Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:02, 26 January 2021

Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

_{Delete or Merge}: Many Representatives throughout American history have introduced articles of impeachment, but this does not mean that they reach the level of a critical inquiry. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who proposed these articles, is a noted conspiracy theorist and introduced the articles just thirty hours after Joe Biden was inaugurated. It will not gather traction. This article should either be merged with hers, with Presidency of Joe Biden, or fully deleted. PickleG13 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- PickleG13, I overstruck your actual choices, above. I am sure you didn't mean them to be misleading, but you only get one non-vote. As nominator your nomination is your not-vote. Leaving an explicit opinion, in the body of the discussion, will confuse people trying to count the number of opinions for each choice. I suspect you meant to leave your opinion, when you opened the AFD, but didn't know how, and that is why you left an explicit not-vote directly following opening the AFD with no justification.] Geo Swan (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait For a few reasons. [1] as the article was created 10 minutes before an AFD with a total of 3 edits to the page. [2] the WikiProject of Current events was about to add a friendly notice to not consider the article for deletion for about 2 hours while RS create stories on it. I promise you that within 3 hours, there will be at least 12 RS that create stories on this. At the moment, there is only two RS with stories since it is so new. [3] Even if this doesn't go anywhere, it is still impeachment articles against a sitting US President. I would be ok for a rename if the articles go no where (Like expected). But honestly, this AFD was too quick. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Vote to Merge since there is no need for two articles over the exact same material. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip:Another wiki and twitter is not reliable sources. Anyone can put made up stuff on twitter. Person A for example can tweet something like, "This election was rigged by mail in voter fraud. " That can't be used to cite that there was election fraud. Only one source that was reliable I kept, the others I removed and replaced with the citation needed tag. Sorry for any inconvenience. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: The other wiki I understand, but per Donald Trump on social media and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way." In this case, the Representative is a verified account and proven that is her official account. Her twitter is a reliable source in this case and I am adding it back. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is unnecessary and likely to provoke controversy; it should be removed. R. J. Dockery (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going to be honest, Wikipedia crossed the "provoke controversy" line a long time ago. Articles like Trump–Raffensperger phone call & Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud (Aka no "Democratic reactions... article) might also be considered unnecessary. I know what you mean, but there is plenty of controversial articles on Wikipedia, so removing this would be a reason to challenge ones that were nominated as "keep". Elijahandskip (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Dockery there is an essay, WP:Arguments to avoid, that is so widely read, widely cited, many wikipedia contributors assume it is a policy. If you have never read it I invite you to read it now.

Your argument above is a classic example of the argument the essay calls WP:EASYTARGET.

