Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton's Enemies List

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 HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton. Closing early as this looks like a borderline attack page and has severe pov issues reporting allegations as fact. Closing as Fork / POV Fork NN Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton's Enemies List

Hillary Clinton's Enemies List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is only one source for this article, which is a political hit-piece book and the additional sources listed from news sites are reports on the book. Adammc123 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poorly sourced negative material on a living person. (WP:BLP) The book does seem to be notable, having been reviewed in several well-known publications, and has its own article: HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton. That should be enough.Borock (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to the book article would not be so bad. At least then it would be clear that we were reporting on what the book says, not reporting their allegations as fact.Borock (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only enemies list that I know of that merits an article is Nixon's Enemies List (and its longer version Master list of Nixon's political opponents), as it was kept in document form by a sitting government with the intent of using government agencies to punish the people on the list (via tax audits, deny grants, etc). The Nixon list got a great deal of press attention at the time and is still remembered. This Clinton list, however, was made by an out-of-office staff remembering people who they felt had screwed them in a heated election contest by not supporting them when it counted and who they would try to screw back in the listed person's next campaign. But all politicians have such lists in their head, if not written down, and there's nothing about this one – which hasn't gotten much press attention since the flurry of discussion after the book came out – that merits a separate article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep "clinton enemies list" has more than 1.2 million ghits, which is about a million more than "nixon enemies list". It has its own Huffington Post news tag and its impact still ripples through Democratic Party primaries. No one doubts the existance of the list and it has been covered by Reliable Sources extensively. Juno (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this article does not leave readers more informed than before they read it. It is just repeating speculation. (BTW if you want to know I have never voted for either Clinton.) Borock (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton. Look at the sources. For instance the Time magazine article. It starts by saying that the information is "according to a new book." And then goes on to repeat the allegations. WP is not gossip. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton. I make this recommendation due to all sources referenced ultimately getting their information from a single source, the book, which has it's own Wikipedia page. LloydSev (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the book in question. Comment: I just created a new redirect page, Clinton enemies list, forwarding to the book above, but now I'm not so sure that it shouldn't stand on its own, and even have this article redirect into it. Rationale: the term "Clinton enemies list" has been around considerably longer than the 2014-released book above (where appears to merely be the latest confirmation that such a list exists/existed). For instance, here's HuffPo from 2009, JudicialWatch from 1999, and Sherman Skolnick from 1991. Pax 05:45, 7 January 2015 (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.