Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation

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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discussion can continue on the article's talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation[edit]

[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)

This can be summed up as "There are a lot of racists and nutcases who filed vexatious suits in a vain effort to make a point. Judges and everyone with a few brain cells dismissed them." It is unclear why every one of these people should be memorialized on Wikipedia in such detail, and this is summarized and may be expanded on at Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Legislation_and_litigation Reywas92^Talk 23:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The fact that myriad RS have made this topic notable seems to be ignored here, making this a spurious AfD. -- Valjean (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At no point did I say there were not sources. However of the sources that there are, a significant number are primary sources of docket files and court motions, and the rest are disconnected news articles about individual frivolous suits. More than a third of the article is just cases brought by Orly Taitz, already covered on her article. The rest are excessive details of crazies bringing forward Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories – the primary notable topic! – which need not be listed in individual sections in such redundancy. Reywas92^Talk 04:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you fricking kidding with this nomination? I could see an argument for a technical merge with articles about the conspiracy theories about Obama's eligibility, and we could have a reasonable discussion about that as a matter of how and where best to present the information. But arguing that a subject is non-notable because crackpots and trolls are behind the phenomenon is silly. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what "may be expanded on at Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Legislation_and_litigation" means... Please don't put word in my mouth, I did not say the general topic has no notability, nor that crackpots preclude coverage of the topic at all, rather that we should not have an article that lists every one of these individual suits, giving excess detail to all of them. Reywas92^Talk 05:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this was forked from that very article, with several people saying in Talk:Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories/Archive_13#Proposals_for_splitting_the_article that the list of suits should pared down and summarized rather than split! Reywas92^Talk 05:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do recognize the general topic has notability, why on earth did you start an AfD? There are plenty of other methods of dealing with an imperfect article. Just use the ordinary methods for article improvement and don't misuse the AfD process. You should withdraw this AfD and start a discussion on the article's talk page. The last comment there is from November 2017. You didn't even discuss this. That's not right. We just need to cut down on extra wordiness, and where lawsuits have reached a conclusion, then leave out most of the preliminary fluff. -- Valjean (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was created as a fork from the main article about the Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Because editors there complained the main article already was too long. Yes, some editors had suggested to just pare the section down in the main article, but that didn't happen. Without re-expanding the main article's section (which would be contrary to the intent of the fork -- trimming the main article), just deleting this article would address none of the concerns that led to the eventual fork. Weazie (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Weazie. This is a flawed nom which doesn't take the creation history into account. StonyBrook (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2020 (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.