490:
properly closed in any other way. The close was neither "generous" nor "unfortunate". None of which settles whether this now belongs in mainspace, of course. I am still considering that, but leaning towards keeping it there. I declined the G4 because it did not fit. G4 is for recreations of previously deleted content (deleted by discussion). This simply wasn't previously deleted. That isn't merely "technical" --- CSDs may only be used when they clearly fit the written criteria, if there is doubt, a discussion is needed. And here we are to discuss.
715:. If that can be done in a day or two, fine; if it takes months, also fine. The question here is whether the changes sufficed to fix the prior issues and demonstrate the notability of the topic, or not. If not, this does not currently belong in mainspace. If it is notable, then it does.and the G4 decline (by me) was not merely technical, it was declined because there was no previous AfD (or XfD) deletion, which is the basis of a G4 speedy.
464:
even what brought you back to
Knowledge (XXG), and we do want you here. But this is just nowhere near as important as you thought it was. You've now moved it from draft too soon, nominated it at ITN, and we draftified a couple weeks ago to see if it would become important, you again recreated it from draft too quickly. Now you want us to draftify it
595:{Creator's vote}. I honestly vote Keep as the articles of impeachment led to new laws (Some about the impeachment articles). I do admit I moved it from the original draftify back to an article too quickly. I should have added more about the connection before moving it back. {See "Comment related too original deletion reason" above}.
445:. There's already more than enough info about it there and no extra merging is needed. I would object strongly to any closing outcome for this AfD other than 'delete', given its prior hisory. Leaving the page in mainspace to wait for merging would leave the situation open to endless arguments, manipulation and delays. The page's creator,
617:, if you think you can write that article, why not just write that article? But I have to say, if you move it to article space too fast, and we have to go through this again, it's going to be approaching disruptive editing. I'd highly recommend getting someone who has created multiple well-referenced articles to look it over first.
961:, the Ohio Congress passed new laws that were not considered before they "political stunt". An Ohio Governor no longer can do a shutdown {Like what happened with the March Covid Shutdown}. If you think about it, the article needs to be retuned to point that fact out, instead of being a article about the "Impeachment articles".
571:
I'd still argue that it's of only local interest. Even that article calls the whole thing inside baseball. It's just...meh. I live in Ohio. Other than this article I've barely heard about this. It might be something being discussed in
American Government classes in Ohio high schools, but that's about
510:
As the closer of the first AfD stated, "Unanimous agreement that this doesn't belong in mainspace." I believe that people who suggested draftification were in fact feeling generous and wanted to give the page's creator an opportunity to wait a few months to see if the topic might become notable then.
489:
I could do with a bit less editorializing in the nomination statement, and a bit more candor. Of the 12 expressed views in the first AfD, 5 were for draftification, and only 3 for deletion. A closer who closed that AfD as delete would have been swiftly overturned at DRV. Indeed it could not have been
249:
violation. Nothing really changed since the previous AfD in that regard. The "impeachment" itself was a widely viewed as a political stunt, flashing through the news for a few days and forgotten just as quickly. It is clear that these "articles of impeachment" won't ever even get a committee hearing,
683:
per G4. Content being draftified instead of completely deleted does not justify rapid recreation. This is just a couple idiot legislators whining like babies that they have to wear a mask and ā gasp! ā act with regard for other humans. Per
Usedtobecool, this complaint can be summarized in a couple
556:
Interesting, thanks. I admit, that is definitely something. Still it looks like at the most the impeachment effort was a very short term political manuever on the part of some ultra-conservative members of the Ohio House of
Represenatives upset with the governor that could have helped dislodge and
414:
into the pages for the 4 state reps who brought this. There are three brief non-local sources that covered it over a period of a couple of days, but IMO it still falls on the wrong side of notability, and it's clearly not going to get any more coverage. I think where it's really of use is on their
244:
The article had just gone through an AfD that was closed on Sept 1: "Unanimous agreement that this doesn't belong in mainspace." Unfortunately, as it turned out, the closer was feeling generous and chose 'draftify' rather than plain 'delete' as the outcome. The article creator proceeded to quickly
599:
is also an option. Maybe changing the overall topic from focusing on the impeachment articles to focusing on the changes that happened. {In general, the impeachment articles were a political stunt, but the articles (The contents of them) caused new laws which basically prevents an Ohio
Governor
463:
Yes, I know, I was the one who updated those four articles. I was trying to be kind to the article creator, who I know worked hard on this, but given their vote below to redraftify, I'm starting to lose patience. Elijahandskip, I know you really thought this was an important article -- maybe it's
245:
re-submit the article to AfC where, even more unfortunately it got through, as a lot of junk flies through there. G4 was declined on technical grounds since the AfD result was 'draftily' rather than 'delete'. So here we are again. Now, to substance. The page is still a manifest
369:
I kind of agree, but I am not sure how to proceed. I only realized that the title of the article changed slightly from the first AfD after
Twinkle finished processing the AfD nomination and has created all the templates. I admit I'm not quite sure what to do now ...