So, please be more careful, in future, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Elijahandskip. Plus there are less than 500 people who can file an article of impeachment in a nation of 320 million people, and she is one of them. Censoring to avoid controversy is not a legitimate reason. Albertaont (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait~~ Thousands of bills, resolutions, etc. are introduced in Congress each year, and many of them are introduced with the knowledge that they have virtually no chance of passing. However, the likelihood that a bill will pass isn't what determines whether a topic is notable. There are now numerous reliable sources which are plenty to satisfy WP:GNG. That being said, I think we should wait a while on this because it remains to be seen whether there will be continued coverage of this event (WP:PERSISTENCE). If not, then another AFD could be discussed. ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 01:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that more time has passed and discussion has proceeded significantly, I am changing my vote to Move to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, because that seems like a more appropriate place to put the information. I think the effort is definitely notable per GNG, even if it is unlikely to go anywhere (efforts is the key word in "Efforts to impeach Joe Biden"). ―NK1406 ^{talk•contribs} 00:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. We have Efforts to impeach George W. Bush, we have Efforts to impeach Barack Obama, so we can have Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. This article may need to be cut down somewhat to avoid undue emphasis, but generally we have considered efforts to impeach U.S. presidents as notable. (At one point, the George W. Bush impeachment article, then titled Movement to impeach George W. Bush, was longer than Impeachment of Bill Clinton and the entire biography of Andrew Johnson combined.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Efforts to impeach Joe Biden has been created since this AfD began, I would be satisfied with a redirect or merge to that article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden per Metropolitan90. 71.190.95.161 (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic currently fails to meet notability requirements, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. In addition, the introduction of articles is not alone enough to raise to the level of "inquiry". In fact, the bill itself has not even been introduced yet. And when it is, it will be at the same level of notability as any other bill, unless and until it gets out of committee or gets significant media attention. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GPHemsley, what establishes whether a topic meets "notability requirements" is significant coverage in reliable sources, and this topic already meets that standard. Geo Swan (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Geo Swan: Does it, though? For Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, an inquiry does not exist, so how could it have significant coverage in reliable sources? Also, where are such citations? They're certainly not in the article. For Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, I'm not convinced there is enough material at this time to warrant its own article; that may change in the future, but for now I think it's too soon. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge : The article relies on one source for something that related to BLP. The BLP it relates to is also about a politician. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source, no inquiry has been (or, very very likely, will be) started. DemonDays64 (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- DemonDays64, contributors weighing in at an AFD are supposed to base their opinion on the notability of the article's underying topic, not on the current state of the article. This is deletion policy 101. There are clearly plenty of good RS. I recommend that if you ever weigh in at an AFD in future you conduct your own web search first, so you have an informed opinion on whether sources not cited in the current article are out there. Please be more careful in future. Geo Swan (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move~~ Merge into Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, per Metropolitan90 above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move~~ Redirect to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, per Metropolitan90. Ionmars10 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Funnily enough, exactly ten seconds before I added this !vote, a draft article of this name by BD2412 was moved to mainspace. Ionmars10 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I had to think it over. BD2412 T 02:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. I have promoted that draft to mainspace. BD2412 T 02:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden Quidster4040 (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete filings like this happen to most US presidents, and most are not filed by known conspiracy peddlers. This can be revisited later if it gets into committee. Gateman1997 (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both had articles of impeachment brought against them on the House floor that never went anywhere. Since right now this appears to be little more than a political exercise carried out by a fringe extremist, I think we should make sure to not give it any undue weight. Thus, I also oppose the idea of creating an "Efforts to impeach Joe Biden" article until the idea of impeaching Biden gains a respectable amount of support among the public at large like the idea of impeaching Bush did. Reattacollector (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I will note that there does not exist an article named Efforts to impeach Ronald Reagan. I think the movement of Efforts to impeach Joe Biden out of draft by BD2412 was premature; the majority of the article is simply a description of recent events. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 06:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There should definitely be an article on Efforts to impeach Ronald Reagan, as there certainly were efforts. The fact that an article about a past period has not yet been made is of no relevance to documenting the present. BD2412 T 07:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The question is not whether there were efforts; the question is whether the efforts were notable. But point taken. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 07:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No article on Reagan? That sounds like a mistake, to me. I just started a stub entitled Efforts to impeach Ronald Reagan. @Reattacollector, GPHemsley, and BD2412: Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @BD2412, Geo Swan, and Reattacollector: Not to take this discussion too far off course, but having looked into the "efforts" to impeach Reagan, it's not clear to me that they warrant their own article either: There were a total of 2 resolutions, in 2 different Congresses, with only 9 members of Congress between them, and neither went anywhere after being introduced. That sounds at most worthy of a mention on Presidency of Ronald Reagan. And if that's the case, then I don't think this single resolution with a single sponsor for the impeachment of Biden warrants its own article either. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden as this effort is dead on arrival. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. No inquiry will likely be started at all. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Revised my above !vote. The lead of the article now literally states that the subject of the article does not exist. There is no inquiry, so there is no reason to have a page about an inquiry. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Efforts to impeach Joe Biden It's political theater and has received to major coverage.Eccekevin (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's look at some other articles of impeachment that were filed and went nowhere, similar to MTG's stunt. