Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete . This has been a well-trafficked and contentious discussion. There is near-unanimous agreement to either merge or delete, numerically favoring deletion, especially as the discussion has gone on. The primary arguments to merge are countered by the point that all usable content has already been integrated into Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, so the remaining question is whether the title should be preserved as a redirect or deleted outright. Arguments in favor of a redirect include that redirects are cheap and that it may be useful. Arguments against focus on the title being factually incorrect or misleading (i.e., that no "impeachment inquiry" actually exists, and that such terminology is not used by reliable sources). I evaluate this discussion as having a consensus to delete. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 00:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amended closure: this was originally deleted outright, but upon further review, the page history was restored to satisfy the attribution requirement following the merge. (I had originally thought the articles developed independently, but this was clearly not the case.) Because there was a clear consensus to not keep a redirect under the original title, the history was moved to Efforts to impeach President Biden using the process described under Wikipedia:Merge and delete#Rename to another title and redirect. — The Earwig ⟨talk⟩ 07:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete or Merge: Many Representatives throughout American history have introduced articles of impeachment, but this does not mean that they reach the level of a critical inquiry. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who proposed these articles, is a noted conspiracy theorist and introduced the articles just thirty hours after Joe Biden was inaugurated. It will not gather traction. This article should either be merged with hers, with Presidency of Joe Biden, or fully deleted. PickleG13 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • PickleG13, I overstruck your actual choices, above. I am sure you didn't mean them to be misleading, but you only get one non-vote. As nominator your nomination is your not-vote. Leaving an explicit opinion, in the body of the discussion, will confuse people trying to count the number of opinions for each choice. I suspect you meant to leave your opinion, when you opened the AFD, but didn't know how, and that is why you left an explicit not-vote directly following opening the AFD with no justification.] Geo Swan (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait For a few reasons. [1] as the article was created 10 minutes before an AFD with a total of 3 edits to the page. [2] the WikiProject of Current events was about to add a friendly notice to not consider the article for deletion for about 2 hours while RS create stories on it. I promise you that within 3 hours, there will be at least 12 RS that create stories on this. At the moment, there is only two RS with stories since it is so new. [3] Even if this doesn't go anywhere, it is still impeachment articles against a sitting US President. I would be ok for a rename if the articles go no where (Like expected). But honestly, this AFD was too quick. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed Vote to Merge since there is no need for two articles over the exact same material. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip:Another wiki and twitter is not reliable sources. Anyone can put made up stuff on twitter. Person A for example can tweet something like, "This election was rigged by mail in voter fraud. " That can't be used to cite that there was election fraud. Only one source that was reliable I kept, the others I removed and replaced with the citation needed tag. Sorry for any inconvenience. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: The other wiki I understand, but per Donald Trump on social media and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way." In this case, the Representative is a verified account and proven that is her official account. Her twitter is a reliable source in this case and I am adding it back. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going to be honest, Wikipedia crossed the "provoke controversy" line a long time ago. Articles like Trump–Raffensperger phone call & Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud (Aka no "Democratic reactions... article) might also be considered unnecessary. I know what you mean, but there is plenty of controversial articles on Wikipedia, so removing this would be a reason to challenge ones that were nominated as "keep". Elijahandskip (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • R. J. Dockery there is an essay, WP:Arguments to avoid, that is so widely read, widely cited, many wikipedia contributors assume it is a policy. If you have never read it I invite you to read it now.
Your argument above is a classic example of the argument the essay calls WP:EASYTARGET.
