Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Chris Wallace interview of Bill Clinton

2006 Chris Wallace interview of Bill Clinton

This is an article about an interview. We generally do not have articles on press conferences, interviews, talk show appearances, and the like. Rather, important material from such events is added to the relevant articles either on substantive topics or on the participants. Any important new points that Clinton made should be merged into the relevant articles on those topics. If it is important that Clinton accuses Wallace of bias, that should be merged into the Wallace article. Derex 10:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete & merge anything important elsewhere, as nom. Derex 10:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This article originated only because, in the aftermath of the interview, some people were hot to debate the respective Clinton and Bush records on terrorism. They kept trying to do so within the Chris Wallace article. When the material was repeatedly removed from that article as being off-topic, it ended up here. By now, I think the furor has died down. A separate article on one specific interview is pointless. JamesMLane t c 10:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge elsewhere. Its (marginal) notability will only decrease with time. --Alcuin 11:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews and WP:NOT a debating forum. Barno 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Merge any relevant information that isn't already in other articles jaco♫plane 13:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It was a one time interview. It's notable because of what happened, but it certainly can be explained at Chris Wallace and Clinton articles. RobJ1981 13:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I concur, except I'd note that what should be explained in the Chris Wallace article is the material relating to Wallace's conduct and alleged bias. The Wallace article isn't the place for rehashing the substance of U.S. anti-terrorism policy in the 1990s. I mention this because I wouldn't want deletion to be read by the Clinton-bashers as a license to go back to trying to turn the Wallace article into an off-topic conservative hit job. JamesMLane t c 21:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Response It's not rehashing policy, it's talking about Clinton's response to Wallace's question, which Clinton provided in the same breath that he accused Wallace of conducting a "conservative hit job." Gee, if Chris Wallace were here, what would he say in his defense? Juliandroms 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete an indicidual interview is not notable, unless it ends or starts a career, which this certainly did not.-- danntm ^T _C 15:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. But a possible article of value would be "Famous Interviews" - in which this, and other interviews (such as Frost's interview of Nixon) could be listed and briefly discussed.PaulLev 16:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not significant by itself. Gazpacho 18:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --ASDFGHJKL 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. Part of a disturbing trend of making articles about every "incident" briefly in the news instead of covering the event in the relevant preexisting articles. Gamaliel 01:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Thank you Derex for failing to notify me of your request to delete this article. (I originated the article.) (1) In response to the comments above, there is no explicit attempt to "debate the respective Clinton and Bush records on terrorism" on my part. There was however, an attempt to discuss Clinton's response to the question that was provided part & parcel with Clinton's characterization of Wallace as a "Republican hit" man. Given that Clinton raised ire and accused Wallace of engaging in a "conservative hit job", whether or not Clinton was factually incorrect or evasive in answering the question is certainly relevant information for someone to know, if they want to know whether Chris Wallace is biased, or just doing his job. Otherwise, the report is just heresay. My opinion, so long as the discussion talks about what Clinton and Wallace actually said during the interview, which is the topic of the section in Wallace's biography, then it's fair for inclusion, on-topic and relevant.(2) I certainly did attempt to include this information "merged" with the article on Chris Wallace, but Derex and a few others repeatedly removed that material from the Wallace entry, claiming it was "off topic." Suffice it to say, certain people wish to characterize Wallace superficially as having committed a "conservative hit job" without any counterpoint or in depth discussion. Boogers.(3) Also note from the history, that it was Derex and not I who added completely extraneous material about Napolitan. I tried to delete it numerous times, but it was Derex who kept adding it in. (It's included in the wiki entry on Napolitan anyhow.) Juliandroms 05:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)