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine closed "delete", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Mike DeWine closed "draftify", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine closed "delete", Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer closed "delete". I think we have a consensus on what to do with this sort of political theater. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note : There seems to be large amount of support over at the discussion of merging the contents of Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden into Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. No need for two articles on this topic. This is not an "inquiry"; it is a resolution by a conspiracy theorist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: The only thing that happenned is that one conspiracy-prone rep. filed a paper. It's not reasonable to add an article whenever that happens before seeing if the act has any minimal weight. If and when this will be given serious consideration there may be place for such an article. For any it looks like no more than a press release by the rep. herself. It has zero significance beyond that. This article should either be merged with Marjorie Taylor Greene or fully deleted. --Roypeled (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. There is no serious inquiry against POTUS 46. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or weak merge with Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. So far, the only effort (note: singular), is a meritless accusation by a representative and QAnon conspiracy theorist, and this is going nowhere. Proposed bills that go nowhere usually don't merit articles, and I don't think this is any different. I strongly doubt that giving this nonsense due weight merits even one article. It most certainly doesn't merit two articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. At this moment, the two articles discuss the same thing, and there isn't anything right now to suggest that these articles of impeachment are going to amount to anything more notable than, for example, the early attempts to impeach Donald Trump during his first couple of years. HunterAlexBrown (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already a paragraph about this stunt in Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, which is more than it deserves. Nothing to merge here. There is no, nor will there ever be, an "Impeachment inquiry" based on this nonsense as there precisely zero chance that there will be even a single committee hearing not to mention a floor vote based of Greene's filing. Nsk92 (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, there's no justification for creating controversial BLP-related articles on the basis that something may come to pass and there may be future sourcing about it. An impeachment inquiry is not the same as efforts to impeach. Jr8825 • Talk 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this and Efforts to Impeach Joe Biden, when most of the sourcing pre-dates Biden taking office, often by over a year, the thing is just not relevant. Wikipedia is not the news, and not everything that gets some passing news coverage is worth creating an article on. At least up until 5 years ago the view was you had to impeach someone for something they did while in office, so this is just way too soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point I see no reason for that page to be other than a redirect to Marjorie Taylor Greene.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Johnpacklambert, the wikipedia is not a hagiography. It is not our job to sanitize things, to present an image of America that is without warts. Yes, it must be embarrassing to be an American, today, with an embittered former President who was impeached twice, barely escaping being removed from office, because the clock ran out. I am not unsympathetic, but American contributors can't let their feelings influence their choices as to what topics to cover, or not cover. Geo Swan (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not embrassaed to be an American. I also see absolutely no way in which your comment here has an relevance to the subject at hand, or in any way explains how the article in question needs to exist and has any reason of being something other than a redirect to the article on the one person who has made an actual move in relation to the topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - User:Geo Swan, please don't be forum-posting here. Your comment is out of line, much more so than User:Johnpacklambert comment ("at least up until 5 years ago")--that comment was silly, but yours contains a personal attack as well. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly confused on why you want the Efforts to impeach Joe Biden removed also. This article I could understand, but the information is still relevant and highly notable to Wikipedia to mention. Having that article is actually better than this article in my opinion. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With articles like this the issue is not just notability. It is, is there enough there to form a seperate article. Things like this most naturally belong in the article on the person they effect, and so the bar is not plain notability, but enough substance to justify having an article seperate from the article on the person they apply to. In this case, at present is is not clear why we need anything more than a passing mention on the page of the member of the US house who drafted the articles. We also need a step away from POV-pushing language and invoking words like "fringe" to describe elected members of the United States congress and a move to more measured and balanced discussion. What is 100% clear though is that we need to stop treating publicity stunts as more than they are and when they are the lone actions of one person, leave them as a passing balanced note in a balanced biography of that person. This also leads me to observe our biographies of members of congress are ofen very sub-par.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
we need to stop treating publicity stunts as more than they are and when they are the lone actions of one person – WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTSCANDAL seem relevant here. Jr8825 • Talk 16:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, Clarification please. Above you suggest, as if it was naturally obvious that "Things like this most naturally belong in the article on the person they effect..."
  Um, so the natural obvious choice of redirect target, was that Joe Biden, or Marjorie Greene?
  Shouldn't we structure our articles so our readers can access the information we offer in the way that best serves their interests, not the way that reflects our interests? Your comment suggests that you have one person you think this impeachment is related to, and no reader could be interested in this impeachment attempt, if they weren't primarily interested in that person.
  Well, what about individuals studying impeachment, in general, who aren't really interested in either Joe Biden or Marjorie Greene? Aren't they best served if we keep Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, and have links to that article in Joe Biden and Marjorie Greene?
  If we stuffed coverage of Greene's January 2021 impeachment attempt into the Joe Biden article are you satisfied with sending readers of the Marjorie Greene article to a subsection of the Biden article? Or vice versa. Geo Swan (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Urgent delete This simply does not exist. No inquiry has been launched. This needs to be speedily deleted. SecretName101 (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SecretName101, As I noted, above, there is an essay, WP:Arguments to avoid, that is so widely read, widely cited, many wikipedia contributors assume it is a policy.

Your argument above is a classic example of the argument the essay calls WP:NOTBUILT.

So, please be more careful, in future, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: you are SEVERELY misinterperating that essay. I am arguing WP:Crystal Ball. That is a valid argument. You cannot write an article about things that neither exist nor are scheduled or planned to exist. For instance, I cannot write an article called "Presidency of Kamala Harris". It may happen someday, but is neither existant nor scheduled to happen. This is the same exact thing. SecretName101 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is usually established when reliable sources write about something in meaningful detail. Reliable sources write about unfinished things, in meaningful detail, all the time. We start articles about things, even though they aren't complete, or even are merely at the planning stage, all the time. We start new articles on project that aren't complete, based on their RS coverage, every day. Those articles are not lapses from CRYSTAL, so long as those who work on them are careful. If they describe the project as sure to be completed, in the wikipedia's voice, that is a lapse from CRYSTAL. Otherwise, no.

For instance, Chinese industrialists announced grand plans to build a canal, in Nicaragua, to compete with the Panama Canal. We have an article on it, even though it will probably never be built, because the plans triggered significant detailed RS coverage.

I don't see how deletion of this article is consistent with policy or precedent.

Why, exactly, did you describe its deletion as URGENT? Geo Swan (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: as you pointed out, NOTBUILT is an essay, not a policy or guideline. The point it's making is that editors should avoid arguments [that] make no use of policies or guidelines to substantiate claims of non-notability, the examples (about something being notable before it's finished) are nothing more than that, examples to illustrate the point in an essay. It's irrelevant here as various delete !votes are citing sections of WP:NOT (most evidently CRYSTAL), which is policy. Jr8825 • Talk 16:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: This is not "unbuilt". Unbuilt would apply to something like, say, the space elevator, something that has not been constructed, but has been conceptualized. This is simply an example of an article being written about a non-existent event. It's urgent because it should instead be a speedy deletion. You'd probably be all for a speedy delete if I wrote an article about another event that simply has not happened, and is not planned to happen, like, say, the "Assassination of Boris Johnson", wouldn't you? Because at that point we're writing fiction. This is just the same, there is no inquiry, an inquiry does not exist. None has even announced to be in the works. There is no inquiry, period. This is an article written about a non-existent event. SecretName101 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, wiki WP:Crystal Ball, it is a rule that "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable". There is ZERO verification that an inquiry will happen. GAME OVER.

And, by the way, side note. If an impeachment inquiry does ever get launched into Biden, it almost certainly will not come in the next two years from these proposed articles of impeachment (I'd eat my own hat if Nancy Pelosi said, "You know what. I went down the rabbit hole of the deep web last night, and I'm now on board with believing unmerited conspiracy theories about Joe Biden. Let's start an impeachment inquiry over this!") SecretName101 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName101 I stand by my assertion your opinion lapsed from the excellent advice at UNBUILT.
Yes, I'd call for deletion if you or anyone else started Assassination of Boris Johnson or Plots to assassinate Boris Johnson, because they lapsed from WP:HOAX. It would be a hoax because there are no reliable sources that anyone plotted that terrible act.
The underlying topic of this article is well documented, where your hoax wouldn't be.
Your repetition of your assertion it is URGENT is not an actual explanation as to why you consider it URGENT. Do you actually have reasoning to explain why it should be URGENT? Geo Swan (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jr8825, yes, some other contributors cited sections of WP:NOT. But SecretName101 didn't. He used an argument that lapsed from the advice of ATA, and I pointed that out.

You cited WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOTSCANDAL.

When is the last time you re-read NOTSCANDAL? It has five numbered points. So which of those five numbered points did you think applied here? I don't think ANY of those numbered points apply. _{You've got to actually read the wikidocuments you call upon.}

With regard to CRYSTAL, RS took Greene's efforts seriously enough to write about it. So the Efforts to impeach Joe Biden article, that cites those RS is not an instance of CRYSTAL. Geo Swan (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: actually, I always re-read policies before citing them because I'm an obsessive perfectionist. I think there's a strong case to be made that both points 3. Scandal Mongering (Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.) and 1. Advocacy/Propaganda (because covering an impeachment trial that doesn't exist is inherently UNDUE, so is therefore not an attempt to describe the topic from a NPOV) of NOTSCANDAL are applicable here. Secondly, because this AfD is about Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden (which is absolutely a case of CRYSTAL) I've purposefully avoided discussing the merits of Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. In fact, my original delete !vote explicitly points out they are different cases. While I'm happy to explain more fully my standpoint when other editors disagree with me, I don't find you accusatory comments about my competence helpful or relevant to the discussion. Jr8825 • Talk 14:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I overstruck the passage that seems to have bugged you. Since we have both re-read it, then we can both bring an informed arguments and counter-arguments. Point #1 and Point #3?

