since you actually were warned about reverting back to that WP:POINT violation. ] --NuclearZer0 19:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The closing admin may wish to discount nom's vote if he suspect that vote is not in good faith, though I see no evidence of that. However, there is no reason to discount the AFD itself. I certainly am not ignorant of that history, and have never said that. I am not aware that having a disagreement with Zer0 forfeits the right of a user to list something at AFD. By the same token, should your right to nominate here be forfeited because you have disagreed with the nom? I think the merits should be quite a sufficient basis for the discussion without assaults on other users; don't you. Thank you. Derex 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Who said someone can't vote? I think you should calm down a bit. Also closing an AfD for WP:POINT is actually allowed, hence the need to point out the WP:POINT violation. Good day, I ask you stop responding to me as you seem hostile, unless of course you can calm down a bit. --NuclearZer0 19:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You have me utterly confused then. It seems you're saying that we should discount the remarks of _everyone_ because the nominator had no right (in your mind) to open a discussion, yet his supposedly bad faith comments _should_ be counted in that discussion which shouldn't exist because he's in bad faith? Again, as to me, I wish you'd stick to merits and quit discussing personalities. I'm not the least bit hostile or upset, though perhaps I would be entitled to given your remark above to me "I am not interested in your arguements". Now _that_ sounds a bit hostile. I nonetheless welcome any further responses by you to me, as I think a levelheaded discussion on the merits serves everyone. Derex 20:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you should sit down and have some tea, your attempts to understand the deeper meaning in the world seems to be causing you trouble. Instead of attempting to interpret, simply understand this. You are arguing notability, I am arguing breach of policy/guideline, they are apples and oranges. I am saying we cannot argue notability without addressing the obvious policy/guideline violation. Good day. --NuclearZer0 20:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
ODD! He told ME to have some tea too! Maybe he's a tea salesman trying to stir up business! NBGPWS 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some evidence of notability is provided. I see no links to any mainstream news source for example. Having "heard of it" doesn't so much count here; I've heard of a lot of things that get deleted. There is Salon, but that's a little boutique magazine. Has this thing not been mentioned in any major newspaper even as a passing reference? If not, and that's not documented here, I don't see how it passes notability. Further, if there are no mainstream references, then how can we possibly satsify WP:V and WP:RS without violating WP:OR? At present it just isn't up to snuff. Open to changing my vote upon identification of some mainstream reliable sources. No problem with a merger per above comments, as its existence is at least verifiable. Derex 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable though appalling bit of lies which has received sufficent media attention to warrant inclusion. Gamaliel 19:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Categories: