Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush Crimes Commission (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was weak-consensus to delete, but I don't forsee any objections to someone writing a section on this in the Not in Our Name article. For the record my final vote tally was 37 delete, 20 keep, 11 merge, 5 merge and/or delete, 2 merge and/or keep, discounting anons and very new users. I based the final result on the comments as well as the numbers however. Thryduulf 22:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Crimes Commission

[edit]
Comment "any opinions or comments relating to a listed page must be made in good faith." quoted from WP:DP. Trawling for participants as you have done, including rueing the fact that they didn't vote the way you hoped, [1] I simply put the notice up to alert the people that you have been directing here in the hope that they will vote according to your wishes. Luckily, the user in question above voted the way they personally thought best. Please don't leave "invitations" to vote on user pages. That doesn't generally influence people to vote in good faith, they think they have to because of your invitation. Ansell 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in fighting with you. Cheers and happy editing! Morton devonshire 00:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off it is not improper, 2nd, it is two months since the first nomination, not one. Xtra 02:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: It is improper, but that doesn't stop anyone. Ever. Failed eletion votes have literally been followed up by another attempt only three days later before without the admins involved saying a word. Rogue 9 12:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look first off I'M not the one who voted stacked! Please talk to User:Morton devonshire about that. I don't even know this guy. I don't go around and start asking random people to go a vote delete because I'm a bush supporter or whatever. Aeon 04:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Propaganda -- Wikipedia is not a soap box Morton devonshire 19:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How does WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox apply? Might that not be better applied to[2]? Шизомби 00:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Propaganda Morton devonshire 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment How is it propaganda? Can't the article "report objectively" on this subject? Isn't this a POV issue, not an AFD one? Шизомби 01:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • COmment. Simply repeating the word is hardly persuasive. · rodii · 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I can't speak for the whole delete side, but I can tell you my own thoughts, which are this: (1) the BCC is an extremely small, partisan off-shoot of another already small partisan group (Not in Our Name), and as such, doesn't get much notice from the press, so there's no way to verify through reliable sources what it is that they say and do; (2) because of this lack of notability, almost anything that's said about them is original research or POV pushing from persons that agree with the political slant of the group; (3) because of (1) and (2), the article doesn't attract enough editors to keep it NPOV. As such, the article will always be dominated by NION and Bush Crimes Commission supporters, endlessly pushing their POV. In my opinion, it's better to delete those kinds of articles because they will never be encyclopedic, and therefore don't belong on WP. I would say the same thing about any highly political article where the ideas presented in the article are non-notable and stridently advanced by a small group. Wikipedia seems to be replete with those kinds of articles. I don't think that WP will truly work as a project until we have found a mechanism for controlling advocacy-planting, and am open to your ideas. As to the keep argument, I can't speak for it. Consider both sides, and the goals of Wikipedia, and vote as you see fit. Cheers. Morton devonshire 20:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable unless evidence of non-trivial national media coverage can be provided. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Interesting criterion, but the corporate media is complicit in the deceptions and coverups that have defined the modus operandi of the Bush Administration. There is plenty of attention being paid to the Bush Crimes Commission, and that attention has played a noteworthy part in the escalating drumbeat that is finally beginning to pierce the veil of corporate mass media's silence regarding Bush's crimes. These crimes are increasingly viewed as treasonous by many observers, and if the drumroll calling for censure and impeachment continues to escalate, thanks in part to the Bush Crimes Commission, Bush may finally be drummed out of office. Ombudsman 19:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to keep due to coverage from Newsday, the NY Observer, and Democracy Now. Gamaliel 03:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: A number of organizations collaborated to put the Bush Crimes Commission together. The high ranking officials and well known activists and organizations which participated evidence both great notability and the broad range of alleged crimes being scrutinized. The Bush Crimes Commission has diligently performed a job which the lobbyist-plagued US legislatures have been unwilling and unable to perform. It is interesting that after congress shirked its responsibility, the efforts to investigate and expose what the Bush Administration has perpetrated (largely through deception) is itself portrayed by Morton devonshire as propaganda. Along the same lines, it is remarkable that this AfD has been proposed on a week when the asleep-at-the-wheel media establishment is finally beginning to report on the widespread propaganda, election fraud and political ploys that have been orchestrated by the Bush Administration (e.g., the intentional 'leak' of classified documents aimed at discrediting Valerie Plame's husband; the fact that the Administration had just received, claissified and shelved a report dismissing the possibility that two small trailers were actually WMD equipment, yet went ahead days later claiming to have found their justification for 'preemptive war'; and that the top GOP election official for New England has been shown to have communicated frequently with the White House during the vote fraud campaign in 2004 that secured another term in office for Bush, an outcome that was even more clearly the result of full press, across the board, systematic undermining of the voting system, which produced obviously fabricated results in each of the last two presidential election cycles). This AfD is just a matter of gaming the system and an attempt to impose upon the Wiki the same propagandistic mindset that has corrupted mass media in the US. Ombudsman 21:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Has minimal relevance, but relevance none the less. not significant enough to stand alone as a wikipedia entry, but would make a perfect subtopic to other pages. Anthonymendoza 22:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if we must. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE Irrelevant and too obscure to deserve attention in an encyclopaedia. I'm heavily into politics, especially with this being an election year, and I've never heard of this. Although, I would agree that "not being a formal commission" is not a good enough reason to delete, there are plenty of other reasons. It's clearly trivial.--WilliamThweatt 22:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not a particular fan of Dubya, but this is nn political soapboxing IMHO.Bridesmill 00:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. The introduction makes it clear that it isn't an official commission. I think this will at best be a footnote in history. However, it happened so I think we need to preserve it for the record. Bubba73 (talk), 00:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I don't think I had ever read this article before I was asked to vote on it (but I have heard of the subject). I read the article and the comments here before voting, but I don't feel very strongly about it one way or the other. Bubba73 (talk), 01:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