Marjorie Greene is a real Congressional Representative. She issued a real press release, and real newspapers and news channels had their smart political reporters comment on it. So, doesn't that make this a real thing that merits coverage on the wikipedia? Point #1 is a clause of WP:NOT, one of the wikipedia's policies, that bars using the wikipedia for Advocacy.

I think you and I, and everyone else here who really thought about it, agree to bar using the wikipedia for Advocacy.

The second sentence of point #1 says "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. "

Well, Greene's efforts are real, so they can be covered, so long as that coverage complies with NPOV. When an article covers a real phenomenon, that has been written about by RS, point #1 would require biased passages to be rewritten. It is simply not a justification to call for deletion.

You wrote: "...because covering an impeachment trial that doesn't exist is inherently UNDUE, so is therefore not an attempt to describe the topic from a NPOV. .." I think I know what UNDUE means. I don't know what "inherently UNDUE" means. In 2005 some POV-pushers tried to tell me that some topics were "inherently biased", and should not be covered, under any circumstances. It is my long held position that any topic, that is sufficiently well covered by good RS, can have a neutral unbiased article written about it.

Point #3's first sentence bars "Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping." Are you asserting Green's press release relies on gossip, etc? Okay, so if the article only linked to Greene's press releases point #3 would be a valid argument that WP:NOT justified deletion But this article uses other RS that comment on Greene's efforts. If our coverage of the valid RSS lapses from NPOV, then NOT requires rewriting some passages. Not deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: Where are there reliable sources for there being an impeachment inquiry? There are none. No impeachment inquiry exists, nor is one in the works. The article's title itself is arguably WP:HOAX. And again, you are severely misapplying that essay you keep bringing up. SecretName101 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Literally all the examples at NOTBUILT but one are about physical structures not being constructed. The exception is one example about an article being incomplete. These are not applicable to this deletion nomination in any sense. You are reaching, and way off-base with your interpretation of it here. Plus you ignore that my deletion argument was completely based on the wikipedia rule WP:NOTCRYSTAL. SecretName101 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: "RS took Greene's efforts seriously enough to write about it", again Greene's effort is NOT an impeachment inquiry. That is the whole point I am making. An inquiry is a specific proccess, which, in practice, needs to be initiated by either the Speaker or a majority vote of the House. It has not. No impeachment inquiry exists. This article is not justified AT ALL. Please pay attention to what I have been saying. SecretName101 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that frequent, but there are AFD where most people agree the article is about a notable topic, and should be kept - but that it requires a new name. We don't delete articles on notable topics because they have a bad name.

