Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bush-Rove rat list
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listed as CSD but meets no speedy deletion criteria I know of. Deserves a review here—listing to prevent later speedy deletion. No vote. — Phil Welch 20:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not even the cited source includes the term "rat list". This is original research, or at least it would be if there were anything there other than a one-liner. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 20:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete speculative sub-stub citing spurious source. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - OR/speculation. -Satori (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Any sentence in an encyclopedia that contains the phrase "probable but unproven" should be deleted. In this case, that would leave nothing else. -Willmcw 22:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. At this stage, this is unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 23:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - ditto Willmcw. BD2412 T 02:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Willmcw said it better than I ever could. Mo0[talk] 03:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (I vote in protest). First off, this page was not finished. I've been having trouble with my Linksys router for the last few days, and this has been severely impeding my ability to collect the remaining data together to make a full article. Secondly, I do not take kindly to User:Kilo-Lima accusing me of treason for creating the article. And thirdly, I posted enough information on that first day for anyone who cares to do so could research it for himself and thereby perhaps speed-up the process of writing a complete article. Grrr...! Fourth: "probably but unproven" is most assuredly valid--analize those words for yourselves--because even though this list has not been proven to exist per se, it is highly unlikely that any presidency so able in the art of undermining opponents could do so without a systematic method of compiling dossiers. I protest to this treatment. Sweetfreek 06:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly you I was accusing of treason! But the article's content. What is the law for treason in the United States?! --Kilo-Lima 18:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actively making war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies, is the legal definition of treason. A conviction can only come with two witnesses to the same alleged act, or by confession. — Phil Welch 19:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, 1st Amendment cases have generally ruled that speech and print alone do not by themselves constitue treason. Michael Savage on the other hand doesn't care about details like that (!), but I think most people... screw it--I long ago lost faith in humanity. Sweetfreek 20:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking out against the government would be sedition. However, there is a marked difference between opposing the state itself, and simply opposing a single individual's holding of or actions in a given political office, or any given government decision. — Phil Welch 21:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I am much mistaken, I believe it was Theodore Roosevelt who said that there is a difference between supporting one's country and supporting one's president... or something to that effect. Sweetfreek 05:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking out against the government would be sedition. However, there is a marked difference between opposing the state itself, and simply opposing a single individual's holding of or actions in a given political office, or any given government decision. — Phil Welch 21:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, 1st Amendment cases have generally ruled that speech and print alone do not by themselves constitue treason. Michael Savage on the other hand doesn't care about details like that (!), but I think most people... screw it--I long ago lost faith in humanity. Sweetfreek 20:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actively making war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to its enemies, is the legal definition of treason. A conviction can only come with two witnesses to the same alleged act, or by confession. — Phil Welch 19:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone's getting sued in Trenton tonight, and it certainly won't be me. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly you I was accusing of treason! But the article's content. What is the law for treason in the United States?! --Kilo-Lima 18:04, 17 November 2005 (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.