Content deleted Content added
Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics|list of Politics-related deletion discussions]]. — <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 05:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politics|list of Politics-related deletion discussions]]. — <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 05:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)</small> |
||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America|list of United States of America-related deletion discussions]]. — <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 05:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America|list of United States of America-related deletion discussions]]. — <tt>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></tt> \\ 05:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Keep''' The Foundation has attracted controversy during the current U.S. presidential campaign because of allegations that donors to the Foundation were given special access to the State Department when Clinton was Secretary. While the information could be merged into the main Foundation article, it would be undue emphasis, due to the size of the information. In its own article, we can balance criticism of the actions of Secretary Clinton and her staff and the Foundation with well sourced defenses, according to the weight provided in reliable souces. So there are no point of view issues, the topic is sourced and critically it meets --WP:NOTABLE|notability]]. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:18, 6 September 2016
Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy
- Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy (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)
Article is a WP:POVFORK from the Clinton Foundation, not a notable topic on its own, and is an unsalvageable WP:COATRACK in its current form; also presents BLP concerns. — Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Obvious keep. This is no different from Hillary Clinton email controversy in the sense of being a perfectly valid article subject. The argument seems to be that it is a POV fork of the Clinton Foundation article but this controversy would overwhelm that article, just as it would overwhelm the article about the United States Department of State. There are separate articles about many Clinton scandals, though Wikipedia editors have decided that any list of them is verboten, so it's no surprise when they would try to delete articles about the scandals themselves. Good luck with that. Maybe we should delete Watergate scandal too, as a POV fork of Presidency of Richard Nixon?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, the extent of coverage between this and the email "controversy" is tremendous. It's mountain vs. molehill. Most of this article consists of POV laden WP:SYNTHESIS. The only sources really are a single AP story and then several stories slamming that AP story. And yes, the purpose of this article is solely to circumvent consensus on the Clinton Foundation article. The POV is obvious and obnoxious. As is the WP:GAMEing. This is also a cynical attempt to do a run around discretionary sanctions on American Politics articles. The creator of this article - and you as well - know from experience that adding garbage content to an existing article can be challenged, and then it is up to the person wishing to add it to get consensus for inclusion. It's painfully obvious that most of the content of this thing would not get such consensus. So you guys went and created a separate article for all the junk you know you wouldn't be able to get into the legitimate article. This is disruptive behavior, clear and simple, and it's actually fairly stunning in its cynicism and disrespect for Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The Foundation has attracted controversy during the current U.S. presidential campaign because of allegations that donors to the Foundation were given special access to the State Department when Clinton was Secretary. While the information could be merged into the main Foundation article, it would be undue emphasis, due to the size of the information. In its own article, we can balance criticism of the actions of Secretary Clinton and her staff and the Foundation with well sourced defenses, according to the weight provided in reliable souces. So there are no point of view issues, the topic is sourced and critically it meets --WP:NOTABLE|notability]]. TFD (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)