SecretName101, should I keep looking forward to your explanation as to why deletion is URGENTly required here? Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geo Swan: You already had my explanation, further proof you are not paying any attention to what I have written. And there already is an article on the subject of Greene's impeachment effort that is under an appropriate title (Efforts to impeach Joe Biden) that has ben mentioned countless times in this deletion discussion (you don't seem to be paying attention). So why would we keep a second article on the subject with a hoax title? SecretName101 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, 8,000-plus people viewed this yesterday. It is dangerous that they may either think Wikipedia gives voice to misinformation by having an article on a non-existent inquiry, or that they will believe Wikipedia, possibly walking away with the false perception that there is an impeachment inquiry against Biden, when there is not. I tried to fix this by changing the wording of the article to say that no impeachment inquiry has been initiated (how many people read this article before that happened, when it falsely said Marjory Greene had started an inquiry?). People can still easily misread what I changed it to, omitting the word not from their comprehension, which is dangerous. It does not make sense, and is arguably dangerous, for wikipedia to have an article about a non-existent inquiry. We need to purge false news quickly from this platform. SecretName101 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: Just to reiterate, you writing, "Your repetition of your assertion it is URGENT is not an actual explanation," tells me that you either ignored or simply did not read the explanation I gave, that it is urgent because this should instead be a speedy deletion, since no impeachment inquiry actually exists. SecretName101 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:NPOV. Until and unless there is substantial movement to impeach Biden that looks at least to carry a sizeable minority of House and Senate support, and coverage in multiple international sources, we should not have an article on this topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, not necessarily even then. If no inquiry has been launched, such an article is not needed, nor justified. Trump's second impeachment lacked an inquiry, for instance, thus no article for a second impeachment inquiry was created. SecretName101 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order - Ritchie333, doesn't WP:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete say NPOV isn't usually grounds to call for deletion? Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This topic matter may be covered in a fraction of a sentence on Impeachments of presidents of the United States. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 17:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this and Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. This protest movement will die in committee and never see the light of day of a floor vote. What briefly needs to be said about it at all can be mentioned at the filer's bio and at Impeachments of presidents of the United States#Joe Biden. ValarianB (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can Efforts to impeach Joe Biden be bundled into this AfD as well? ValarianB (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant at best with other articles, serious WP:CRYSTAL concerns, and a sufficiently awkward title that it's not a sufficiently plausible search term to be made into a redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As noted above, agree it should just be left in the Efforts to impeach Joe Biden page. It feels very WP:CRYSTAL at this point, it would be worth its own revisiting if it gets to the floor. FrogCrazy (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Major Comment If this is deleted, then I will begin questioning some integrity markers on Wikipedia. Second impeachment of Donald Trump started off almost being deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. People did vote to delete it while others voted to keep it. Going to quote from an editor who actually has commented on here: @SecretName101: who said "We don't typically wait for a "formal inquiry" to happen before we create an article about impeachment efforts." Honestly, in the last few months I have seen a lot of hypocrisy happening on Wikipedia. I know people can change minds, but at the same time, if there is a Efforts to impeach Donald Trump that includes information not related to his 2 impeachments, then an article titles Efforts to impeach Joe Biden that has information that is relevant to that title, then we should keep it. Wanting to put this for a discussion for editors who !voted delete & also wanting Secretname101's opinion. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if I understand you here Elijahandskip. The discussion here is about whether we should have the article Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden (IMO should be deleted - there is not yet an inquiry) in addition to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden which already talks to efforts (and IMO should stay as it is about efforts). From what I have seen, the impeachment articles current presented have not received widespread report and are not seen as likely to result in an impeachment inquiry being initiated, so there seems to me to be no value in the article we are voting on until something more substantial happens. I will admit I was not involved in the discussion on Second impeachment of Donald Trump, but I would have been equally opposed if it had no vote or realistic prospect of proceeding at the time of creation. Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood your meaning / the earlier context. FrogCrazy (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I understood the reason for this Afd. Below I started a section to get a vote to clarify what people mean when they vote. Honestly, a lot of the !vote deletes say to get rid of Efforts to impeach Joe Biden as well as this one. I know this Afd is for this article specifically and doesn't affect that article. However, I was pointing out parts to those editors (The ones commenting to delete both articles) about how it would be stupid to do that. I was also pointing out hypocrisy from an editor who voted to keep that article about Trump and delete this article about Biden just about the same time of creation (1 day). Elijahandskip (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understand now, thanks. I that case I agree re. retention of Efforts to impeach Joe Biden

