Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 165.156.40.38 (talk) at 11:41, 13 March 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy

2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM. Not everything the Trump administration does is a "controversy" requiring an article. This is not on par with the Bush dismissal of U.S. attorneys in 2006. In fact, this is not unprecedented. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What specific speedy delete criteria do you believe applies? Neutralitytalk 22:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are a couple more sources that demonstrate that this is not a "controversy": [2][3] – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am open to different page titles, and the article does mention that Sessions' move is not unprecedented. That doesn't change the fact that the move received plenty of coverage to justify a standalone article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is lots of coverage, I agree with that. But, most of it is of the WP:SENSATIONAL variety. I think we all have our guards up so high because of Trump and all of the things the Trump administration is doing, and the media is part of it, breathlessly reporting everything in sensational ways. Many things (cough*Muslim ban*cough) deserve it, but asking the U.S. attorneys to resign at the beginning of the administration is not that. The last three presidents did the same exact thing, except they were a bit more deliberate about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, some are sensational, and we can include media's reaction in the article, but many of the sources are also just sharing news. The administration's decision impacts many people and jurisdictions, hence the widespread coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is a plenty of coverage, but that fact alone does not support notability of the article. The topic is banal and commonplace. It is worth a mention or two in the Trump article or in the DOJ article, etc. But an article all to itself is not justfied. Also, the name of the article speaks to the fact that it is not deserving of an article topic. The word "controversy" is not really used in the reliable sources. Why the use of the word "controversy" when the Slate magazine article, not a hotbed of conservative thought, calls the whole thing much to do about nothing. It seems a bit like the title is a stretch to justify an article where no one exists. We can't name an article a controvesy when Slate specifically states that it is not a controversy and only the article creator really thinks it is a controversy. It needs to be either merged or moved or fully deleted, but kept as an article? No.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ABC/AP report: It is not unusual for U.S. attorneys, who are appointed by presidents, to be asked to resign when a new president takes office, especially when there is a change of party at the White House.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we've established that the move is not unprecedented. An event does not need to be unprecedented to be notable. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple editors have made this suggestion, and I (article creator) don't object. You can comment on the article's talk page, or if it's not against rules to move an article during an active AfD discussion, that'd be fine. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Recentrism, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Eric Holder has been quoted as saying in regards to firing attorneys in the past,"Elections matter. It is our intention to have the U.S. attorneys that are selected by President Obama in place as quickly as we can."[1] There is a fake news epidemic in the mainstream media and the "2017 dismissal of attorneys controversy" is a perfect example. Eoswins (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Let the article evolve on its own, it looks like a good merge candidate after a few days of article development. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.vox.com/2017/3/10/14890546/trump-us-attorneys-resigned
  • Keep and rename the now vaguely-named article on the similar Bush firing of attorneys called "Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy to "2006 Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy" -- and, in agreement with ErieSwiftByrd, choose another word instead of "controversy" for both articles. cat yronwode, not logged in. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is most certainly NOT a controversy (note naming already violates Wikipedia NPOV) and is a routine procedure that was done in the past under a number of previous administrations. Wikipedia has no place for the newpaper sensationalism like articles. (see this as well) --CyberXRef☎ 07:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment I am inclined to keep per the amount of coverage this topic has received, but would also like to say it is probably to soon to tell as this even happened yesterday and it might take a day or two to see what impact this event will have. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment This event is controversial in large part due to the public blessing that Trump and Sessions gave Preet Bharara during Trump's first days as president elect (as noted by almost every news story). Given the high profile cases that Bharara is investigating and prosecuting, and the fact that Trump's allegations of wire tapping within a jurisdiction Bharara would investigate, elevate this to full controversy, and worthy of its own article. Spawn777 (talk) 10:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EVENTCRITERIA. "Routine kinds of news events [...] – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." I don't think there's an enduring significance here, those people were going to be replaced anyway, and previous presidents have done so too. HaEr48 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question: There are now 2 merge banners at the top of the article. The discussion at Talk:United States Department of Justice during the Trump administration seems unnecessary and should be closed -- the target page is just a redirect, so if we want attorney dismissal content to live there, we could just move this page. Is there an admin who can assist with the closing of this merge discussion? Also, several people have opposed usage of the word "controversy" -- I am fine with removing this word from the article's title, but can the page be moved while there is an ongoing AfD discussion? I'd move the page myself but I want to follow rules. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , although the title may be modified: It is already as a reference in google news...
  • Keep. Obvious WP:GNG pass. The actual text of NOTNEWS says to treat recent news like any other article. There is more than enough notability for this. The only quibble I have with it is that I want a title without "controversy" - for example, by amputating the unneeded word at the end of the title. It's a notable dismissal of US attorneys even if there were not a single person arguing about it. Wnt (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I agree with Wnt on all counts. So I suggest changing title to 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys. Orser67 (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:EVENT, this is notable because, "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." This clearly has widespread non-routine coverage and affects federal law enforcement throughout the United States. There is no requirement that an event be unprecedented (we have articles on every Super Bowl, and every presidential inauguration), although some parts of this do seem to be unprecedented. It just has to be notable. At least two aspects in particular are receiving non-routine coverage: 1. Preet Bharara was fired (he did not resign). 2. There are earlier reports that he was previously asked to stay on. No strong preference on the title. Mattflaschen - Talk 22:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, "presumed". That means it's not a guarantee.
  • Keep - Keep per more than sufficient coverage and WP:LASTING. The title may need to be altered, but per the sources, the dismissals are controversial. And that controversy is WP:Verifiable.StonefieldBreeze (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's clear this won't be deleted. I won't withdraw, though. If this isn't merged, I may renominate for deletion in a year or so, when the recentism has faded, because I think that's clouding the judgment of many of these votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a routine event. Every president asks U.S. Attorneys appointed by the previous administrations to resign. Bill Clinton asked 93 U.S. Attorneys to resign. Articles like this dilute the credibility of Wikipedia. To maintain its reputation Wikipedia needs to refrain from publishing subjective material. The only news worthy element of this routine event is Preet Bharara's refusal to resign like the other 44 and the 93 who resigned at Clinton's request. But is grandstanding by someone who is widely known to have political ambitions worthy of a Wikipedia article? I think not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.226.211.67 (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the above comment - every president does this - Clinton, Bush, Obama did it. Because news groups are blowing it out of proportion for political reasons does NOT make it worthy of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia should be objective.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy&oldid=770094606"