So, please be more careful, in future, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Elijahandskip. Plus there are less than 500 people who can file an article of impeachment in a nation of 320 million people, and she is one of them. Censoring to avoid controversy is not a legitimate reason. Albertaont (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Thousands of bills, resolutions, etc. are introduced in Congress each year, and many of them are introduced with the knowledge that they have virtually no chance of passing. However, the likelihood that a bill will pass isn't what determines whether a topic is notable. There are now numerous reliable sources which are plenty to satisfy WP:GNG. That being said, I think we should wait a while on this because it remains to be seen whether there will be continued coverage of this event (WP:PERSISTENCE). If not, then another AFD could be discussed. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 01:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that more time has passed and discussion has proceeded significantly, I am changing my vote to Move Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, because that seems like a more appropriate place to put the information. I think the effort is definitely notable per GNG, even if it is unlikely to go anywhere (efforts is the key word in "Efforts to impeach Joe Biden"). ―NK1406 talk•contribs 00:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would advocate for a merge, not a move. The above has been edited to reflect that. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 00:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, there's no justification for creating controversial BLP-related articles on the basis that something may come to pass and there may be future sourcing about it. An impeachment inquiry is not the same as efforts to impeach. Jr8825 • Talk 13:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both this and Efforts to Impeach Joe Biden, when most of the sourcing pre-dates Biden taking office, often by over a year, the thing is just not relevant. Wikipedia is not the news, and not everything that gets some passing news coverage is worth creating an article on. At least up until 5 years ago the view was you had to impeach someone for something they did while in office, so this is just way too soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point I see no reason for that page to be other than a redirect to Marjorie Taylor Greene.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Johnpacklambert, the wikipedia is not a hagiography. It is not our job to sanitize things, to present an image of America that is without warts. Yes, it must be embarrassing to be an American, today, with an embittered former President who was impeached twice, barely escaping being removed from office, because the clock ran out. I am not unsympathetic, but American contributors can't let their feelings influence their choices as to what topics to cover, or not cover. Geo Swan (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not embrassaed to be an American. I also see absolutely no way in which your comment here has an relevance to the subject at hand, or in any way explains how the article in question needs to exist and has any reason of being something other than a redirect to the article on the one person who has made an actual move in relation to the topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly confused on why you want the Efforts to impeach Joe Biden removed also. This article I could understand, but the information is still relevant and highly notable to Wikipedia to mention. Having that article is actually better than this article in my opinion. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With articles like this the issue is not just notability. It is, is there enough there to form a seperate article. Things like this most naturally belong in the article on the person they effect, and so the bar is not plain notability, but enough substance to justify having an article seperate from the article on the person they apply to. In this case, at present is is not clear why we need anything more than a passing mention on the page of the member of the US house who drafted the articles. We also need a step away from POV-pushing language and invoking words like "fringe" to describe elected members of the United States congress and a move to more measured and balanced discussion. What is 100% clear though is that we need to stop treating publicity stunts as more than they are and when they are the lone actions of one person, leave them as a passing balanced note in a balanced biography of that person. This also leads me to observe our biographies of members of congress are ofen very sub-par.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    we need to stop treating publicity stunts as more than they are and when they are the lone actions of one person – WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTSCANDAL seem relevant here. Jr8825 • Talk 16:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnpacklambert, Clarification please. Above you suggest, as if it was naturally obvious that "Things like this most naturally belong in the article on the person they effect..."

      Um, so the natural obvious choice of redirect target, was that Joe Biden, or Marjorie Greene?

      Shouldn't we structure our articles so our readers can access the information we offer in the way that best serves their interests, not the way that reflects our interests? Your comment suggests that you have one person you think this impeachment is related to, and no reader could be interested in this impeachment attempt, if they weren't primarily interested in that person.

      Well, what about individuals studying impeachment, in general, who aren't really interested in either Joe Biden or Marjorie Greene? Aren't they best served if we keep Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, and have links to that article in Joe Biden and Marjorie Greene?

      If we stuffed coverage of Greene's January 2021 impeachment attempt into the Joe Biden article are you satisfied with sending readers of the Marjorie Greene article to a subsection of the Biden article? Or vice versa. Geo Swan (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Urgent delete This simply does not exist. No inquiry has been launched. This needs to be speedily deleted. SecretName101 (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument above is a classic example of the argument the essay calls WP:NOTBUILT.
So, please be more careful, in future, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: you are SEVERELY misinterperating that essay. I am arguing WP:Crystal Ball. That is a valid argument. You cannot write an article about things that neither exist nor are scheduled or planned to exist. For instance, I cannot write an article called "Presidency of Kamala Harris". It may happen someday, but is neither existant nor scheduled to happen. This is the same exact thing. SecretName101 (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is usually established when reliable sources write about something in meaningful detail. Reliable sources write about unfinished things, in meaningful detail, all the time. We start articles about things, even though they aren't complete, or even are merely at the planning stage, all the time. We start new articles on project that aren't complete, based on their RS coverage, every day. Those articles are not lapses from CRYSTAL, so long as those who work on them are careful. If they describe the project as sure to be completed, in the wikipedia's voice, that is a lapse from CRYSTAL. Otherwise, no.
