Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kerry flip-flops
Appearance
This partizan page should be deleted and any useful content merged into John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 --Tagishsimon
- I, obviously, disagree. The content is NPOV and provides a place to inform about a current phenomena regarding the accuracy of claims in the media about John Kerry's stance on issues. It doesn't belong directly on campaign pages because it is not directly about his campaign. I felt is also too lengthy to be included directly on John Kerry. Many of these claims are dubious at best, and some are provably untrue. I thought it would be a good place to contain both the claims as well as responses and factual analysis Rbsteffes 19:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If (some of) the claims are "dubious" and "provably untrue", then they are not John Kerry flipflops, but partizan neocon bullshit, in which case the page should be renamed partizan neocon bullshit. You cannot have it both ways. --Tagishsimon
- Nonsense, the claims are still in the media, and people still look for information about them. You are telling me it's ridiculous POV to provide information that a claim being made about a person is false? Rbsteffes 19:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If (some of) the claims are "dubious" and "provably untrue", then they are not John Kerry flipflops, but partizan neocon bullshit, in which case the page should be renamed partizan neocon bullshit. You cannot have it both ways. --Tagishsimon
- Delete. Ridiculously POV. zoney ▓ ▒ talk 19:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I doubt that the POV can be removed from this article. -- Bobdoe 20:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Irreparably POV. Livajo 20:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Some of it may be factual information, but everything is out of context. This is partisan politics, an opinion. Just as we don't want one on Bush's Lies and Spin--SpaceMonkey 20:19, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Pee-Ohh-Vee. Delete. What's next, List of Drugs George Bush Took While AWOL?? Antandrus 20:23, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Quadell (talk) 20:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- delete Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. CR 21:05, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, after all. Although its unique format lends itself to some great differences between it and a print encyclopedia, partisan lies and spin that will fade as soon as the election is decided have no place in our fair Wikipedia. I'd also recommend deleting the links to this page in the appropriate John Kerry pages. Wikipedia does not have an agenda and neither should its contributors. Timbo 23:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete This is ridiculous. It is a misuse of Wikipedia, and I recommend an early deletion to avoid propagation to mirrors. Geogre 00:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Do I have to say why? Even if the title were changed, the page would be inherently biased. One may as well start a page devoted to evidence of George W Bush's stupidity (no matter what the title of the page is). Let's keep this on the John Kerry page, perhaps under its own heading. There's no need to make pages for talking points. Binadot
- Delete. The title is virtually the current Republican campaign "message." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Title change?
I can see how the title would seem POV, but I still say the information is good and should be findable regardless of your political views. Can someone suggest a less loaded title? Rbsteffes 19:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I like Articles which have been deleted. RickK 20:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- You might consider making your own webpage chronicling these, and then link to it from John Kerry with the title "Criticisms of Kerry's statements" or somesuch. Quadell (talk) 20:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- No, the information is not good, and it is findable already in a number of places. Using Wikipedia to add credibility to this POV material is not what we're about. Timbo 23:15, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Not at all. Completely wrong. You want to write an article about Kerry's sandals, fine. You want to write how a person serving in the senate has votes on large bills with multiple points to them and how, later, you can select single points from each and make it a case for "indecision?" You want to write how someone can vote against a wasteful weapons system while voting for the same weapons when the money doesn't get wasted and get called "soft on defense" for that? Great. Have fun. Not here. Geogre 00:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)