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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable video Non-notable Violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V Violates WP:BLP and more. NBGPWS 09:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at history of AfD nominations for similar Conspiratorial books at the Conspiracy Noticeboard for reasoning, precedent and stare decisis. Conspiracy Noticeboard NBGPWS 09:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I do think it should be mentioned in the article on (and merged into) The Arkansas Project NBGPWS 09:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Did occur. Article is not strongly written, but doesn't detract from notability as smear tool. One of first viral-type videos (copied and shared amongst believers). Is part of American political heritage of the 90's. No sweeping it under the rug. If merged this will be whittled away by partisans and good faith editors alike. BusterD 11:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Arkansas Project, after editing for brevity and source checking. - Crockspot 14:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep 13,000 ghits and is clearly a significant item in the history of smear tactics. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable video. No proof of wide viewership or major sales. Although I feel that this afd violates WP:POINT, I also feel that the article does not establish notability. --Strothra 14:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable video even if it's [overly-]biased and wrong. Two mentions of the video on the "Clinton Body Count" Snopes page (which obviously means it's "featured at length"). Jinxmchue 15:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The nominator's past actions suggest that this nomination may be a violation of WP:POINT. NBGPWS has been trying to argue that a noticeboard for AfDs on my userspace - User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard - is a tool for votestacking by right-wing "malicious POV pushers". (See User talk:NBGPWS). Yesterday the nominator was blocked for 24hrs for repeatedly adding a homosexual sex position to User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. Today, he added this AfD to the noticeboard with the following comment: "I added a new Afd that meets ALL the requirements of the goals here and also follows past precedent by this noble group of editors! I hope we can join together to fight this scourge!" (See [1]. )GabrielF 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please remember to AGF. Even yesterday's actions were in accordance with WP on user project pages, although I inadvertently violated 3RR, and POINT. (which was a judgement call anyway) Thanks. NBGPWS 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You know, I was also going to include that I suspected this was a bad-faith nomination when I made my earlier entry. Had it all typed out, in fact, but I backed off on it. I think that was a good decision on my part as I now think it's better that you brought it up, since it's you he's focusing on and your page(s) that he's vandalizing. Jinxmchue 06:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GabrielF's evidence that this is a bad faith nomination. --Aaron 15:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GabrielF, bad faith nomination and an obvious lack of understanding of Wikipedia to state "fight this scourge", Wikipedia is a colaboration, not a battle zone. --NuclearZer0 16:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From the noticeboard's history: "I suspect that these articles have been created to legitimize and promote this movement and I feel strongly that this undermines wikipedia's credibility and legitimacy and violates some of our most important principles." AGF. Thanks NBGPWS 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure what your point is. "Fight this scourge" sounds to me like someone about to charge a horde of monsters or wage a battle, that is not appropriate for wikipedia. We are here to colaborate, not fight some epic battle. Your tone is confrontational. --NuclearZer0 17:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's you interpetation which I dismiss. The noticeboard now says: "These AfDs primarily targetted articles on subjects with little or no notability, which violated WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:Vand which were created (in my opinion) for the purpose of promoting people, ideas, and books rather than for furthering wikipedia's mission." This article 'fits the bill' and is why I posted the AfD to the group, and here. NBGPWS 17:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanky ou for clarifying, however after your past antics, I cannot assume you added it there in good faith. The spirit of AGF is not to be blind, but to assume at first the person is making a good effort, after your last stunt that presumption is gone. That is why I stated what I did, I believe Gabriel makes a good point and I do not wish to see an article get deleted simply because you are bitter, as per your past comments on the group you now are claiming you are attempting to contribute to. I think the proof above has already been laid out so I will not be responding to you anymore, no point in making this AfD a mess. --NuclearZer0 17:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How about debating this one on the _merits_? I see absolutely no productive purpose whining about who made a nomination. People could easily make similar charges against every nom you make Zer0, and I'd tell them it's irrelevant too. Derex 19:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not interested in your arguements either, considering you were also noted as reverting back to that WP:POINT violation. I have stated my case and unless you have something compeling, you may as well stop responding. --NuclearZer0 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You're not interested in arguing on the merits???? btw, I have made exactly one edit to that page ever, and the admin who gently noted it then apologized for failing AGF. If only everyone here had the class of that admin and the belief in AGF. Derex 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we blow that more out of proportion? I am not interested in discussing merits with someone who reverts without even checking what they are reverting, I am not sure you understand Wikipedia policy well enough to have such a debate with, if you just go around reverting pages during edit wars without checking the content, or so you claimed. There are lots of people who may want to entertain a debate with you over this topic, choose one of them. Considering my decision is based on the nominators actions being in violation of a policy/guideline, I really do not see how you are even debating me as you are going about this as if its a normal AfD. --NuclearZer0 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• NuclearDude, Calm down! You're gonna get in trouble if you keep on attacking other editors like this! You keep removing my NPA warnings from your user page too. Is that even allowed? NBGPWS 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Giggle, I almost got sucked into that one. Yes it is allowed feel