For instance, Chinese industrialists announced grand plans to build a canal, in Nicaragua, to compete with the Panama Canal. We have an article on it, even though it will probably never be built, because the plans triggered significant detailed RS coverage.
I don't see how deletion of this article is consistent with policy or precedent.
Why, exactly, did you describe its deletion as URGENT? Geo Swan (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: as you pointed out, NOTBUILT is an essay, not a policy or guideline. The point it's making is that editors should avoid arguments [that] make no use of policies or guidelines to substantiate claims of non-notability, the examples (about something being notable before it's finished) are nothing more than that, examples to illustrate the point in an essay. It's irrelevant here as various delete !votes are citing sections of WP:NOT (most evidently CRYSTAL), which is policy. Jr8825 • Talk 16:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: This is not "unbuilt". Unbuilt would apply to something like, say, the space elevator, something that has not been constructed, but has been conceptualized. This is simply an example of an article being written about a non-existent event. It's urgent because it should instead be a speedy deletion. You'd probably be all for a speedy delete if I wrote an article about another event that simply has not happened, and is not planned to happen, like, say, the "Assassination of Boris Johnson", wouldn't you? Because at that point we're writing fiction. This is just the same, there is no inquiry, an inquiry does not exist. None has even announced to be in the works. There is no inquiry, period. This is an article written about a non-existent event. SecretName101 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, wiki WP:Crystal Ball, it is a rule that "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable". There is ZERO verification that an inquiry will happen. GAME OVER.
And, by the way, side note. If an impeachment inquiry does ever get launched into Biden, it almost certainly will not come in the next two years from these proposed articles of impeachment (I'd eat my own hat if Nancy Pelosi said, "You know what. I went down the rabbit hole of the deep web last night, and I'm now on board with believing unmerited conspiracy theories about Joe Biden. Let's start an impeachment inquiry over this!") SecretName101 (talk) 05:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • SecretName101 I stand by my assertion your opinion lapsed from the excellent advice at UNBUILT.
  • Yes, I'd call for deletion if you or anyone else started Assassination of Boris Johnson or Plots to assassinate Boris Johnson, because they lapsed from WP:HOAX. It would be a hoax because there are no reliable sources that anyone plotted that terrible act.
  • The underlying topic of this article is well documented, where your hoax wouldn't be.
  • Your repetition of your assertion it is URGENT is not an actual explanation as to why you consider it URGENT. Do you actually have reasoning to explain why it should be URGENT? Geo Swan (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jr8825, yes, some other contributors cited sections of WP:NOT. But SecretName101 didn't. He used an argument that lapsed from the advice of ATA, and I pointed that out.
You cited WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOTSCANDAL.
When is the last time you re-read NOTSCANDAL? It has five numbered points. So which of those five numbered points did you think applied here? I don't think ANY of those numbered points apply. You've got to actually read the wikidocuments you call upon.
With regard to CRYSTAL, RS took Greene's efforts seriously enough to write about it. So the Efforts to impeach Joe Biden article, that cites those RS is not an instance of CRYSTAL. Geo Swan (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: actually, I always re-read policies before citing them because I'm an obsessive perfectionist. I think there's a strong case to be made that both points 3. Scandal Mongering (Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.) and 1. Advocacy/Propaganda (because covering an impeachment trial that doesn't exist is inherently UNDUE, so is therefore not an attempt to describe the topic from a NPOV) of NOTSCANDAL are applicable here. Secondly, because this AfD is about Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden (which is absolutely a case of CRYSTAL) I've purposefully avoided discussing the merits of Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. In fact, my original delete !vote explicitly points out they are different cases. While I'm happy to explain more fully my standpoint when other editors disagree with me, I don't find you accusatory comments about my competence helpful or relevant to the discussion. Jr8825 • Talk 14:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I overstruck the passage that seems to have bugged you. Since we have both re-read it, then we can both bring an informed arguments and counter-arguments. Point #1 and Point #3?