740:
Just thinking that making the title āsaltedā is slightly too far. I am going to begin working on that other article talked about above. Possibly salting the title would prevent that. Just a though, so maybe (if deleted) donāt salt title.
640:-- The whole article can be summarised in three sentences. The target already has two. Remove the rest and add the third there. The alternative title, under which this article was first created, already redirects to the same article. BTW, "
213:
957::Most of you are using the reason that it was a "political stunt that had no lasting impact". I have stated multiple times (People don't seem to read or comment on the point much), but the articles of impeachment were a political stunt,
882:
I mean it did change history for Ohio
Governors. As stated earlier, the articles are a political stunt, but 10 new bills came out of the 10 "fake articles of impeachment". Basically, everything they were going to impeach him on is a
331:
77:
254:
added a section 'Results' about a subsequently passed House Bill 272 that limits the public officials' powers to change the time and place of the elections. However, there is no mention at all in the source cited
207:
147:
142:
662:
IMO, any redirect would be the same as the article during the first AFD. The point of the article now is how the impeachment articles were a political stunt that started a bunch of new laws.
537:
151:
511:
I don't think anyone really envisioned the article being re-created just a couple of weeks later, in essentially the same form, with a flimsy extra 'Results' section trying to draw a purely
557:
move a long some bills that were introduced earlier. It's more interesting than I thought but it's still not worthy of an article about the impeachment itself as that isn't going anywhere.
134:
415:
pages; this is about them, not about DeWine. I seriously am not even sure it needs to be linked to from DeWine's. It was just a silly political ploy by a few barely notable politicians.
174:
258:
mentions nothing at all about this fine "impeachment" effort as having any impact on the passage of this bill, and the attempt to draw such an implication is a pure unadulterated
388:
262:. Given how things went down with this page so far, I request that, if this AfD is closed as 'delete' that the title is salted, and that the closing statement specify that
287:
758:
As more time has passed this appears to have been a stunt. I thought so at the time but it was breaking news so I voted
Draftify just in case it developed. It didn't. ~
515:
connection to the subject of the page. I don't have a problem with G4 being declined, but I do have a problem with the continued existence of this page in mainspace.
697:
Can't be Speedy delete. G4 was declined on technical grounds since the AfD result was 'draftily' rather than 'delete'. The AFD (second) reason even stated that.
908:
I'm not
American but it looks like a shallow political stunt, with little lasting value and I don't see it as a search term as for most readers, its byzantine.
307:
106:
256:
121:
642:
The article creator proceeded to quickly re-submit the article to AfC where, even more unfortunately it got through, as a lot of junk flies through there.
228:
195:
970:
947:
918:
896:
870:
843:
822:
800:
769:
750:
726:
706:
688:
671:
653:
626:
609:
581:
566:
547:
524:
501:
477:
458:
424:
400:
379:
360:
343:
319:
299:
279:
61:
189:
330:
Looks like the article title had been moved since Sept 1 and the title is a little different now. Here is a link to the previous AfD:
185:
101:
94:
17:
138:
429:
There's already a significant amount of info about the "impeachment" effort in the articles of about all sponsors of this effort,
235:
449:
has shown extraordinary persistence and tenacity in bringing this page back. It's not a good idea to tempt fate further here.
130:
67:
721:
496:
786:
115:
111:
987:
468:
If this becomes important -- if some book on Ohio politics mentions it -- you can refund. Changing my !vote to delete.
40:
201:
927:
57:
839:
711:
Draftification does not impose any particular time delay. Rather, it is intended for the text to remain in draft
430:
966:
892:
818:
746:
702:
667:
605:
543:
649:
536:: Earlier it was stated that House Bill 272 has no connection to the impeachment articles. Found this:
983:
864:
53:
36:
835:
761:
356:
852:
246:
221:
962:
888:
814:
742:
719:
698:
663:
622:
614:
601:
577:
539:
494:
473:
446:
420:
263:
251:
790:
646:
351:
If this is the second AfD the nomination should reflect that fact with the correct templates.
90:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
982:
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
911:
887:
law. An Ohio
Governor can't do anything that happened back in March (With the shutdowns).
859:
267:
795:
562:
520:
454:
442:
396:
375:
352:
339:
315:
295:
275:
512:
259:
942:
434:
834:
this has not risen to the level of a notable event worth having a seperate article on.
600:
from doing a "Mass shutdown" and other things that happened during the COVID issues.}
938:
716:
685:
618:
573:
491:
469:
416:
168:
778:
637:
438:
266:
must first request and obtain explicit consensus for recreation of this page at
558:
516:
450:
392:
371:
335:
311:
291:
271:
785:
it deserves a sentence or two. In the case that that page is kept, rename to
332:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Mike DeWine
932:
250:
let alone a vote of any kind. Since the first AfD the article's creator
978:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
572:
it. If some textbook covers it in a few years we can refund.
78:
Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Mike DeWine
684:
sentences, if at all. Title is not a likely search term.
851:
and Salt: Non-notable political stunt that will not be
164:
160:
156:
220:
234:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
990:). No further edits should be made to this page.
389:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
387:Note: This discussion has been included in the
306:Note: This discussion has been included in the
286:Note: This discussion has been included in the
288:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
8:
534:Comment related too original deletion reason
122:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
386:
305:
285:
308:list of Ohio-related deletion discussions
131:Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine
68:Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine
75:
787:Impeachment effort against Mike DeWine
641:
270:before posting it to mainspace again.
930:if we ever have such an awful thing.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
955:Comment to majortiy of Delete votes
74:
24:
783:If it isn't on his page already,
638:Mike DeWine#Impeachment Articles
107:Introduction to deletion process
971:18:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
948:18:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
919:11:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
897:18:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
871:07:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
844:19:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
823:18:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
801:23:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
770:01:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
751:17:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
727:17:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
707:10:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
689:03:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
672:02:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
654:01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
627:12:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
610:22:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
582:12:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
567:22:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
548:22:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
525:21:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
502:20:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
478:11:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
459:20:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
425:19:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
401:19:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
380:19:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
361:19:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
344:19:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
320:19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
300:19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
280:19:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
1:
928:list of dumb political stunts
97:(AfD)? Read these primers!
62:02:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
1007:
713:until the issues are fixed
980:Please do not modify it.
431:John Becker (politician)
32:Please do not modify it.
644:" Eloquent but untrue.
789:or something similar.
73:AfDs for this article:
95:Articles for deletion
597:Article Info Change
867:
863:
447:User:Elijahandskip
264:User:Elijahandskip
252:User:Elijahandskip
946:
865:
857:
836:John Pack Lambert