FrogCrazy (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't typically wait for a "formal inquiry" to happen before we create an article about impeachment efforts. I stand by that, hence why I have not called for the deletion of the article Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. We do however, need to wait for an inquiry to be opened before we create an article about an inquiry. SecretName101 (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip: Would you mind giving an apology? Since it seems you were calling into question my integrity. SecretName101 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SecretName101: Yes, I do apologize for "questioning your integrity". I never did as I said people can change their mind. I am sorry for calling your a hypocrit though. I was mis-informed and though your "Urgent delete" comment included deleting Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. That was my bad. Sorry about that. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that implying someone is being hypocritical is questioning their integrity (hypocrites lack integrity). But apology accepted nonetheless. SecretName101 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. ~ HAL333 21:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources do not reflect that any such "inquiry" exists. Neutrality^talk 23:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden#What the !Votes mean - Discussion for a discussion related to this Afd. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, oppose merge As others has said, no official inquiry exists and only would exist when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces such inquiry which basically won't happen. Since no impeachment inquiry exists is not necessary to merge with Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE and the vast majority of above delete arguments. Waggie (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and also delete Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. At this point there is one singular, futile effort by one person. This should be on the Marjorie Taylor Greene article, not masquerading as multiple legitimate "efforts". Reywas92^Talk 06:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This can't be a snow delete, because there is substantial opposition to deletion. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking, and other than Albertaont's opposition, I only see merge and delete votes (excluding those that have retroactively revoked their previous votes). Anyone else opposed in this comment section has failed to explicitly state their opposition. SecretName101 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is different from delete. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 04:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a substantial difference. A "merge" still is supporting eliminating this article. There has been next to no straight opposition to eliminating this article. SecretName101 (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Literally the first sentence of the page: An impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, the 46th president of the United States, has not been initiated. Material should be on the efforts to impeach page at most. Nixinova T C 06:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden per Metropolitan90 and Elijahandskip respectively. There are WP articles for 'Efforts to impeach X' where X = every American president from Clinton through Trump. This impeachment inquiry against Biden (as well as any others should they occur) belong in an article with consistent naming conventions as for the other presidents. I don't know when the separate Impeachment of Donald Trump article was created, i.e. what the defining event was. If and when such an event occurs for Biden, I would recommend using that as guidance to determine whether a separate impeachment article for Biden should be created. (This could be generally applicable to future US presidents as well.)--FeralOink (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Merge: From my understanding about the several negative issues surrounding Joe Biden, it's reasonable idea to merge "Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden" into "Efforts to impeach Joe Biden" as it's the current situation and it would be the suitable subject for this case. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: This is pretty obvious. Why would we need two separate articles about what is essentially the same thing? Philosophy2 (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is a non-notable event. While there may have been some news/RS coverage of these efforts, I believe this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS (Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events (emphasis added)) - Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on everything that is newsworthy; there is Wikinews for that. I also oppose a merge on the grounds that I also believe that Efforts to impeach Joe Biden should be deleted (for the same NOTNEWS reasons); but I appreciate that this discussion isn't for that. Some editors above have also argued that because this may become a 'thing' in the future; we should wait or merge; but that would (imo) simply be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Seagull123 Φ 17:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No merge, no redirect, per JayJay and Ritchie333. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 18:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden because this whole attempted impeachment topic is one of a number of events that are being noted by reliable sources in the last few weeks of politics.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 23:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and WP:Contentfork. Efforts to impeach Joe Biden serves to cover relevant material just fine. Haleth (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying, 10,000 people have now seen this article about a non-existent inquiry. That is a problem. This should have been deleted far sooner. SecretName101 (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That is in part because it was linked from Portal:Current events/2021 January 21 (which is how I found it). I've gone ahead and removed that link. (I've also added Efforts to impeach Joe Biden for now, despite my disagreeing with its existence.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 19:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm shocked this article was added to the current events portal. @Elijahandskip: these edits were a serious misjudgement, bordering on advocacy. Please be more careful. Jr8825 • Talk 14:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --Enos733 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. There is no inquiry, and the effort will die a quick death just like the 2017 impeachment inquiry. Still, cataloging the unsubstantiated Qanon conspiracy theories against Biden is worthwhile --LaserLegs (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly suprised you called it "Qanon conspiracy theories" since the impeachment articles aren't theories but fact. Not saying information they state is fact, just saying the impeachment articles themselves is a fact about Joe Biden's Presidency. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is no "inquiry" and there will be no house investigation. The person bringing the articles to the floor is an avowed follower of QAnon so while yes there was an effort that died quickly it's factually inaccurate to say there is an investigation. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obvious POV fork to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. My very best wishes (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your delete is more of a merge. Correct? Elijahandskip (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would suggest to delete this page and merge content of page Efforts to impeach Joe Biden to page Marjorie Taylor Greene, more exactly to this section: Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Donald_Trump_and_Joe_Biden. This is the case when a fringe claim by a person belongs only to page of that person, i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene. My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no merge, no redirect. Given the current state of American politics, anyone becoming president will end up with an "Efforts to impeach X" article about them. But an impeachment inquiry represents a specific step by the House that has not come close to happening here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. Nothing more to say than what has been said above. — Bilorv (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears that in the meantime the page Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden has been converted to a redirect to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. It remains to be sorted out here if this redirect, together with its page history, should be left as is, or plain deleted. IMO, SecretName101 articulates a pretty strong argument above in favor of the latter option. Nsk92 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked BD2412 why he speedy merged this article without closing this discussion and explaining why it was speedy merged. Given that that they also voted in this AfD I believe the speedy merge was inappropriate, especially without letting the AfD finish. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this discussion clearly wasn't completed. @Elijahandskip and BD2412: Where was this other discussion that supposedly came to consensus? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a merge proposal taking place during this AfD at Talk:Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. A number of folks who contributed to this discussion, especially advocating for deletion, did not participate in that discussion and there were a number of !votes at the end of that merge proposal opposing the merge, so I'm not sure how that could be a WP:SNOW closure either. JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Efforts to impeach Joe Biden#Merger proposal. This discussion was closed (not by me) as "no consensus", which made the merger discussion the deciding issue. There was overwhelming consensus there. I don't see why this discussion was reopened.

