809:. An easily notable and relevant topic. I would be against merging this into the Russian interference article or the Comey dismissal since those are already long enough on their own and the Special Counsel subject works better with an article of its own. However, I support changing the title and rewriting parts of the article to make it clear that the investigation, not the team itself, is the main topic here.
1071:, if you no longer wish to propose deletion you can withdraw the nomination. Since there have been no "delete" or "merge" votes, withdrawing the nomination would amount to a snow close in favor of "keep". To do that, you can simply say "I withdraw the nomination" here at the bottom of the discussion. If you wish you can also strike out (but not remove) your nomination statement. --
1034:
were on a
Congressional committee or trying to break a story for a newspaper. Also, I don't recall that any President has ever made public comments calling into question the composition of the DOJ team conducting such an investigation. That is a point in favor of the historically unique situation of this particular team.
1179:
editors that this committee will find something is a violation of multiple core
Knowledge policies, and the excessive coverage of trivial details regarding the committee published in the political press should not be relevant content for Knowledge; perhaps it would be an appropriate topic for WikiTribune.
406:
before nominating an article for deletion. Your comments and rationales seem to indicate that you are acting out of POV/opinion/partisanship rather than out of encyclopedic intent or
Knowledge polices and guidelines. If you take issue with other articles, the place to discuss those issues is the talk
368:
Can you show me where those have been broadly reported in reliable sources? Where people up to the level of the
President of the United States have criticized their composition? If it is undue, then the fault would be with the news media, of which numerous outlets have reported on numerous aspects of
1014:
I am in two minds, so the clincher would be...do we have other articles on similar subjects (special investigations teams makeup), if not then I go with delete. As I fail to see this is more notable then any other tram, and would seem POV forky. If the answer is yes I go with keep as this is no less
979:
I cannot see how this could be interpreted as trivial, when the subject matter concerns an investigation to determine if there is in fact a scandal that is the greatest in the history of the United States. Even if the investigation does not yield earth-shattering results, the fact that this exists
768:
You can't "make improvements" to an AfD nomination. You can make whatever further comments you desire in the discussion itself, but you can't change your nomination. You can improve the article itself if you perceive it to be lacking. The only way to improve this AfD would be to withdraw it, which
1033:
which "includes police, lawyers, prosecutors, judges, members of
Congress, journalists, and others who investigated aspects of the Watergate break-in and cover-up", but does not distinguish those who were formally investigating on behalf of the DOJ from those who were "investigating" because they
255:. The history, composition, and mission of the team has been widely reported on, including reporting separate from discussion of the matters they are investigating, since no less than the President of the United States has made false assertions about the prior political activities of its members.
1178:
can exist under this title at this time, and thus cannot attempt to improve the article in good faith. I withdraw the nomination, but I encourage a different editor to re-nominate this page for deletion in the semi-near future if improvements are not made. The assumption by almost all the page
511:
You are evading the point (your blatant lie in your nomination), and you still do not understand AfD rationales. Your absurd claim now that the article violates NPOV is merely pointing up your own obvious highly biased POV and by extension, again, your bad-faith nomination.
191:
117:
112:
121:
104:
865:
108:
185:
1111:
100:
92:
1114:
is in fact the proper response to UNDUE - spin out a subsidiary/child article where there is plenty of coverage of specific aspect of a main article that would bog down the flow of the main article.
792:. Very well sourced article on a notable topic which absolutely belongs in wikipedia somewhere. I'm not certain the title and the framing of the article is the best possible, but don't delete. --
151:
324:
about reporting on an existing entity with personnel who have already been selected (with much press coverage), and the composition of which has already been the subject of public comment.
1107:
227:
1188:
1164:
1147:
1129:
1096:
1080:
1063:
1024:
1006:
959:
945:
927:
913:
899:
877:
854:
837:
820:
801:
778:
735:
717:
703:
684:
661:
640:
582:
568:
542:
521:
506:
480:
448:
434:
416:
363:
311:
289:
243:
206:
86:
69:
173:
167:
421:
I feel that deletion of the article is my intended goal of this discussion, therefore AfD is the proper forum for this discussion. A discussion on (for example) the
347:
144:
163:
213:
77:: The nominator raised concerns about the notability of the topic, but the consensus found it notable enough for the stand-alone article at this time. --
280:
and every other notability requirement, and the group will get increasingly important as time goes on, so I see no conceivable rationale for deletion.