723:DESiegel Contribs
498:DESiegel Contribs
403:
322:
302:
112:Guide to deletion
102:How to contribute
998:
936:
916:
914:
869:
798:
793:
764:
593:Keep or Draftify
239:
238:
224:
172:
154:
92:
34:
1006:
1005:
1001:
1000:
999:
997:
996:
995:
994:
988:deletion review
926:or redirect to
912:
910:
856:
796:
791:
762:
724:
499:
443:Paul Zeltwanger
181:
145:
129:
126:
89:
83:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1004:
1002:
993:
992:
974:
973:
951:
950:
921:
902:
901:
900:
899:
874:
873:
846:
828:
827:
826:
825:
804:
803:
772:
753:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
722:
692:
691:
677:
676:
675:
674:
657:
656:
631:
630:
629:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
551:
550:
530:
529:
528:
527:
505:
504:
497:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
435:Candice Keller
405:
404:
384:
383:
382:
364:
363:
346:
324:
323:
303:
242:
241:
178:
125:
124:
119:
109:
104:
87:
85:
82:
81:
80:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1003:
991:
989:
985:
981:
976:
975:
972:
968:
964:
963:Elijahandskip
960:
956:
953:
952:
949:
944:
940:
935:
934:
929:
925:
922:
920:
917:
915:
907:
904:
903:
898:
894:
890:
889:Elijahandskip
886:
881:
878:
877:
876:
875:
872:
868:
861:
854:
850:
847:
845:
841:
837:
833:
830:
829:
824:
820:
816:
815:Elijahandskip
812:
808:
807:
806:
805:
802:
799:
794:
788:
784:
780:
776:
773:
771:
767:
766:
765:
757:
754:
752:
748:
744:
743:Elijahandskip
739:
736:
735:
728:
725:
720:
718:
714:
710:
709:
708:
704:
700:
699:Elijahandskip
696:
695:
694:
693:
690:
687:
682:
681:Speedy delete
679:
678:
673:
669:
665:
664:Elijahandskip
661:
660:
659:
658:
655:
652:
651:
648:
643:
639:
635:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
615:Elijahandskip
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
602:Elijahandskip
598:
594:
591:
590:
583:
579:
575:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
555:
554:
553:
552:
549:
545:
541:
540:Elijahandskip
538:
535:
532:
531:
526:
522:
518:
514:
509:
508:
507:
506:
503:
500:
495:
493:
488:
485:
479:
475:
471:
467:
462:
461:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
427:
426:
422:
418:
413:
410:
407:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
385:
381:
377:
373:
368:
367:
366:
365:
362:
358:
354:
350:
347:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
304:
301:
297:
293:
289:
284:
283:
282:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
248:
237:
233:
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
187:
184:
183:Find sources:
179:
176:
170:
166:
162:
158:
153:
149:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
127:
123:
120:
117:
113:
110:
108:
105:
103:
100:
99:
98:
96:
91:
86:
79:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
979:
977:
958:
954:
931:
923:
909:
905:
884:
879:
848:
831:
810:
809:I support a
782:
774:
760:
759:
755:
737:
712:
680:
647:Usedtobecool
645:
633:
596:
592:
533:
486:
465:
411:
408:
348:
327:
243:
231:
225:
217:
210:
204:
198:
192:
182:
88:
84:
49:
47:
31:
28:
913:scope_creep
779:Mike DeWine
439:Nino Vitale
208:free images
853:WP:LASTING
353:Lightburst
247:WP:NOTNEWS
984:talk page
619:āvalereee
574:āvalereee
470:āvalereee
417:āvalereee
54:T. Canens
37:talk page
986:or in a
775:Redirect
686:Reywas92
634:Redirect
328:Comment.
175:View log
116:glossary
39:or in a
959:HOWEVER
880:Comment
860:Timothy
738:Comment
487:Comment
349:Comment
214:WPĀ refs
202:scholar
148:protect
143:history
93:New to
924:Delete
906:Delete
849:Delete
832:Delete
811:rename
756:Delete
466:again.
441:, and
412:Delete
268:WP:DRV
186:Google
152:delete
50:delete
943:typo?
939:help!
792:KidAd
559:Nsk92
517:Nsk92
513:WP:OR
451:Nsk92
409:Merge
393:Nsk92
372:Nsk92
336:Nsk92
312:Nsk92
292:Nsk92
272:Nsk92
260:WP:OR
229:JSTOR
190:books
169:views
161:watch
157:links
16:<
967:talk
893:talk
866:talk
840:talk
819:talk
797:talk
763:EDDY
747:talk
703:talk
668:talk
623:talk
606:talk
578:talk
563:talk
544:talk
521:talk
474:talk
455:talk
421:talk
397:talk
376:talk
357:talk
340:talk
316:talk
296:talk
276:talk
222:FENS
196:news
165:logs
139:talk
135:edit
58:talk
933:Guy
885:NEW
862:::
858://
777:to
717:DES
636:to
492:DES
236:TWL
173:ā (
969:)
941:-
895:)
855:.
842:)
821:)
813:.
781:.
768:~
749:)
705:)
670:)
650:āļø
625:)
608:)
580:)
565:)
546:)
523:)
476:)
457:)
437:,
433:,
423:)
399:)
391:.
378:)
359:)
342:)
334:.
318:)
310:.
298:)
290:.
278:)
216:)
167:|
163:|
159:|
155:|
150:|
146:|
141:|
137:|
60:)
52:.
965:(
945:)
937:(
891:(
838:(
817:(
745:(
701:(
666:(
621:(
604:(
576:(
561:(
542:(
519:(
472:(
453:(
419:(
395:(
374:(
355:(
338:(
314:(
294:(
274:(
240:)
232:Ā·
226:Ā·
218:Ā·
211:Ā·
205:Ā·
199:Ā·
193:Ā·
188:(
180:(
177:)
171:)
133:(
118:)
114:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.