To explain further, there is no "impeachment inquiry" in this case. There is an effort to start one. This discussion was closed as "no consensus", which left the nominated article in place. This is an absurd result, since it is clear that the vast majority of participants agree that there should not be an article at this title. BD2412 T 04:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the history here, I think there may have been vandalism involved and that the closure of the AfD was in bad faith. Which would make the closure of the merger discussion premature. @Tbhotch, Nsk92, Steve M, and Drmies: Is that your assessment? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no impeachment inquiry but I'm not sure how one can see that this AfD was closed, not by an administrator, as no consensus and immediately come to the conclusion that there was a consensus on the other talk page to merge. Especially without taking into consideration the number of people here who want the article deleted and oppose a merge. Also this discussion was reopened because Elijahandskip first closed it and has been very involved in this discussion. How do you not see a problem with that? JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that the discussion was closed as no consensus. I didn't go through the votes to insure that the closer was not involved in the discussion, as that would be a very unusual thing to happen. The other discussion was merely awaiting the closure of this one. There had been no new activity there for several days. BD2412 T 04:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, BD2412 got tripped up by the earlier sock's fake "no consensus" closure of this AfD. After that fake closure, BD2412 closed the merge discussion as "speedy merge". In the meantime, the sock had been blocked, this AfD semi-protected, and the sock's "no consensus" closure reversed. Then Elijahandskip NAC closed this AFD on the grounds that the merge discussion had been closed. Then I asked Elijahandskip to undo his closure of this AfD, which he has done. Then GPHemsley restored all the pages to their pre-merger close state, and I think we are where we should be, and the AfD can continue. Ultimately this damage was caused by the sock disruption, but the story shows that people need to be a bit more careful. Nsk92 (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JayJay: I closed during the confusion because the Afd article in question (When I closed it) did not exist. I wasn't at all a "problem" as I thought I was just closing an Afd that had been merged. As Nsk92 said, there was a sock-puppet problem that lead to it being merged before the afd really concluded. I joined near the end of the ordeal and saw afd closed with a no consensus and that the existing article was already merged and no longer existed. After that, I just did the afd closer. Sorry for any confusion I caused. Just thought I would be helping. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored all pages in question to their pre-closure state to avoid any confusion. I think the majority of this was a misunderstanding. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GPHemsley, for doing that and restoring all the pages to their pre-closure(s) state. I think we should now just let this AfD proceed and see how it plays out. Hopefully there will be no more sock disruption here with various unintended consequences. Nsk92 (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL --Kemalcan (talk) 13:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 148: / Line 148: @@
 *Just saying, 10,000 people have now seen this article about a '''non-existent''' inquiry. That is a problem. This should have been deleted far sooner. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 16:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 ** That is in part because it was linked from [[Portal:Current events/2021 January 21]] (which is how I found it). I've gone ahead and removed that link. (I've also added [[Efforts to impeach Joe Biden]] for now, despite my disagreeing with its existence.) &mdash;'''[[User:GPHemsley|Gordon P. Hemsley]]'''&rarr;<span style="font-size: larger;">[[User talk:GPHemsley|&#x2709;]]</span> 19:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
+::*'''Comment''' - I'm shocked this article was added to the current events portal. {{re|Elijahandskip}} [[Special:Diff/1001901789|these]] [[Special:Diff/1001911275|edits]] were a serious misjudgement, bordering on [[WP:ADVOCACY|advocacy]]. Please be more careful. [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]] 14:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. --[[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 17:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' or '''Merge''' into [[Efforts to impeach Joe Biden]]. There is no inquiry, and the effort will die a quick death just like the 2017 impeachment inquiry. Still, cataloging the unsubstantiated Qanon conspiracy theories against Biden is worthwhile --[[User:LaserLegs|LaserLegs]] ([[User talk:LaserLegs|talk]]) 23:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)