free to ask at AN/I, they will explain to you that constantly putting back the templates is actually harrassment/vandalism. But thats an entirely different issue, you should address it there not here. --NuclearZer0 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe you should have some tea, NuclearDude? You're getting pretty bent! NBGPWS 20:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes very bent, I buy my tea in bulk and it helps me get bent --NuclearZer0 20:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note I found this page through the noticeboard as I originally removed the addition NBGPWS added because I knew it was yet another WP:POINT violation. However I am voting to make sure this violation doesnt cause an article to get deleted. --NuclearZer0 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, albiet I know that many of these editors, based on their edit histories, if there was an attack video againt Bush Jr. for example, they would actively support its deletion. Travb (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd heard of this well before I ever came here. It's a notable element among the fringe of Clinton-haters. (I dislike Clinton, but I was never extreme enough to buy into this video)--T. Anthony 18:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (see below) ... unless some evidence of notability is provided. I see no links to any mainstream news source for example. Having "heard of it" doesn't so much count here; I've heard of a lot of things that get deleted. There is Salon, but that's a little boutique magazine. Has this thing not been mentioned in any major newspaper even as a passing reference? If not, and that's not documented here, I don't see how it passes notability. Further, if there are no mainstream references, then how can we possibly satsify WP:V and WP:RS without violating WP:OR? At present it just isn't up to snuff. Open to changing my vote upon identification of some mainstream reliable sources. No problem with a merger per above comments, as its existence is at least verifiable. Derex 19:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep After a fair bit of digging, I found two mainstream sources that mention it. Washington Post, and NYTimes. The latter is Times Select, so I can't read anything more than excerpts (someone here must have a membership). Neither seems to make much of it, but at least it's a mention. Derex 08:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the NY Times article you mentioned. They say the "Clinton Chronicles" is " a hodgepodge of sometimes-crazed charges that are thrown off with an air of knowingness but little documentation." Bill Duncan, who is shown in it , says "It was used by people for purely political purposes." The article refers to the people who made the film as "the Clinton crazies." Nothing in the article lends credence to the absurd and libelous claims made in the film. The Washington Post article calls it a "bizarre and unsubstantiated documentary." Both articles , therefore, argue for the deletion of the article as a gross violation of WP:BLP.Edison 05:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think those quotes would be a fine addition to the article. Well-cited reporting of libel, slander, and smear by others is not a BLP violation as I understand it (haven't re-read it lately). If it were, we'd pretty much have to AFD Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, & Rush Limbaugh. Derex 05:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable though appalling bit of lies which has received sufficent media attention to warrant inclusion. Gamaliel 19:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I read this article before reading this discussion. I notice several things: 1) The article seems to be almost wholely WP:OR. 2) Almost nobody here has actually addressed the article when offering an opinion. This isn't really the proper place to discuss a user disputes, and even trollish nominations occasionally accidentally hit something. This isn't the first time I've seen that happen, and it likely won't be the last. Therefore, pending reliable sources to document the notability of this, I have to say delete. I would feel much more comfortable with this if mainstream coverage were demonstrated. GassyGuy 03:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete And protect against creating it again. "Largely discredited account of circumstantial evidence and coincidence," per Tbeatty, 18:07, 25 March 2006, who created the article. It accuses a living person of murders and violates WP:BLP. Please apply the same standards here as when deleting Lori Klausutis or Andy Stephenson. Edison 18:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure what you mean. LK and AS are non-notable and deletable as such. I believe I accurately described the video as a "largely discredited account." What you seem to be comparing is the "truth" of these articles rather than their notability. If we simply look at truth, LK was not killed, no votes are stolen by electronic voting machines and Bill Clinton didn't kill anyone. But if we talk about simple notablility, the publci spat between Joe Scarborough and Michael Moore is notable (LK is not). The Black Box Voting org and movement is notable, Andy Stephenson is not. Clinton Chronicles is notable, the producers/directors/accusers are not. If we treat CC like the 9/11 conspiracy articles, we could spawn off 10s or hundreds of articles on anyone who has commented or contributed to this video. --Tbeatty 08:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Edison wrote "It accuses a living person of murders and violates WP:BLP." The video accuses living people of murder, but the article does not. We can (and currently do) have a good article about this obnoxious video without endorsing the claims it makes. To expand on my vote below, if we keep this article we have to make very sure any edits that endorse those claims get reverted PDQ. CWC(talk) 12:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP - When in doubt, don't delete. Let people gather facts for themselves, no matter what standards (or lack thereof), or even utter ridiculous ideas may come from it. — 66.16.19.198 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep well-known piece of 1990s history. --Groggy Dice 06:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep as an article about a video propounding some nutty conspiracy theories which sold(?) 300,000 copies. (Wikipedia should document that fact that the anti-Clinton CTs were just as nutty as the anti-Bush CTs are today.) Weak because we need to ensure that the article is not edited to endorse those conspiracy theories.

Please note that I've added the WaPo and NYT links that Derex found to the article. (Thanks, Derex.) CWC(talk) 07:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Stupid, biased, and inacurate as it may be, it is as noticable as Loose Change, the Moon Landing hoax, and other "conspiracies". Koweja 00:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Derex's research. JoshuaZ 15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable and encyclopedic. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 02:02, 29 October 2006 (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.