danieljames626 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieljames626 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 14 April 2006

  • KEEP Keep If this is a real organization and not made up it should be a part but I agree on the merging as stated above.--Gnosis 16:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Not propaganda, just reporting on such. Mildly notable. -- Avenue 11:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. As one of the main contributors to this article since the last AFD, I still believe the article and its title to be misleading. If there is referable content that is notable enough to keep, it should be merged into the page of the organisation which ran the talkfest which has the misnoma of a commission. Xtra 11:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This commission has no more notability or authority than a mock trial held in a law school classroom, as per RWR8189. -- Dcflyer 11:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To point out what should be obvious, that simply isn't true. A mock trial held in a law school classroom does not typically try the POTUS. It does not get reported in newspapers or in blogs, or get broadcast on the radio and TV. It does not have notable people involved with it. The BCC is clearly more notable. It is correct that it has not more authority than a classroom trial, but lack of authority is not a reason to delete. The discussion in this AFD would be more valuable if people gave valid reasons for their choices. Шизомби 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While a mock trial in a law school classroom might not typically try Bush in absentia, as this commission has chosen to do, it certainly could. If this was strange enough to be commented on in a few local papers, or picked up on for brief comment by a few partisan news broadcasters, would it make the mock trial notable? Personally, I'd say no. A small smattering of news coverage does not make notability... if that were all it took, there could be Wikipedia pages for hundreds and hundreds of pets that had vaguely interesting experiences in small towns or on slow news days. As this commission is not sanctioned by anyone, has no power, and really does nothing but voice criticism, an argument could be made for their simple existence being notable, but not so that it would merit its own article, but at most a footnote in some other one. Criticising a President is hardly new, nor does dressing it up with some play-acting make it notable. -RannXXV 19:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Not in Our Name. Rogue 9 12:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Um - I thought wikipedia was supposed to be an online editable wiki-based encyclopedia based in documentable truth, not a one-sided political lobbying or persuasion tool. Toss this article in the same bucket as the conspiracy theory pages that are trying to pursuade people into believing in a particular POV. Rcronk 15:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cecropia, and the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a distributor of propaganda. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment: Given that the Bush Administration's massive propaganda campaigns have been orchestrated to obscure and excuse the many war crimes, illegal wiretapping, crimes against human rights, invasions of privacy, fake news videos, and on and on, accusing the Bush Crimes Commission itself of engaging in propaganda in its attempts to convey the truth, about Bush Administration's calculated mis-statements, deceptions and outright falsehoods, that seems to be an outrageous example of doublespeak. Ombudsman 14:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're free to make an NPOV article about the Bush administration, which unlike the topic of this article is significant. You are not free to further your view of neutrality by exaggerating the importance of groups that agree with you. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you seem to be missing the point. Arguing that the article should be deleted because it is supposedly 'propaganda' appears to be an example of doublespeak, or what psychologists would call projection of the Bush Administration's faults as faults of the Bush Crimes Commission. As for the Commission's notability, the fact that many top level officials and high profile anti-war and anti-Bush Administration organizations came together to expose the propaganda, lies, deceit and crimes of the Bush Administration is extremely noteworthy, especially given the growing momentum of the Bush censure and impeachment movements, triggered in part by the Commission, and the concurrent plummet in approval ratings for Bush. In fact, the Bush Crimes Commission has obviously played a significant role in the consolidation of the movements, while helping bring focus to the staggering breadth and depth of crimes perpetrated abroad and against Americans at home. Ombudsman 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality and this vote