Marjorie Greene is a real Congressional Representative. She issued a real press release, and real newspapers and news channels had their smart political reporters comment on it. So, doesn't that make this a real thing that merits coverage on the wikipedia? Point #1 is a clause of WP:NOT, one of the wikipedia's policies, that bars using the wikipedia for Advocacy.
I think you and I, and everyone else here who really thought about it, agree to bar using the wikipedia for Advocacy.
The second sentence of point #1 says "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. "
Well, Greene's efforts are real, so they can be covered, so long as that coverage complies with NPOV. When an article covers a real phenomenon, that has been written about by RS, point #1 would require biased passages to be rewritten. It is simply not a justification to call for deletion.
You wrote: "...because covering an impeachment trial that doesn't exist is inherently UNDUE, so is therefore not an attempt to describe the topic from a NPOV. .." I think I know what UNDUE means. I don't know what "inherently UNDUE" means. In 2005 some POV-pushers tried to tell me that some topics were "inherently biased", and should not be covered, under any circumstances. It is my long held position that any topic, that is sufficiently well covered by good RS, can have a neutral unbiased article written about it.
  • Point #3's first sentence bars "Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping." Are you asserting Green's press release relies on gossip, etc? Okay, so if the article only linked to Greene's press releases point #3 would be a valid argument that WP:NOT justified deletion But this article uses other RS that comment on Greene's efforts. If our coverage of the valid RSS lapses from NPOV, then NOT requires rewriting some passages. Not deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She issued a real press release, and real newspapers and news channels - NOTNEWS (is there any indication, at all, that this will be even moderately significant 4 years down the line?)
bar using the wikipedia for Advocacy - I understand your concerns about not giving fair coverage to Trump vis-à-vis Biden. But in this case, it's bordering on advocacy to bend our BLP policy to add extensive coverage of what RS describe as mudslinging against Biden, that doesn't meet encyclopedic standards and is extremely poorly sourced (as our article on the Ukraine conspiracy theory outlines). And then add it to the current events portal for maximum exposure.
Greene's efforts are real, so they can be covered, when an article covers a real phenomenon, that has been written about by RS - Wikipedia doesn't (and shouldn't) cover every single thing that exists, even topics covered by RS - our notability policies are much more nuanced than "the NYT published something, so we can/must include an article on it". NOTNEWS speaks directly to this.
I stand by my words "inherently undue". This impeachment inquiry does not exist and covering it like it does equates to using Wikipedia to assist a political attack on Biden. Jr8825 • Talk 14:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: Where are there reliable sources for there being an impeachment inquiry? There are none. No impeachment inquiry exists, nor is one in the works. The article's title itself is arguably WP:HOAX. And again, you are severely misapplying that essay you keep bringing up. SecretName101 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Literally all the examples at NOTBUILT but one are about physical structures not being constructed. The exception is one example about an article being incomplete. These are not applicable to this deletion nomination in any sense. You are reaching, and way off-base with your interpretation of it here. Plus you ignore that my deletion argument was completely based on the wikipedia rule WP:NOTCRYSTAL. SecretName101 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan: "RS took Greene's efforts seriously enough to write about it", again Greene's effort is NOT an impeachment inquiry. That is the whole point I am making. An inquiry is a specific proccess, which, in practice, needs to be initiated by either the Speaker or a majority vote of the House. It has not. No impeachment inquiry exists. This article is not justified AT ALL. Please pay attention to what I have been saying. SecretName101 (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not that frequent, but there are AFD where most people agree the article is about a notable topic, and should be kept - but that it requires a new name. We don't delete articles on notable topics because they have a bad name.
