Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer

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 delete. Missvain (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer

[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)

Not a notable event. There is no "resolution" in any legal sense. Pointless and inflammatory.
Three (of 158) rogue legislators angling for press attention. Thousands of bills are introduced each session. Many/most do not become enrolled, nor sent to a committee. This has not even made "first reading". In this case, as reported, the leaders of the legislature have called this submission "shameful", and have repeatedly adjourned the legislature without calendaring. All of the reliable sources note it is dead on arrival.
This article has been renamed repeatedly (originally was variants of "Impeachment Hearings"), as there have been no hearings. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, a scandal sheet, or an indiscriminate collection of information.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It barely qualifies as news, let alone something an encyclopedia should note... Caro7200 (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the time of the article's creation, I was in support of it. But now that the media hype has died down, not so much. I'll be singing a different tune if impeachment efforts actually go somewhere, but until then, this is not encyclopedic. Let it be known that the user who created the article, Elijahandskip, also created a similar article, Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine, which has since been marked for merging. Love of Corey (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge {Article Creator} per discussions that happened for the AfD Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine. There isn't really anything to actually merge, but just thinking about a deletion being a blow to notability for the information already listed on Gretchen Whitmer. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, there's nothing to merge. It will be removed entirely from the Whitmer article. We don't include unsubstantiated inflammatory material anywhere, especially not in WP:BLP. As already written above, it barely qualified as news. As written in the Talk there, "This is starting to feel disruptive." (Fixed link to DeWine AfD.)
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - William Allen Simpson That I would argue against that completely. Yes it went no where, but since US governors don't have impeachment articles drawn up against them often (Last governor to be impeached was 2009), it is notable enough for a mention. I would be ok removed the subsection, but mentions about it are notable. The same thing is on Mike DeWine. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - As noted above, Elijahandskip was the originator of the Dewine article as well, and it was deleted at AfD 3 times! Please don't condescend to me with an apparently rudimentary level knowledge of civics. I'm fairly aware of the legislative process. More than 30 years ago, I was a senior legislative analyst for the Michigan House Fiscal Agency, contracted to do engineering review for the House Computer and Telecommunications Oversight Committee. I'm also rather proud of having authored the legislative language for building the Internet as we know it (then called the NSFnet). While there are so-called "Articles", they were not reported out of any committee. There is no "Resolution", because it has not been resolved by any legislature. These words have legal meaning, and this stunt has had no legal effect.
      William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also note that on the last Afd, it was clear consensus to merge. Also the merge idea was not started by me. The Afd clearly said the DeWine stuff was notable enough...hence Senate Bill 311. Just for the record, that the topic for the impeachment resolution against DeWine was deemed notable for Wikipedia, just not as a stand-alone article. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree that the impeachment story should be removed from the Whitmer article in its entirety. As Elijahandskip said, impeachment efforts against governors don't come along often in U.S. history. It should warrant some sort of mention. Love of Corey (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        No, this is not notable. Also, there is nothing in any of the 3 Dewine AfDs deeming it notable. A majority of the Delete !votes there specifically state it was not notable. The only reason for a merge there is because Elijahandskip agreed to a speedy merge, out of process, after 2 previous deletions.
        William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        William Allen Simpson what "Deleted comments" say that is isn't notable. Every single comment except the actual Afd nominator (original reasons for Afd) talk about the impeachment resolution for Mike DeWine#Impeachment resolution. The original Afd nominator also agreed to keep it in Mike DeWines article. There actually was a very large consensus for the merge. (Also, the Afd reasons were all fixed. Notability was deemed at that Afd, otherwise the merge, again not started by me, wouldn't have happened. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        "Delete !votes" are not "Deleted comments". Notability was not "deemed at the AfD". The !votes agreed to merge without redirect, "rather than spending a week at AFD." I'm opposed to a merge here.
        William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Meant delete comments. My badElijahandskip (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion above, it seems fair to ping editors involved in the Mike DeWine discussion. Any objections? Elijahandskip (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Relevant users as discussion is involving a previous Afd: Valereee, Levivich, Twassman, Pawnkingthree. I am also pinging the admin who completed the merge; Missvain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijahandskip (talk • contribs)
- I didn't receive a notice about "Mentions being sent". Not sure if pings worked. Going to wait a while and hope they received it. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out about this. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mike DeWine. Wondering if William Allen Simpson is taking this too far. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - We already went through this kinda thing, with Ohio governor Mike DeWine. Just add the attempt into the Whitmer article. See how it's done at the DeWine article, for example. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it goes to a point when we have an actual recall election, this will not be notable. I am not even convinced if we got to the point of a recall election it would be notable enough to justify a separate article, but it clearly is not at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 14 December 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.