Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100-Hour Plan

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The result was Speedy keep — reasons for nomination were invalid; nominator has withdrawn nomination; WP:SNOW. ➥the Epopt 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100-Hour Plan[edit]

While these are admiral goals, they are goals for the future nonetheless. WP:NOT#CBALL, and from there "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." While notable, these are goals of a political party, and thus not certain to take place. I would argue for either a Merge into a democratic party policy article or Delete KnightLago 22:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination, is now, or shortly will be a current event. So makes no sense to delete now. Keep. KnightLago 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nothing crystal-ball about it, this is verifiably the current policy of the Democratic Party, it is not some future event that may or may not take place. See also: Millennium Development Goals. Demiurge 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this may be the current policy, that doesn't mean it can't change tomorrow. KnightLago 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject of multiple independent news stories cited in article. NawlinWiki 23:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep because the nominator's reasons are invalid; this isn't a crystal-ball issue, it is a policy position that has become the subject of multiple eminent media sources. (A crystal ball article would be something like "Potential Platform of the Democratic Party in 2008") Tarinth 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again from WP:NOT#CBALL, "future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. And it continues "appropriate future topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics." Both examples are not even close to this article, and both are certain to take place. The events this article outlines are in no way certain to take place. There is too much room for change, the party could shift policy, it might lose a majority, or the president could veto. While these may be the current positions, they can, and will change. Thus the article is a crystal ball, unless merged, or changed. KnightLago 00:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Tarinth. This isn't a "future policy that will happen" article (wich would mean CBALL then) this is an "electoral promise" of the Democratic Party. Esurnir 01:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the author of this article, my position should be obvious. The 100-Hour Plan is the policy outline by which the Democratic Party is currently basing its political actions, and thus is notable. Similarly, given the Democrats' majority, it is almost certain to take place, per Wikipedia guidelines.

SwedishConqueror 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)User:SwedishConqueror[reply]

Delete Uh... Wikipedia isn't a news report archive. Are we going to start articles on every tactic, plan, strategy a politician thinks up that has its own catchphrase and gets press coverage? One of the functions of journalism is to facilitate/mediate political communication between politicians and the public. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a journalism channel. All we have so far is some announced policy promises in a short period - nothing of clear historic or practical significance Bwithh 01:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - the article is specifically couched as being a stated plan of action for the Democratic party; there is nothing crystal ball about it. If they re-neg, the article can be edited to reflect such a fact, and the discussion surrounding it. Haemo 06:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (objections have ditched speedy), per Tarinth. Notable political program that was part of the fall campaign, similar to (or cognate with) the Contract with America, when the Republicans took over the House. Article needs a touch-up. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.