1030:
179:
1087:
The creator of the discussion has, on the talk page, expressly refused to withdraw this, but has conceded the result of this will likely be keep.
1029:
I would actually be interested in seeing an article explaining the composition of the teams that investigated Nixon, Clinton, and Bush. We have a
1121:
351:
761:
890:
was to delete. You do understand how this stuff works, right? Here there is a unanimous policy-based consensus to keep this article.
1044:
601:
379:
334:
265:
1000:
815:
17:
722:
I have to agree that this unwarranted and bad-faith POV nomination is an absurd waste of everybody's time, and agree that a
1106:
an article cannot be UNDUE, only parts of an article, and this would be UNDUE detail in an already very long main article
1035:
592:
370:
325:
256:
1138:. Very clearly meets notability standards. Issues about POV, if any, should be dealt with by editing, not by deletion.
226:. This information is trivial. It is merely a list of press releases about people being hired for a committee. Both
55:
1207:
40:
1125:
231:
691:
As the creator of this discussion has stated "I know the consensus on this page will be opposed to this move"
302:
to assume they will. Any necessary discussion can be included on the two pages mentioned in the nomination.
591:. If so, to which article should the neutral, reliably sourced information found in this article be merged?
1184:
1059:
1020:
955:
923:
909:
895:
873:
850:
774:
757:
731:
713:
680:
657:
652:
If you claim the material is not suitable for an encyclopedia, you need to make your case. How is it not?
564:
517:
502:
476:
444:
430:
412:
359:
307:
285:
239:
950:
You might. I'm not sure why
Softlavender re-opened this if only to make comments this non-constructive.
234:
are large and unwieldy as-is, and I don't believe either page would be improved by merging this content.
1203:
439:
I said "other articles" (i.e., the other articles you criticized on your nomination), not this article.
36:
1117:
994:
749:
317:
1160:
887:
810:
199:
82:
65:
1076:
1180:
1068:
1055:
1016:
951:
919:
905:
891:
869:
846:
833:
797:
770:
753:
727:
709:
676:
672:
653:
560:
513:
498:
472:
440:
426:
408:
391:
355:
321:
303:
299:
281:
235:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1202:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1092:
699:
578:
538:
468:" is blatantly false, as there is not a single press release in the article's 27 citations:
403:
981:
556:
490:
486:
399:
343:
295:
223:
675:, you can't edit or replace your rationale after it has been responded to and !voted on.
587:
Read liberally enough, literally every article in the encyclopedia is a content fork of
1175:
1156:
1143:
939:
723:
634:
552:
494:
395:
78:
61:
1072:
746:, yet have refused to allow me to try to make improvements. 22:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
277:
866:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Obstruction of justice investigation of Donald Trump
829:
793:
422:
138:
465:
1088:
695:
574:
534:
551:. I am listing it as an article that I believe should be deleted according to
466:
It is merely a list of press releases about people being hired for a committee.
369:
this team. Perhaps you can convince them to retract their coverage as undue.
1139:
934:
629:
918:
That was not an insinuation; it was two statements of fact and a question.
1174:
This is clearly going nowhere. I still don't believe any page that meets
497:, and this article's existence is inherently a violation of that policy.
1054:
OK, I'm no longer opposed to a snow-keep close by an uninvolved admin.
464:: This appears to be a bad-faith nomination; the rationale statement "
1112:
2017 Special
Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team
101:
2017 Special
Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team
93:
2017 Special
Counsel for the United States Department of Justice team
573:
I obviously disagree at least on your latter point, if not both.
1196:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
904:
Please stop making insinuations about me like this on the AfD.
533:. Widely reported on team conducting a notable investigation.
52:
by nominator after unanimous consensus to keep this article.
294:
As per the nomination statement, "The case for deletion is
1108:
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
228:
Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
692:
469:
134:
130:
126:
198:
828:- Well sourced, notable article. Deserves to stay.
425:page could not cause this article to be deleted.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1210:). No further edits should be made to this page.
298:." The committee hasn't done anything yet, it's
348:United States Senate Special Committee on Aging
769:you can do since no one has !voted "delete".
212:
8:
1115:
747:
868:was closed as Delete earlier this month.