SecretName101, should I keep looking forward to your explanation as to why deletion is URGENTly required here? Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Geo Swan: You already had my explanation, further proof you are not paying any attention to what I have written. And there already is an article on the subject of Greene's impeachment effort that is under an appropriate title (Efforts to impeach Joe Biden) that has ben mentioned countless times in this deletion discussion (you don't seem to be paying attention). So why would we keep a second article on the subject with a hoax title? SecretName101 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, 8,000-plus people viewed this yesterday. It is dangerous that they may either think Wikipedia gives voice to misinformation by having an article on a non-existent inquiry, or that they will believe Wikipedia, possibly walking away with the false perception that there is an impeachment inquiry against Biden, when there is not. I tried to fix this by changing the wording of the article to say that no impeachment inquiry has been initiated (how many people read this article before that happened, when it falsely said Marjory Greene had started an inquiry?). People can still easily misread what I changed it to, omitting the word not from their comprehension, which is dangerous. It does not make sense, and is arguably dangerous, for wikipedia to have an article about a non-existent inquiry. We need to purge false news quickly from this platform. SecretName101 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Geo Swan: Just to reiterate, you writing, "Your repetition of your assertion it is URGENT is not an actual explanation," tells me that you either ignored or simply did not read the explanation I gave, that it is urgent because this should instead be a speedy deletion, since no impeachment inquiry actually exists. SecretName101 (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say, not necessarily even then. If no inquiry has been launched, such an article is not needed, nor justified. Trump's second impeachment lacked an inquiry, for instance, thus no article for a second impeachment inquiry was created. SecretName101 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major Comment If this is deleted, then I will begin questioning some integrity markers on Wikipedia. Second impeachment of Donald Trump started off almost being deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. People did vote to delete it while others voted to keep it. Going to quote from an editor who actually has commented on here: @SecretName101: who said "We don't typically wait for a "formal inquiry" to happen before we create an article about impeachment efforts." Honestly, in the last few months I have seen a lot of hypocrisy happening on Wikipedia. I know people can change minds, but at the same time, if there is a Efforts to impeach Donald Trump that includes information not related to his 2 impeachments, then an article titles Efforts to impeach Joe Biden that has information that is relevant to that title, then we should keep it. Wanting to put this for a discussion for editors who !voted delete & also wanting Secretname101's opinion. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure if I understand you here Elijahandskip. The discussion here is about whether we should have the article Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden (IMO should be deleted - there is not yet an inquiry) in addition to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden which already talks to efforts (and IMO should stay as it is about efforts). From what I have seen, the impeachment articles current presented have not received widespread report and are not seen as likely to result in an impeachment inquiry being initiated, so there seems to me to be no value in the article we are voting on until something more substantial happens. I will admit I was not involved in the discussion on Second impeachment of Donald Trump, but I would have been equally opposed if it had no vote or realistic prospect of proceeding at the time of creation. Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood your meaning / the earlier context. FrogCrazy (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I understood the reason for this Afd. Below I started a section to get a vote to clarify what people mean when they vote. Honestly, a lot of the !vote deletes say to get rid of Efforts to impeach Joe Biden as well as this one. I know this Afd is for this article specifically and doesn't affect that article. However, I was pointing out parts to those editors (The ones commenting to delete both articles) about how it would be stupid to do that. I was also pointing out hypocrisy from an editor who voted to keep that article about Trump and delete this article about Biden just about the same time of creation (1 day). Elijahandskip (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understand now, thanks. I that case I agree re. retention of Efforts to impeach Joe Biden

