Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JakeInJoisey/John Kerry VVAW controversy

User:JakeInJoisey/John Kerry VVAW controversy

Deleted 22 February 2012 after AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy). Deletion per G4 & WP:FAKEARTICLE Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP concerns explained on both the user space article talk page and on the AfD linked above. User has had almost a year to deal with the content. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. User off-wiki from July to Jan and just recently resumed work on article. NE Ent 00:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - While I'm under no delusion that this now well-sourced article (lack of sufficient sourcing was, as I recall, one of the primary initial objections) and most relevant article will complete its journey from John Kerry to John Kerry VVAW Controversy to out the Wikipedia door, that the AFD closing admin might be persuaded that this article is in violation of WP:NPOV and in violation of WP:ATTACK, given the sourcing provided, is...well...quite remarkable. While my intent was to edit it at my leisure and re-submit it at some point in time, I'm frankly beyond caring what becomes of it at this point. I hope anyone unfamiliar with the issue it addresses will give it a read before it disappears. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So if you're "beyond caring," can we assume you will not edit it anymore? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. I will still edit it further at my leisure should it survive this purge. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your computer has a hard drive: make use of it. --Calton | Talk 08:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors should be aware that almost all references/RS sourcing to Kerry's participation as a VVAW leader in the "assassination vote" meeting have been systematically expunged from this project space with the sole remnant, as follows, now resident in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Kansas City Meeting...

It is unclear whether 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry was present for this meeting. [34] His campaign indicated he was not there and had resigned from the organization by then.

JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's had a year: whether he was actively editing on Wikipedia or living in a cave on Mars makes no nevermind whatsoever. --Calton | Talk 01:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP content isn't to be kept around indefinitely after it's been deleted. (I'd say speedy, but that was already declined.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP content that's been around far too long: the article was deleted in an AfD a year ago, pretty much. Also SALT to prevent recreation. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this zombie page. It isn't 2004 anymore. Gamaliel (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have watched a couple of pages related to Swiftboating for two years and it has been evident that some editors are attempting to use Wikipedia to promote fringe views regarding the subject of the page at MfD (for example, this NPOVN report asserts that the original swiftboating was not really a smear). The VVAW controversy page is just another place to coatrack assertions against Kerry, however, anything of encyclopedic value relating to Kerry should be on his page, and anything of encyclopedic value regarding Vietnam War demonstrations should be on one of the existing pages. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

Oh and, by the way, as to...

...(for example, this this NPOVN report asserts that the original swiftboating was not really a smear).

It asserts nothing of the kind. It asserts that stating so in "Wikipedia's Voice" is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. I would encourage all to read it for confirmation. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that someone expressing the above views should dedicate themselves to editing articles on the subject? A voluntary withdrawal, or a topic ban, seem reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (again). The Swiftboating disparagement of Kerry, whether done feverishly while he is front page news (Presidential run; Secretary of State confirmation), or only leisurely when he is no longer front page news, doesn't need to be facilitated by Wikipedia. It runs afoul of WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK, as previously noted. Your leisurely activity can easily be continued on your own hard drive or other storage device, or on some other blog or website that traffics in that kind of rubbish. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Copies of deleted articles can be kept in userspace for a limited amount of time in order to facilitate bringing them up to spec for possible reinstatement. This has been around for much too long, considering its BLP violations, and needs to go away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Deleted articles are userfied if a user expresses a good-faith intent to address the reason(s) it was deleted and bring it back up to snuff. From what I recall of interactions with this user in the past in hot-spots like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, and from looking at contribs in the Kerry/Swiftboat topic area, this was not a good-faith userfication; it is being kept because the user is an advocate of that particular point-of-view. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm an "advocate" of a point of view. It should come as no surprise to you that articles imbued with political consequence are festooned with POV editors (and your recall of our crossing editorial paths was more likely from the lengthy "Santorum" deliberations as I don't recall contributing much at all to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). That being said, I firmly believe (or did anyway), that even editors diametrically opposed in their political persuasions can effectively contribute to the improvement of an article when good faith adherence to WP:POLICY is foremost in their deliberations. I would urge you to re-look at this current article and make a determination as to whether or not it satisfies WP:V, WP:RS WP:NPOV and WP:BLP Wikipedia policy for inclusion. If, in your determination, it does not, your "delete" recommendation will have the necessary foundation. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out-and-out axegrinding incompatible with BLP policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]