740:You've accused me of acting in bad-faith
1031:Category:Watergate scandal investigators
346:then. We don't include the staffing of
932:Do I have to turn the hose on you two?
845:. Clearly notable and well-sourced. --
489:is sufficient on its own for deletion;
624:
402:is definitely not one. Please also do
7:
547:I am not claiming that this article
352:United States Secretary of Education
694:I call for this to be SNOW closed.
394:, please familiarize yourself with
24:
726:close would be appropriate here.
886:That's because the policy-based
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1155:Per others. Clearly meets WP:N
1:
1227:
1110:. The stand alone article
627:-- obvious liberal bias!
407:pages of those articles.
339:19:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
222:The case for deletion is
1199:Please do not modify it.
1189:20:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
1165:20:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
1148:20:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
1130:18:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
1097:19:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
1081:16:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
1064:15:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
1049:16:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
1025:12:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
1007:10:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
960:15:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
946:09:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
928:08:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
914:08:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
900:07:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
878:07:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
855:06:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
838:01:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
821:00:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
802:22:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
779:23:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
736:22:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
718:21:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
704:21:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
685:20:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
662:20:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
641:22:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
606:20:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
583:20:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
569:20:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
543:19:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
522:20:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
507:20:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
481:19:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
449:19:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
435:19:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
417:19:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
384:19:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
364:19:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
312:19:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
290:19:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
270:18:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
244:18:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
232:Dismissal_of_James_Comey
87:21:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
70:21:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
276:. Obviously surpasses
625:Read liberally enough
485:I do still feel that
708:I object, strongly.
318:Vegas Golden Knights
253:(as article creator)
320:. There is nothing
980:makes it notable.
1132:
1120:comment added by
990:
986:
765:
752:comment added by
643:
59:
56:non-admin closure
1218:
1201:
1042:
1003:
997:
991:
988:
984:
942:
937:
818:
813:
637:
632:
623:
599:
467:
377:
332:
263:
217:
216:
202:
154:
142:
124:
53:
34:
1226:
1225:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1208:deletion review
1197:
1036:
1005:
1001:
995:
982:
940:
935:
816:
811:
635:
630:
593:
371:
326:
257:
159:
150:
115:
99:
96:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1224:
1222:
1213:
1212:
1192:
1191:
1168:
1167:
1150:
1133:
1122:144.15.255.227
1100:
1099:
1084:
1083:
1066:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1009:
993:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
881:
880:
858:
857:
840:
823:
804:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
720:
688:
687:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
585:
549:is not notable
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
396:AfD rationales
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
271:
220:
219:
156:
95:
90:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1223:
1211:
1209:
1205:
1200:
1194:
