Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed expungements of the impeachments of Donald Trump

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed expungements of the impeachments of Donald Trump[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)

A mixture of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. The second point in NOTNEWS states that "routine news coverage of announcements... while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage". I would consider all of the reporting in reliable sources I could locate about this effort to be coverage of the latest antics of MTG and the divisions between House Republicans. If it turns out to be a nothingburger, which appears likely, it certainly will not pass the WP:10YT. I can see a case for draftifying the article, to be moved back to mainspace if the proposed expungement actually takes place. House Blaster^talk 22:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. House Blaster^talk 22:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that there is reporting quoting law professors on the legal theory here (i.e. can you constitutionally "expunge" an impeachment ?), is there any law review article by law professors on the subject of expunging impeachments that would demonstrate notability of the legal theory? I could see a page on the legal theory being notable and lasting, but I'm skeptical on the article as is.

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the forbes article Georgetown University Professor Joshua Chafetz told Newsweek “an impeachment cannot be expunged because it has effect outside of the House,” noting the House couldn’t technically undo the Senate trial, while George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley told Reuters “it is not like a constitutional DUI. Once you are impeached, you are impeached.” vs. “I am hard-pressed to see why the House is bound by an impeachment passed by a prior one,” seems to indicate some level of scholarly disagreement, but not enough sourcing on its own for notability for the legal theory. I'm tempted to move to Expungement of impeachments in the United States and keep, but not sure enough to !vote yet. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not move, as there is no other instance which I am aware of of this having been previously discussed for impeachments. SecretName101 (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the deletion here would necessitate duplicate sections at the articles describing each of Trump's impeachments. This is a notable-enough proposal (having received backing from two of the House's Republican majority's leading figures in Stefanik and Speaker McCarthy) that it warrants mention on Wikipedia.

I believe it is best described in context that outlines the debate of what it would actually mean, and that having two long duplicate sections on two already-long pages would be un-ideal, hence why a separate article makes clear sense. SecretName101 (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that the Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTAL grounds are pretty weak. This is about a matter for which resolutions have already been introduced. Not very speculative there, and plenty of articles have existed on resolutions and legislation before they were passed (and many that were never passed). Obviously, I am not saying every proposed resolution or bill introduced warrants enough notability: I am only highlighting that NOTCRYSTAL does not really fit this. SecretName101 (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as I know, political initiatives don't require more than GNG (like political parties do) and this plainly meets GNG within the first two sources provided. WP:10YT seems mostly to suggest avoiding edit wars in a case like this as consensus can change. The topic exhibited a level of WP:PERSISTENCE at this point, if editors in 10 years determine it doesn't fit it will be removed at that time. As another editor nodded to, NOTCRYSTAL doesn't apply to something that has already happened. Last but not least, WP:NOTPAPER. —siro χ o 04:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Properly sourced content that passes GNG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I commented before, this subject is notable and warrants contextualized mention on the project, which without this stand-alone article would result duplicative lengthy sections within the already-lengthy articles about each impeachment. SecretName101 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cited sources show sigcov. Oppose move as being a big rescope ~~(although I will create that redirect here as a {{R with possibilities}})~~. Decided against that per WP:REDYES. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 21:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 21:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:GNG and others. Conyo14 (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an interesting case as it is an example of how Trump’s volume of controversies has numbed the public to the historical rarity of many of them. Here, the discussion pertains to an attempted to expunge a presidential impeachment, which is a significant and rare occurrence in American history. I vote to keep this article because if this vote and congressional debate had taken place with any other U.S. president, there would be no discussion about whether it should be kept as an article. It would be an easy Keep. Same here and I vote to keep this article. Go4thProsper (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question From the article, this effort is currently a couple of resolutions that have been dropped in the hopper by members of congress with no further action. What is the traditional threshold for notability for "normal" congressional resolutions? I ask as I don't follow congressional articles, but I know members of congress drop resolutions all the time. That includes ones they know have no chance in ever passing or will be killed in committee, for reasons as varied as a favor to a constituent/donor or putting on a show for the base. I find it difficult to believe many, if any, of those resolutions have Wikipedia articles, despite the fact they are covered, especially by political commentators. It seems more appropriate to wait to have a standalone article until this effort has progressed to a bill/hearing/comittee passage/vote/whatever is the usual threshold of notability. If there is precedent for even just a resolution having an article, so be it. However, I'm inclined to say no, this content should just be covered as a paragraph in the impeachment articles, not a standalone article, unless this effort advances a couple more steps along the process. Dave (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moabdave This is an effort that has been given support now by the Speaker of the House, which I believe places it above most resolutions in notability. That, combined with the highly unusual nature of what is being proposed in the resolutions, gives it far more notability than most resolutions.

I'd draw a partial parallel to efforts to impeach Joe Biden, the effort and what is being proposed in the resolutions is more notable than the individual resolutions themselves.

It also has resulted in some interesting public discussion of the legal implications (or lack thereof) of such a resolution. SecretName101 (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and as for precedent, I'd point to efforts to impeach Donald Trump, efforts to impeach Joe Biden, and efforts to impeach George W. Bush as examples of Wikipedia articles created to cover efforts that (at the time the articles were started) involved resolutions that had not demonstrated any likelihood of passing or even reaching a full floor-vote on adoption. Efforts to impeach Barack Obama did not even have any resolutions to actually impeach. SecretName101 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cited sources are easily enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. 'Nuff said. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has significant coverage. Any proposal to expunge a presidential impeachment is unprecendented and therefore far from a "routine announcement" under NOTNEWS, as seen by the amount of news and legal coverage wondering whether it's even possible. Pinguinn 🐧 11:45, 7 July 2023 (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.