Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush Limbaugh detained on return from Dominican Republic

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Limbaugh detained on return from Dominican Republic[edit]

POV fork of material originally in (and deleted and then readded several times see Talk:Rush Limbaugh) Rush Limbaugh ElKevbo 01:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a non-story and not notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Press coverage initially focused on the drug abuse angle expecting that Limbaugh would be sanctioned due to his previous drug issues. However, no charges were filed and the story died. It's certainly not something you would find in an encyclopedia. --Dual Freq 02:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even gonna waste my time here... --TommyOliver 03:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, speedy if possible. Non-story. "Celebrity uses Viagra." Really? That must be so uncommon. And having seven references for it? Sounds like someone having a fit. Blatant POV and probably WP:POINT. --Sable232 03:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikinews, I don't see it growing beyond this stub. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible to license incompatibility. MER-C 06:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Belongs on Wikinews, not here. Alex43223^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, so? Anything encyclopedic here? Terence Ong 04:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, when another editor added this basic info to the Rush Limbaugh article two other editors said they thought this didn't belong because three sources didn't meet the Wikipedia:Notability guideline of multiple non-trivial sources, so I added more sources independent of each other, and now having seven sources is supposedly a problem. After I added more sources the two editors said it met the notability guideline for its own article but not to be in the Rush Limbaugh article, so I moved it to its own article. Now those editors think that the article ought to be deleted. Or maybe it should move to Wikinews. Or I need to find more recent sources showing that the story didn't just die after the incident. It seems as if the rules keep changig faster than I can keep up. KimmyChanga 05:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content of this article is currently the subject of a mediation case filed today over whether it should be included in the main Rush Limbaugh article. I don't think Wikipedia needs it at all, but it certainly doesn't merit a separate article of its own. --Metropolitan90 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia != Wikinews. MER-C 06:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Artw 06:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not your newspaper. Wryspy 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this was not an extensive controversy and can be entirely handled by the Rush Limbaugh article. Keeping the content in there would seem to be a content dispute (I would favor keeping it, and three independent sources should be plenty). Note that Transwiki to Wikinews is not allowed because the GFDL does not permit reuse under the Creative Commons Share-Alike license used there. --Dhartung | Talk 07:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a newsservice, should go to wikinews (but, apparently, can't). Part Deux 09:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in the canonical form for a news article. It has a news article style title, covers the story as a news article would, and cites more than enough sources to qualify for publication as a news summary piece. It thus does not belong in Wikipedia, whose articles are encyclopaedia articles, not news articles. An encyclopaedia article would have a different title, per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), for starters, and a far broader scope. The proper place to write news articles is Wikinews. However, Wikinews won't cover this story because it is more than 6 months old at this point. Forking out a news article that does not belong in the encyclopaedia is not the way to solve a content dispute over a biographical article. Delete. Uncle G 13:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --Mhking 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News item. Nkras 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything notable into Rush Limbaugh. Today's news is tomorrow's encyclopedic content. Just H 03:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're not Wikinews and this is not exactly a major incident that warrants encyclopaedic discussion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no other alternative to including such pertinent information on such a controversial demagogue given the active censorship on the main Limbaugh page that his paid PR flaks are doing on a 24/7 basis, eg removing all mention of Dominican Republic, hate speech, hypocrisy, and sex tourism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.191.250.80 (talk)
Delete POV Fork. --Allen3 ^talk 18:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything new to the main Limbaugh article. This event is hardly notable enough to justify its own article.Delete. On second thought, he was never charged and the article fails to suggest that this is any sort of major event. 23skidoo 21:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rush Limbaugh. Googling to see whether "The media dropped this story once no charges were filed" back in July turned up seven stories in recent months, including one from this January,[1] four from December 2006,[2][3][4][5]and three from November 2006.[6][7][8] The incident also seems to be referenced in an encyclopedia review, and possibly covered in the encyclopedia itself. [9] It would appear that this incident has had some life long after last July. KimmyChanga 02:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So there's still a bunch of humor pieces. Big whoop. Those aren't news. Face it, the only reason this is an issue is because a lot of people vehemently disagree with Limbaugh, so they make it their mission to disparage him in any and all possible ways. Give it up. The political shit ain't worth it.

And, just for the record, I'd say the same thing if this were about Al Franken or anybody else regardless of political leaning, so don't even go there. --Sable232 05:27, 30 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.