Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron & Budd Script Memo controversy
- 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 No consensus, page kept for now. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 10:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I don't think the page (which I just created) should be deleted, but, because the topic is controversial, to show good faith and avoid COI, I wanted to be the first to raise the issue. The topic is notable, has been discussed in law review articles, in newspaper and magazine articles, in litigation, in books, and in a Senate report, and may arise in the 2008 presidential election because of the ties of one of the parties to the John Edwards campaign. Google: 821 results. TedFrank 00:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Veesicle, how can you say 'delete per nom' when the nom was for strong keep? THE KING 04:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a branch of another article, on a lawyer, which the nom editor wrote to do an end run around the complaint that the criticism of a lawyer was overweighted. He also said that the AtLA was a "pack of lies". I understand he does not like lawyers, and is evidently willing to destroy anyone who disagrees with him (see my AN/I), but Wikipedia does not seem like an appropriate vehicle for furthering his political agenda.Jance 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We have a notable and complex event with a lot of different things happening; if I include a full recounting in the main article, I'm accused of undue weight, and my edit is deleted; if I instead create an NPOV article that tells both sides of the story, I'm accused of "furthering my political agenda." But the standard for Wikipedia is notability and verifiability. I think this article meets both standards. -- TedFrank 06:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup and merge, Clean the article up, wikify it, and insert it into the main article, assuming that article is kept. // 3R1C 14:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article fails WP:NN and it just like a collection of information put anywhere and not sorted properly.TellyaddictEditor review! 17:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although is WP:CITE compliant, it is not notable. Optionally merge. V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · Editor review 2! 23:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Two people have flatly stated that the topic is not notable. But when I look at the WP:NN guidelines, they say A topic is notable if it has been the subject of reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. By that definition, this topic is notable; it also meets each of the five subparts of the definition of notability. Notability is not subjective. Can someone who is arguing that it is not notable provide an objective argument for the claim of non-notability? -- TedFrank 18:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Plenty of reputable sourced citations, article will most certainly be expanded upon and quality improved in the future... Smee 23:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep This event meets a number of inclusion criteria into Wikipedia. It is frequently referenced in the main stream media when tort reform or asbestos litigation are discussed and the events themselves have been featured in more then a handful of widely read journals & periodicalsDroliver 02:44, 22 February 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.