Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Body Count

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 procedural redirect. As the article content has been revdel'd, there is nothing to keep, therefore the redirect is pretty much the only option here. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Body Count

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The 'body count list' is a hoary conspiracy trope that goes back decades. This one regarding the Clintons has been around since the 1990s. It is a massive BLP violation regarding the Clintons and also defames the memory of many of the people mentioned here. Only sources given are two conspiracy websites. That one former congressman with extremist views on social issues once wrote a letter about this does not give it any legitimacy nor make it any less a conspiracy theory. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, whether you agree with it or not, the term is notable, and has generated a lot of comment over the past two decades, as you mention above. BLP issues can be avoided as well by reporting what that the theory is, not speaking of it as an undisputed fact. JoeM (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nom, under this article title.~~ For other examples, Vince Foster suicide conspiracy theories is but a redirect. We do have an article on the related The Clinton Chronicles. I wouldn't even be willing to keep this as a redirect, because the _target article at this point would have to be the main bio article, which I think would be problematic. It may be possible to create a neutral article on anti-Hillary invective and conspiracy theories, but not under this flagrantly POV title, which appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to promulgate the term. User:JoeM's userpage is devoted to parroting anti-Hillary, pro-Trump memes, but it doesn't mean we're going to enable this sort of thing in article space. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and I believe that under its current title, it amounts to an attack page. I've placed a speedy tag on it accordingly. What's decided about that, I don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Clinton Body Count, where this term is appropriately covered. This title was a redirect to that section from 2012 until it was taken over and expanded today. JohnCD (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Thank you, John, I should have looked at today's edit history more carefully. Restore redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Clinton Body Count. I've struck through my !vote above, as "List of conspiracy theories" would be an acceptable redirect _target, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: because I agree that the new version was an attack page, I have boldly restored that redirect. The version under discussion can be seen in the history here. I propose, in addition, that we revision-delete that and the other intervening revisions. JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note:: there's a similar / related article, Larry Nichols, a guy who is only notable for claiming to be Bill Clinton's "hit man". I've PRODded that article. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wikidemon: fyi your prod appears to have been removed as part of Anthony Appleyard carrying out a hismerge request & page-move. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the notice. As moved / rewritten the article isn't PROD-able in my opinion, though it could use some help with tone, sourcing, filling out citations, etc. But at least it has legitimate sources. I've reworded a BLP violation but problem solved, I think. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to List of conspiracy theories#Clinton Body Count, per JohnCD and Shawn in Montreal.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this article on track to be preemptively destroyed and redirected, while Wikipedia is allowed to continue hosting an article called 'Clinton crazies'? It seems like the standard is that articles about the terms used by Clinton critics cannot stand, while terms used to disparage Clinton critics are encouraged. JoeM (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The content is already on Wikipedia, as a section on List of conspiracy theories. However, the argument is that it's not worth its own article: WP:NOPAGE. This page and Clinton crazies stand on their own, completely separate merits and shouldn't be conflated (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). clpo13_(talk) 15:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, it's redirected. But why does a term used by Clinton critics not deserve its own page, while a page about a term used by critics of Clinton critics does deserve its own page? I think there may be a double standard here, since the pro-Hillary users dominate the site. JoeM (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close / Redirect ? - Looks like this AfD was started, then the article was redirected and revdeled, both of which more or less railroad this discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:22, 22 July 2016 (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.