[edit]

This was posted on a talk page on another article. I think it's worth considering:

"Wikipedia does not exist to determine truth. It is not our purpose to decide if [the article]'s claims are true or not. It is instead our purpose to fairly represent both [the article]'s claims and the claims of its critics. The purpose of consensus within Wikipedia is not to determine truth, but to determine the wording of articles. Nobody needs to modify their personal views in order to achieve consensus on the wording of the article. However, anyone who is not committed to Wikipedia's core principles is likely to be more concerned with hammering their viewpoint than they are with agreeing upon wording which fairly represents all side." (user:Jdavidb link)

The only question AFD is intended to answer is whether the subject matter - the Commission in this case - deserves an article. The criteria is not "what editors think of the subject" or of the Commission, not personal views on Bush and politics, but whether studied dispassionately, it is encyclopedic and notable. Arguments that it is biased, or politically slanted, are arguments to correct an article and write it better. They are not arguments to delete it. The question can be framed relatively simply: Does the subject matter exist (is it verifiable)? If so, is it notable and deserving of an article? The fact that it is an informal group, that relatively few people may look at it, are not arguments that it is non-notable, because relatively few people look up many obscure articles. Within its own field - the Bush, crime allegations, impeachment and similar controversies, is the Commission likely to be considered interesting or notable, or otherwise valuable, to the people looking up related issues on Wikipedia? At the risk of restating what should be obvious, that is closer to the issue. Not whether the article is politically this way or the other, or who wrote it, or who thinks what of Bush.

FT2 (Talk) 18:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AFD

[edit]

After reviewing some of the comments and checking into it a little deeper I would like to withdraw the AFD and say this should be maerged into the Not in our Name article Aeon 04:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Way too late for that my friend.  :-) Certainly, you can change your own 'vote', although I think there is consensus to either merge or keep, so the meat of the article should survive one way or the other. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must be using "new math".  : ) Morton devonshire 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there definatly isn't a consensus to keep or merge and more like it's a 60/40 split in favor of delete. --Riconoen 19:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

60/40 in favor of delete possibly translates to keep by reason of no consensus. Ultimately, though, it's up to the closing admin to weigh the reasons given here more than the single word recommendations. Шизомби 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To echo your point, as Ben said, it's not a vote. If it were a vote, and I were so inclined, I'm absolutely sure I could go spam selectively to round up 20 keeps to match Morton's round up of 20 or so deletes. That's obviously not how we should be proceeding here, so it's a good things it's not a vote, but a discussion. Brillig20 20:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But is it a rounding up of votes, or notifying people of this taking place? As has been noted in several places, people have not voted the way Morton wanted them to. While his purpose in going around placing the notice on Wikipedia users' talk pages might be suspect, in the end all he is doing is notifying people that it is taking place, it is still up to the individual user to make their choice about how to vote. -RannXXV 19:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is if it was nominated for AFD before and passed it shouldn't be up for a vote again. That's like continuing elections until your candidate wins or you get the outcome you're looking for. I think everyone stated their cases here except for the various votes for delete that had no reason for deletion which I don't understand why a person can't express why it should or shouldn't be deleted. Regardless if it already passed AFD and was renominated then all of this is irrelevant because it has passed before. We can't keep nominating articles until we get the outcome we want. Aeon explained that he didn't ooriginally nominate and wants to withdraw, it is not too late for that. Especially since it has already passed AFD before.--Gnosis 15:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't an election, though. As has been pointed out several times, this isn't even an actual democratic voting measure... it's a chance for people to make their case against it or for it. If people can continue to make a case against it, it can continue to be nominated for removal. If it is a strong article and conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines, it should be in no danger. However, if it is a weak article on a non-notable subject, as people argue, then the first AFD was simply in error and this is correcting that error. -RannXXV 19:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Confused did the admin change his mind about his decision to delete?--RWR8189 01:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See comment [9] Ansell 01:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KyroPracticioner is not listed as an admin at Wikipedia:List of administrators. Шизомби 02:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Ombudsman continues to fail to convince me that this article will be approached in a neutral manner should it be kept. -RannXXV 17:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that someone else tried to close the AfD early too who wasn't an admin; you might want to make a request for a checkuser. --Rory096(block) 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Noteable, no action has come out of this minor group.PPGMD 19:12, 20 April 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bush_Crimes_Commission_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137661721"