Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine

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 merge to Mike DeWine#Impeachment resolution. Missvain (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment resolution against Mike DeWine

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Third time for creating this article under two different pagenames by the same user, who also had tried to nominate it for ITN. Still no insufficient non-local sources that would indicate this is a notable event. —valereee (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment Articles against Mike DeWine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impeachment inquiry against Mike DeWine —valereee (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment as the first two times were months ago (When they drafted the article). Nominated for ITN wrongfully. The articles have been submitted and are an official House Resolution. They are expecting a vote. (Also the same as Impeachment resolution against Gretchen Whitmer.) Elijahandskip (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the other article exists doesn't have any bearing on whether or not this article should have its third deletion discussion. —valereee (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Insufficient non-local sources. Currently, the article has a source from Fox News, ABC News, NBC News, The Hill, CNN, CBS and Ohio.gov. All considered “non-local”.

Adding on, Washington Post did an article. Now listed as a source. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PAGEDECIDE. Mike DeWine#Impeachment resolution is where we should cover this impeachment. It is not worthy of a stand-alone page. GNG/notability isn't as important an issue for me as the issue that this is not worthy of a spinoff because it is better covered in a paragraph at Mike DeWine#Impeachment resolution, where the reader will be better served by reading about the impeachment in the context of the biography of the politician being impeached. I wouldn't even think the redirect was worth having; people looking for this information will type in "Mike DeWine" not "impeachment resolution against...". Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support speedy close as merge. While I don't think leaving a redirect is necessary, redirects are cheap and if I felt real strong about it I could take the redirect to RFD. But it seems the most efficient thing to do if everyone is in agreement is to just merge now, rather than spending a week at AFD. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will begin merging information over. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge into Mike_DeWine#Impeachment_resolution. Certainly worth covering, but probably does not merit its own article per WP:NOPAGE. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 16:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered adequately at Mike DeWine, not notable enough for a standalone article. I agree with Levivich that a redirect is unnecessary.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but Merge would be reasonable also. I'm not sure this article is longer than the section at DeWine. Or is there an article about US political nuttiness during COVID/elections? Both this and the Whitmer article could be merged there. —valereee (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you are the nominator I think your delete vote is counted already?-- P-K3 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pawnkingthree, I just wanted to affirm that a merge would be fine with me...how's a better way? Thanks for any advice. :) —valereee (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, you could put an update under your opening rationale. But no big deal:)-- P-K3 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (Creator) I do not oppose a merge. The original Afd reasons have been solved, so a merge is ok. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elijahandskip, works for me. I've been wondering about this issue and the similar one surrounding Whitmer, and other similar moves. I think there may be an eventual list in something like List of US state legislative bodies' reactions to COVID management by governors. Still not something anyone is going to search for, but a google search on 'state legislators COVID' pulls up a ton of stuff. Probably synth at this point for an article, but you could probably start a draft in user space. Just don't rush it into article space! No deadlines! :) FWIW, I've got drafts in my own userspace that have been there for years waiting to see if the subject actually becomes appropriate for an article. —valereee (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close for a mergeValereee , Pawnkingthree, Twassman, and Levivich, all the information from the article has been moved too Mike DeWine#Impeachment resolution. We have a clear consensus to merge, so can we agree to do a speedy close as a merge? Elijahandskip (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support speedy merge. Elijahandskip, sounds good to me. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 19:32, 1 December 2020 (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.