Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Efforts to impeach Joe Biden (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to List of efforts to impeach presidents of the United States#Joe Biden. After one discounts the pure votes and the IP, who also makes no coherent argument, rough consensus s that this is not yet a notable topic because attempts to impeach presidents are now apparently somewhat routine political news. Sandstein 10:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts to impeach 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)

A re-creation with the only added information being further WP:NOTNEWS coverage about the latest attempt. This is already covered to sufficient encyclopedic depth (i.e. as a "summary of knowledge" and not a "everything that's in the news about the topic") at the redirect target (where the most recent information actually is also already included). So suggest redirect as last time to List_of_efforts_to_impeach_presidents_of_the_United_States#Joe_Biden. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have one question to answer here. Are efforts to impeach Joe Biden covered by reliable sources? The answer is yes. Therefore, the subject meets the WP:GNG. Unlike the previous time this question was asked, there are now multiple efforts on record, with multiple lawmakers signed on. This is not a WP:NOTNEWS issue, as it is an historical fact that will remain in the Congressional Record long after the news cycles have faded. BD2412 T 03:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of things that will remain in Congressional Records long after the fact that don't warrant an encyclopedic article (and not just because the Congressional Record is a primary source). If the only outbursts of coverage this gets is brief bursts in the news each time somebody decides they want to get in the news, and nothing comes out of it, and the coverage does not subsist (WP:NTEMPORARY), then this is indeed WP:NOTNEWS covered to an unencyclopedic level of depth and should be redirected to avoid duplication of the page where it is covered at an appropriate level. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Something having multiple sources also does not indicate it requires a standalone article. One could reasonably find multiple sources for every subsection of Johann Sebastian Bach - does not mean that it would be productive to have a separate over-detailed article for each - WP:SUMMARY applies, and in this case, the proper way is to have a brief section at the most relevant article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The non-notable things in the Congressional Record don't receive coverage in multiple reliable sources. BD2412 T 03:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the various sub-articles where they could be included under WP:DUEWEIGHT. For instance, Efforts to impeach Joe Biden#September 2021 articles of impeachment could be merged into Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021)#Domestic. While the individual elements of this "list" might be worth including in the relevant articles, none of them have proven enduring enough to warrant their own article (WP:NOTNEWS), while covering the group as a whole without the grouping having received its own significant coverage would seem to violate the spirit of NOTNEWS, while also requiring some level of synth. BilledMammal (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I do not see a consensus that the previous result should be overturned. We don't need separate articles for every time a few nutcases in Congress do something futile. Reywas92^Talk 14:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect based on the previous close and WP:NOTNEWS. --Enos733 (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable, and as BD2412 has said "it is an historical fact that will remain in the Congressional Record long after the news cycles have faded." WP:GNG is met with the references and historic nature of the effort.~~Redirect the article can be split out when it actually happens. We should also respect the WP:CONSENSUS from the previous Afd~~ Lightburst (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lightburst: - "when it actually happens" - when what actually happens? The title of the article is efforts to impeach. Efforts have actually happened. Consensus that actual impeachment is not required was set when Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and Efforts to impeach Barack Obama were kept (and Efforts to impeach Donald Trump was kept well before any actual impeachment votes occurred. Is there something about Joe Biden that protects him from being treated the same as previous presidents? BD2412 T 21:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:BD2412 Thank you for having me take another look. Lightburst (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those other articles might also warrant a look. I see many bits based on primary sources (Congressional Record itself). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are the product of substantial editor participation and have collectively survived multiple AfD efforts. I would counsel against disruptive editing in that area. BD2412 T 23:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, WP:OSE is not a particularly great argument; and what I was suggesting by "might warrant a look" was pruning the bits based on primary sources: especially for the older examples, if those things haven't attracted any independent coverage in a decade, then they're likely just footnotes of not much encyclopedic importance. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, Biden was being impeached even before 20th January 2021. So this is old news, not NOTNEWS. Second of all, "few nutcases" are the same nutcases and looks like this time the support will be bigger. Also, all those political attacks on Gaetz failed, story about his father turned out to be true. 109.252.90.174 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC) — 109.252.90.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: The above IP address geolocates to Moscow. I don't know what to make of that. BD2412 T 21:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beyond the WP:CRYSTAL about "this time the support will be bigger" and the irrelevant stuff, I also fail to see what is relevant to this discussion in the IPs comment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pokelova (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How utterly unconvincing... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to reply to every comment made in the discussion. That said, @Jjj1238 and Pokelova: since RandomCanadian apparently objects to your !votes, it might be useful if you provide your rationale. BD2412 T 02:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale is as explained in other comments. --Pokelova (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing else to add. Everyone else covered it. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article. This seems to be just as notable as other Impeachment articles for Presidents/politicians. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412. Ribbet32 (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, this nomination is nonsense and RandomCanadian doesn't seem to understand what WP:NOTNEWS actually means. NOTNEWS is for mundane events that occur frequently; murders, fires, celebrity weddings, sports games, etc. While each individual attempt to impeach Joe Biden might fall under NOTNEWS, an article covering every attempt does not. Mlb96 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only nonsense here is the personal attack in your comment. NOTNEWS is about just "mundane events"; it's also about events which attract no lasting coverage (something also covered by WP:NTEMPORARY): "2. News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The coverage this has gotten so far seems to be entirely routine "politician X said Y"; and clearly there is no enduring coverage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOPAGE. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mind elaborating? Just linking to a guideline is not a good way to get your point across, you need to explain why. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Wikipedia isn't a collection of indiscriminate trivia, and neither is it a repository for disorganized piles of posturing statements by politicians. The material here is too thin to warrant a dedicated article; a section in another is fine. XOR'easter (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous close. Not enough has happened since the last close to warrant this article. This is just a disenguious way to subvert consensus. And I don't support the existence of the previous articles either, unless they cover an actually notable event. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 23:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect none of the keep !votes give any indication what has substantially changed since the last closure that indicates a standalone article is necessary *at this point in time*. There's still a huge unaddressed WP:DUEWEIGHT problem. This well may change and we can go through this again at a later point. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Goldsztajn: What has changed since the previous discussion is Efforts to impeach Joe Biden#September 2021 articles of impeachment. In fact, several of the "delete" !votes from the previous deletion discussion specifically note that at that time there was only one effort underway, sponsored by a single fringe member of Congress, which makes a separate effort by four different and more conventional party members a substantial change. In fact, a third impeachment effort has since been launched and received coverage in reliable sources, so this has quickly piled up to more than is convenient to keep in the general impeachment article. BD2412 T 04:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - "More than is convenient"? You just write a proper encyclopedic summary (I'm making this up as example): "Articles of impeachment were filed by [x] in 2020 over [reason A]. The were followed by [y], who filed articles in 2021 over [B]. Both of these did not result in any action, and were dismissed as [political posturing/whatever]". Absolutely does not require a dedicated page to itself if it can probably be covered in one or at most two paragraphs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Efforts" to impeach are not limited to documents filed by members of Congress, otherwise the articles in this series would be titled something like "Articles of impeachment filed against" each President, and would omit things like polls, protests, and municipal government votes conveying requests to local Congressmen that articles of impeachment be filed. In this case, there is already substantial reliably sourced discussion of the issue which if removed would deprive the actual articles filed of vital context. BD2412 T 05:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 Far too much conflation of news with notability. It's not about quantitative numbers (that would be List of Republican party attempts to impeach US Presidents or List of Democratic party attempts to impeach US Presidents), but whether there is an enduring notability. Republicans, for the purposes of broader short-term political strategy, have clearly adopted impeachment as a tactic rather than a goal, diminishing its historical significance and specific notability in a case-by-case basis. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether tactical or not, the coverage meets the WP:GNG. The futility or political calculatedness of the efforts does not matter any more than that of astroturfing support for the Jo Jorgensen 2020 presidential campaign (which we nonetheless cover), or the January 2018 United States federal government shutdown, or the 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit‎ (the article for which I also created). In a hundred years, this will still be a notable historical topic. BD2412 T 05:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this went out of the news cycle about as quickly as it went in, it's more likely this will be but a footnote in history. But anyway, WP:CRYSTAL predictions of what this will be are not reliable indicators whether this is encyclopedic or not (first but certainly not least because, obviously; they go both ways). Given there's no currently demonstrated long-term significance, and all of the coverage is limited to two very specific events, the argument that this doesn't warrant an article all by itself and should instead be discussed to sufficient depth at the redirect target is even more convincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, it is now three specific events (though the two September filings can easily be grouped together given the common subject matter). The January filing has been discussed again in the context of the September filings, so that one his now demonstrated a longer-term significance than the news cycle in which it occurred. BD2412 T 03:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per previous close and XOR'easter.4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Introducing articles of impeachment two times might be significant enough to keep the page. On the other hand, this may be something not at all notable, given the amount of political infighting today. These efforts did not go very far. If they will, that would deserve a page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2021 (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.