FrogCrazy (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't typically wait for a "formal inquiry" to happen before we create an article about impeachment efforts. I stand by that, hence why I have not called for the deletion of the article Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. We do however, need to wait for an inquiry to be opened before we create an article about an inquiry. SecretName101 (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: Would you mind giving an apology? Since it seems you were calling into question my integrity. SecretName101 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SecretName101: Yes, I do apologize for "questioning your integrity". I never did as I said people can change their mind. I am sorry for calling your a hypocrit though. I was mis-informed and though your "Urgent delete" comment included deleting Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. That was my bad. Sorry about that. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that implying someone is being hypocritical is questioning their integrity (hypocrites lack integrity). But apology accepted nonetheless. SecretName101 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking, and other than Albertaont's opposition, I only see merge and delete votes (excluding those that have retroactively revoked their previous votes). Anyone else opposed in this comment section has failed to explicitly state their opposition. SecretName101 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is different from delete. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 04:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a substantial difference. A "merge" still is supporting eliminating this article. There has been next to no straight opposition to eliminating this article. SecretName101 (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Literally the first sentence of the page: An impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, the 46th president of the United States, has not been initiated. Material should be on the efforts to impeach page at most.  Nixinova   T   C   06:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden per Metropolitan90 and Elijahandskip respectively. There are WP articles for 'Efforts to impeach X' where X = every American president from Clinton through Trump. This impeachment inquiry against Biden (as well as any others should they occur) belong in an article with consistent naming conventions as for the other presidents. I don't know when the separate Impeachment of Donald Trump article was created, i.e. what the defining event was. If and when such an event occurs for Biden, I would recommend using that as guidance to determine whether a separate impeachment article for Biden should be created. (This could be generally applicable to future US presidents as well.)--FeralOink (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move or Merge: From my understanding about the several negative issues surrounding Joe Biden, it's reasonable idea to merge "Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden" into "Efforts to impeach Joe Biden" as it's the current situation and it would be the suitable subject for this case. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: This is pretty obvious. Why would we need two separate articles about what is essentially the same thing? Philosophy2 (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is a non-notable event. While there may have been some news/RS coverage of these efforts, I believe this is a case of WP:NOTNEWS (Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events (emphasis added)) - Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on everything that is newsworthy; there is Wikinews for that. I also oppose a merge on the grounds that I also believe that Efforts to impeach Joe Biden should be deleted (for the same NOTNEWS reasons); but I appreciate that this discussion isn't for that. Some editors above have also argued that because this may become a 'thing' in the future; we should wait or merge; but that would (imo) simply be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Seagull123 Φ 17:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly suprised you called it "Qanon conspiracy theories" since the impeachment articles aren't theories but fact. Not saying information they state is fact, just saying the impeachment articles themselves is a fact about Joe Biden's Presidency. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is no "inquiry" and there will be no house investigation. The person bringing the articles to the floor is an avowed follower of QAnon so while yes there was an effort that died quickly it's factually inaccurate to say there is an investigation. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like your delete is more of a merge. Correct? Elijahandskip (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would suggest to delete this page and merge content of page Efforts to impeach Joe Biden to page Marjorie Taylor Greene, more exactly to this section: Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Donald_Trump_and_Joe_Biden. This is the case when a fringe claim by a person belongs only to page of that person, i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene. My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked BD2412 why he speedy merged this article without closing this discussion and explaining why it was speedy merged. Given that that they also voted in this AfD I believe the speedy merge was inappropriate, especially without letting the AfD finish. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this discussion clearly wasn't completed. @Elijahandskip and BD2412: Where was this other discussion that supposedly came to consensus? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a merge proposal taking place during this AfD at Talk:Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. A number of folks who contributed to this discussion, especially advocating for deletion, did not participate in that discussion and there were a number of !votes at the end of that merge proposal opposing the merge, so I'm not sure how that could be a WP:SNOW closure either. JayJayWhat did I do? 04:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Efforts to impeach Joe Biden#Merger proposal. This discussion was closed (not by me) as "no consensus", which made the merger discussion the deciding issue. There was overwhelming consensus there. I don't see why this discussion was reopened.