1193:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1177:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1151:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1041:
1040:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1013:
1010:
1008:
1004:
998:
992:
978:
975:
974:
961:
957:
953:
949:
948:
947:
944:
943:
938:
931:
930:
929:
925:
921:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
903:
902:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
884:
883:
882:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
860:
859:
856:
852:
848:
844:
841:
839:
835:
831:
827:
824:
822:
819:
814:
808:
805:
803:
799:
795:
791:
788:
780:
776:
772:
767:
766:
763:
759:
755:
751:
745:
744:
739:
738:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
719:
715:
711:
707:
706:
705:
701:
697:
693:
690:
689:
686:
682:
678:
674:
671:
670:
663:
659:
655:
651:
650:
642:
639:
638:
633:
626:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
605:
604:
600:
598:
597:
590:
586:
584:
580:
576:
572:
571:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
545:
544:
540:
536:
532:
529:
523:
519:
515:
510:
509:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
470:
463:
460:
450:
446:
442:
438:
437:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
419:
418:
414:
410:
405:
401:
397:
393:
390:
383:
382:
378:
376:
375:
367:
366:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
340:
338:
337:
333:
331:
330:
323:
319:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
292:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
272:
269:
268:
264:
262:
261:
254:
251:
248:
247:
246:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
215:
211:
208:
205:
201:
197:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
165:
162:
161:Find sources:
157:
153:
149:
146:
140:
136:
132:
128:
123:
119:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
94:
91:
89:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
67:
63:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1198:
1195:
1181:Power~enwiki
1171:
1152:
1135:
1116:— Preceding
1103:
1069:Power~enwiki
1056:Power~enwiki
1045:
1038:
1037:
1017:Slatersteven
1011:
977:Strong keep:
976:
952:Power~enwiki
933:
920:Softlavender
906:Power~enwiki
892:Softlavender
888:WP:CONSENSUS
870:Power~enwiki
861:
847:BullRangifer
842:
825:
806:
789:
771:Softlavender
754:Power~enwiki
748:— Preceding
742:
741:
728:Softlavender
710:Power~enwiki
677:Softlavender
673:Power~enwiki
654:Softlavender
628:
602:
595:
594:
588:
561:Power~enwiki
548:
530:
514:Softlavender
499:Power~enwiki
473:Softlavender
461:
441:Softlavender
427:Power~enwiki
423:Donald Trump
409:Softlavender
392:Power~enwiki
380:
373:
372:
356:Power~enwiki
335:
328:
327:
304:Power~enwiki
282:Softlavender
273:
266:
259:
258:
252:
249:
236:Power~enwiki
221:
209:
203:
195:
188:
182:
176:
170:
160:
147:
74:
73:
49:
47:
31:
28:
826:Strong keep
493:is part of
398:, of which
342:It's still
186:free images
322:WP:CRYSTAL
300:WP:CRYSTAL
1204:talk page
1172:WITHDRAWN
1157:Casprings
1153:SNOW Keep
589:something
404:WP:BEFORE
79:George Ho
62:George Ho
50:withdrawn
37:talk page
1206:or in a
1118:unsigned
1073:MelanieN
1015:notable.
812:κατάστασ
762:contribs
750:unsigned
557:WP:DEL14
491:WP:UNDUE
487:WP:UNDUE
400:WP:UNDUE
344:WP:UNDUE
296:WP:UNDUE
224:WP:UNDUE
145:View log
75:Addendum
39:or in a
1176:WP:NPOV
1012:Comment
864:I note
862:Comment
830:Jdcomix
794:Lockley
724:WP:SNOW
553:WP:DEL5
495:WP:NPOV
462:Comment
192:WP refs
180:scholar
118:protect
113:history
1089:331dot
1039:bd2412
696:331dot
596:bd2412
575:331dot
535:331dot
374:bd2412
329:bd2412
316:Ahem.
278:WP:GNG
260:bd2412
164:Google
122:delete
1104:keep.
743:TWICE
471:. --
207:JSTOR
168:books
152:Stats
139:views
131:watch
127:links
16:<
1185:talk
1161:talk
1144:talk
1140:TJRC
1136:Keep
1126:talk
1093:talk
1077:talk
1060:talk
1021:talk
1002:cont
996:talk
989:OTTO
985:ARTH
956:talk
924:talk
910:talk
896:talk
874:talk
851:talk
843:Keep
834:talk
807:Keep
798:talk
790:Keep
775:talk
758:talk
732:talk
714:talk
700:talk
681:talk
658:talk
579:talk
565:talk
555:and
539:talk
531:Keep
518:talk
503:talk
477:talk
445:talk
431:talk
413:talk
360:talk
308:talk
286:talk
274:Keep
250:Keep
240:talk
230:and
200:FENS
174:news
135:logs
109:talk
105:edit
83:talk
66:talk
941:Eng
636:Eng
350:or
214:TWL
143:– (
1187:)
1163:)
1146:)
1128:)
1095:)
1079:)
1062:)
1023:)
958:)
926:)
912:)
898:)
876:)
853:)
836:)
800:)
777:)
764:)
760:•
734:)
716:)
702:)
683:)
660:)
581:)
567:)
559:.
541:)
520:)
505:)
479:)
447:)
433:)
415:)
362:)
354:.
310:)
288:)
242:)
194:)
137:|
133:|
129:|
125:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
85:)
68:)
60:--
1183:(
1159:(
1142:(
1124:(
1091:(
1075:(
1058:(
1046:T
1019:(
999:•
987:B
983:D
954:(
936:E
922:(
908:(
894:(
872:(
849:(
832:(
817:η
796:(
773:(
756:(
730:(
712:(
698:(
679:(
656:(
631:E
603:T
577:(
563:(
537:(
516:(
501:(
475:(
443:(
429:(
411:(
381:T
358:(
336:T
306:(
284:(
267:T
238:(
218:)
210:·
204:·
196:·
189:·
183:·
177:·
171:·
166:(
158:(
155:)
148:·
141:)
103:(
81:(
64:(
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.