- 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 redirect to Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 05:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Special Counsel counter report
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Special Counsel counter report ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Last time I nominated this for deletion (with the closer saying "No prejudice to bringing this to AfD again in a couple of months") I wrote:
- This surely fails WP:CRYSTAL; it's an article about something that doesn't exist yet, with the assertions that it will exist coming from figures who are perhaps not universally regarded as trustworthy.
- Until such a report does exist, it does not seem to me to merit a page. Some of the material on the article could perhaps be used in pages about things that do exist.
It's been a couple of months and the only thing that has changed is that the Trump party line is that Mueller's report exonerates him completely. Whether or not one believes that, this "counter report" is presumably even less likely to ever see the light of day, and the little of any value in this page could be merged elsewhere as a brief incident in the history of the Mueller report. Pinkbeast ( talk) 08:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
-
Pinkbeast Yes, it has been only a couple of months but this new nomination of Afd is premature at best and is a bad grounds to begin with. And in respect to the recent news of Attorney General Barr's synopsis on Mueller's special counsel, there has been
one,
two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
seven,
eight, over 8 different publications in the past 72 hours discussing about what is next in the Special Counsel and how the White House plans to react.
Aviartm (
talk) 11:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Those don't all even mention the supposed "counter report" and typically predate the current claim that the report exonerates Trump. As said, there is even less reason now to suppose this "counter report" will ever see the light of day - and unless it does, this article is pointless, with cites that justify only a brief mention in the article about the Mueller report.
Pinkbeast (
talk) 04:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Every single article mentions "counter(-)report", one way or the other. If you used CTRL+F or Command+F, you would see the words and a little description detailing the counter-report. The article still passes Wikipedia:GNG. Just because something has not happened in a "convenient" timeframe does not detract from the viability of the article. Aviartm ( talk) 16:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Those don't all even mention the supposed "counter report" and typically predate the current claim that the report exonerates Trump. As said, there is even less reason now to suppose this "counter report" will ever see the light of day - and unless it does, this article is pointless, with cites that justify only a brief mention in the article about the Mueller report.
Pinkbeast (
talk) 04:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 08:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last AfD was relisted twice then closed as no consensus noting lack of participation, but per that close this renomination was justified and right on time. After a full week listed here again, and over six days without comment (despite the obvious news), I fear we are once again going down that path. I'm relisting this in the hopes that it will spur further input, but would think a second second relist likely excessive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: The last AfD was relisted twice then closed as no consensus noting lack of participation, but per that close this renomination was justified and right on time. After a full week listed here again, and over six days without comment (despite the obvious news), I fear we are once again going down that path. I'm relisting this in the hopes that it will spur further input, but would think a second second relist likely excessive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 01:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), per WP:BKCRYSTAL; the subject is basically a not-yet-completed book. If the counter-report is ever published, this article can be re-created. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- To redirect is to deprive of this page's value and contents. Furthermore, this article is not a book and per
WP:BKCRYSTAL rules, this article stands correct.
Aviartm (
talk) 00:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see why this wouldn't be considered a book (assuming that it actually comes to exist). It would be a book-length, textual, monographic (non-serial) publication. And WP:BKCRYSTAL says, "Articles about books that are not yet published are accepted only if they are not excluded by the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy, and only under criteria other than those provided by this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. In such cases there should be independent sources which provide strong evidence that the book will be published, and which include the title of the book and an approximate date of publication." We don't know the title or the publication date, and there is some doubt that the book will be published, because not all of the projects promised by the Trump administration necessarily come into existence. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- To redirect is to deprive of this page's value and contents. Furthermore, this article is not a book and per
WP:BKCRYSTAL rules, this article stands correct.
Aviartm (
talk) 00:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), per Metro above. The reference to WP:BKCRYSTAL is reasonable, and the rationale holds - there is an expressed intention to have a report, but there is really no verifiable information about it at this time. The redirect target is appropriate, and the history should be retained in the event there is enough information at a later date to warrant restoration. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Reactions to the Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), per Metropolitan90. - GretLomborg ( talk) 18:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.