To explain further, there is no "impeachment inquiry" in this case. There is an effort to start one. This discussion was closed as "no consensus", which left the nominated article in place. This is an absurd result, since it is clear that the vast majority of participants agree that there should not be an article at this title. BD2412 T 04:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the history here, I think there may have been vandalism involved and that the closure of the AfD was in bad faith. Which would make the closure of the merger discussion premature. @Tbhotch, Nsk92, Steve M, and Drmies: Is that your assessment? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no impeachment inquiry but I'm not sure how one can see that this AfD was closed, not by an administrator, as no consensus and immediately come to the conclusion that there was a consensus on the other talk page to merge. Especially without taking into consideration the number of people here who want the article deleted and oppose a merge. Also this discussion was reopened because Elijahandskip first closed it and has been very involved in this discussion. How do you not see a problem with that? JayJayWhat did I do? 04:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that the discussion was closed as no consensus. I didn't go through the votes to insure that the closer was not involved in the discussion, as that would be a very unusual thing to happen. The other discussion was merely awaiting the closure of this one. There had been no new activity there for several days. BD2412 T 04:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, BD2412 got tripped up by the earlier sock's fake "no consensus" closure of this AfD. After that fake closure, BD2412 closed the merge discussion as "speedy merge". In the meantime, the sock had been blocked, this AfD semi-protected, and the sock's "no consensus" closure reversed. Then Elijahandskip NAC closed this AFD on the grounds that the merge discussion had been closed. Then I asked Elijahandskip to undo his closure of this AfD, which he has done. Then GPHemsley restored all the pages to their pre-merger close state, and I think we are where we should be, and the AfD can continue. Ultimately this damage was caused by the sock disruption, but the story shows that people need to be a bit more careful. Nsk92 (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JayJay: I closed during the confusion because the Afd article in question (When I closed it) did not exist. I wasn't at all a "problem" as I thought I was just closing an Afd that had been merged. As Nsk92 said, there was a sock-puppet problem that lead to it being merged before the afd really concluded. I joined near the end of the ordeal and saw afd closed with a no consensus and that the existing article was already merged and no longer existed. After that, I just did the afd closer. Sorry for any confusion I caused. Just thought I would be helping. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: I wouldn't sweat it. I think it's clear you were operating in good faith, and we sorted it all out in the end. Just be more careful next time. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored all pages in question to their pre-closure state to avoid any confusion. I think the majority of this was a misunderstanding. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GPHemsley, for doing that and restoring all the pages to their pre-closure(s) state. I think we should now just let this AfD proceed and see how it plays out. Hopefully there will be no more sock disruption here with various unintended consequences. Nsk92 (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bkdb44: Most people agree that action should be taken, but people have several ideas about what precisely should be done: The article and its contents could be outright deleted, or a merge of some sort could occur. The discussion is probably past its peak, but accusations that it is "spurious" and "useless" are not very helpful. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 00:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As has been noted above multiple times, the relevant info has already been amply incoroprated in the article Efforts to impeach Joe Biden as a separate section, Efforts to impeach Joe Biden#Impeachment articles, with a link to a Wikisource as well. That's way more than the topic requires and nothing else needs to be merged. People shouldn't be saying 'merge' just for the sake of saying 'merge' when there's nothing left that needs merging. As others noted above as well, leaving a redirect in place of the current article (which usually results from a merge) would be misleading and harmful since it would convey the false impression that an impeachment inquiry exists when in fact it doesn't. Nsk92 (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap, and the standard for their inclusion is not whether they convey a false impression, but whether they are useful. A redirect from a wrong term to an article explaining that the term is wrong is useful. If the target article doesn't have that explanation, it can be added if sourced. BD2412 T 18:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A factually misleading redirect is, by definition, not useful, at least in my book. It is actively harmful and should not exist. Nsk92 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: That's a really depressing standard you are pointing to. Furthermore the 'Efforts to impeach' article will not be able to say there is no impeachment inquiry going on, because there are no RS's that say there is no impeachment inquiry going on. Just like there are no RS's that say that Canada is not thinking of joining the United States. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Rep. Marjorie Greene filed articles of impeachment against Biden a day after he was sworn in last week. ... There is no indication the impeachment inquiry has any momentum in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives". Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama could be impeached after Trump, Ted Cruz says, The News & Observer (January 27, 2021). BD2412 T 19:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat: a factually misleading redirect is not useful. It does active harm to Wikipedia and should be deleted for that reason. We should not allow Wikipedia to be used for perpetuating misinformation, even indirectly. As a couple of more extreme hypothetical examples, say, a redirect of "Satanic plot against Trump" to QAnon or a redirect of "False flag January 6, 2021 operation" to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol would need to be quickly deleted for similar reasons. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a reliable source referenced a "Satanic plot against Trump" as a synonym for QAnon (rather than as a belief proposed by QAnon), that would be a different matter. BD2412 T 21:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, this AfD has run its course. JayJayWhat did I do? 22:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Solavirum: Why? Afd is (and discussions on WP in general are) not a vote. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. Well, the article's notability on its own is not enough as there have been many examples of such proposals throughout the history. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on, not that again. As it has been pointed out umpteenth times above already, everything from this article that needed to be merged to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden has already been merged and then some. Nsk92 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Impeachment_inquiry_against_Joe_Biden&oldid=1005360686"