The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep per WP:SNOW. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page is simply campaign propaganda. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? How is this any different than WikiProject Barack Obama, for example? This is a space for editors to collaborate and improve articles related to Clinton. Project contributors must still create content with a neutral point of view, and the project page even showcases scandals associated with her, so I don't see how this is propaganda. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Speedy close Nonsense. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see any current indication that this is propaganda or promotional. I don't intend to join it but I don't see any reason it should be deleted. Softlavender (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: With respect for nominator, it's important to recognize HRC's effect on the world today. Quite frankly, she not only has an affect on our politics but also on our culture. There are dozens of articles I can think of that fit within the scope of the Wikiproject and it would be nice to have a widespread effort to enhance information on her. I totally support keeping the WP. PrairieKid (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Move: This was created, not coincidentally, on the day she announced for POTUS. And yet other people who have announced for POTUS, like Bernie Sanders, are not covered. Therefore, I think we ought to move this project to a broader title that covers more than just one person, out of fairness to the others.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • See similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Project_Clinton. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a pertinent policy here is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This WikiProject will very likely serve less to improve the quality of encyclopedic coverage, than to coordinate edits advocating a particular candidate. I would feel a lot more comfortable if the WikiProject were broadened at least to cover one other candidate who is currently competing with this candidate, such as Bernie Sanders. So, move to Wikiproject: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primary Candidates.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The pertinent guideline says: "If your area fits neatly within an existing group with a larger scope (e.g., your favorite video game vs WP:WikiProject Video games), then please join that project, rather than starting yet another WikiProject". There's an existing WikiProject called Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections. So this new WikiProject shouldn't be created. It's hard to know what effect it would have, because I don't think a WikiProject has ever been created for a candidate on the day the candidacy was announced, or at any time during a candidacy. Having a better scope might help insure that other candidates get due weight, and might inhibit excessively coordinated control of the Clinton articles. I see no harm in following the guidelines here, and using the broader scope, at least until the campaign is over.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am persuaded to now !vote keep based on the comment below that "WikiProject United States presidential elections is itself a sub-project of WikiProject United States, that isn't a good reason to delete it." I also think the guideline that I relied upon needs to be clarified.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable politician with multiple relative articles. I can see scope of expansion. Anythingyouwant, the rest of the candidates are covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections which covers all Presidential elections and candidates since 1788. A lot of Hillary-related articles have nothing to do with the elections. Dimadick (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More likely all the Hillary-related articles have to do with the elections. Many WikiProjects have parent projects, but that doesn't mean the child project cannot or should not be widened or narrowed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• MfD is not a forum for managing bias or even NPOV amongst WikiProjects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but yes, at a minimum, the group working on this project should add in Sanders and any other Democrat that announces, and improve and watch their articles as well. Maybe start with building a Sanders template and make sure his main article is watched and expanded. (EDIT, 19:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC): Comments below convince me that I jumped before thinking on this, any group of Wikipedians can create a group for any subject they see fit) Randy Kryn 11:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any indication that the page, or the WikiProject, exists only to promote Clinton or her campaign. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I just read the project objectives and the talk page, and I don't see anything that approaches propaganda. As long as there is interest among at least a few editors to have a centralized place to improve Hillary Clinton-related content, I see no reason to delete the project.- MrX 15:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there's nothing necessarily wrong with having a Wikiproject devoted to improving coverage or a single political figure, as long as that person is sufficiently prominent that there is enough content about them (Clinton is), and I don't see any evidence that the project is a tool for political propaganda. We do also have Wikipedia:WikiProject Gerald Ford and Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama. Hut 8.5 20:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Are we freaking kidding here? As for the suggestions to include Sanders, that's absurd. Maybe the Obama Wiki project should include Dennis Freaking Kucinich, or force members of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Led Zeppelin to include The Monkees and Kingdom Come. smh... Dave Dial (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Obama WikiProject was started after he became president. This one was started on the day Clinton announced for president, and its obvious purpose is to improve dissemination of information about her as opposed to the people she is running against. I don't think this kind of discrimination should be formalized as a WikiProject. Feel free to disagree if you really believe otherwise, but disfavoring campaign opponents is a tad different from not including the Beatles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pshh. "Obvious purpose"? Perhaps to to you, and those with your...inclinations. Dave Dial (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't recall having joined WikiProjects:Conservatism, and this one is a lot more blatant than that one was.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Dave Dial, for the record, the Beatles WikiProject could include the Monkees, which were intentionally assembled as an effort to cash in on the success of the Beatles by creating a band that mimicked elements of both their appearance and their musical style. However, we could legitimately also have a Monkees WikiProject. Contrary to popular belief, the members of the Monkees had already established themselves as talented musicians before being selected for the show, eventually wrote and performed most of their music, and the three surviving members continue touring to this day. On an related note, Keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton; WikiProjects are created based on the scope of coverage and the community of interest specific to their subject, and this subject clearly qualifies. bd2412 T 15:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • @User:BD2412, I have been wrong before, and hope to continue having that opportunity for many years to come. Perhaps this is a case in point. But, do you really think that this project does not fall within WikiProject United States presidential elections, at least until those elections are completed? This became a WikiProject on the very day she announced. The guidelines say: " "If your area fits neatly within an existing group with a larger scope (e.g., your favorite video game vs WP:WikiProject Video games), then please join that project, rather than starting yet another WikiProject". This serves a laudable purpose of promoting editorial cooperation with respect to entire elections rather than with respect to particular candidates. Is there any precedent for a WikiProject forming when a candidacy forms, even though there's already a WikiProject for the election?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think that this subject can be wrapped up under "United States presidential elections"; the subject is uniquely notable due to circumstances that have nothing to do with the election (being the only former U.S. first lady to serve in the U.S. Senate, and to serve as Secretary of State). bd2412 T 15:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • • • By that logic, I could create a WikiProject:Croc: Legend of the Gobbos despite the existence of WikiProject:Video Games, because Croc: Legend of the Gobbos has notability not just as a video game but as a product of Fox Entertainment Group.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • @Anythingyouwant: I'm sure you can see the difference in the level of notability and community of relevant articles between Croc: Legend of the Gobbos and Hillary Clinton. bd2412 T 18:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                      • • • Of course, but a million articles can be devoted to a subject without that justifying a WikiProject. The test is supposed to be whether that subject falls within a larger WikiProject that already exists. There could be a thousand Wikipedia articles about Legend of the Gobbos and yet it would not justify a WikiProject if we already have WikiProject video games. One could argue otherwise on the basis that Legend of the Gobbos is notable not just for being a video game, but also for being a product of Fox Entertainment Group, but the latter is not the primary reason for notability. Everyone knows (or should know) that the primary reason for creating this new Clinton project is for a reason that already falls within an existing project.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Editors are free to organize wikiprojects as they see fit. A frivolous and ill-informed nomination. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. "Editors are free to organize wikiprojects as they see fit." Possibly true, but do we have a source for that? I sincerely would like to know; it might affect my opinion here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Groups of like-minded editors may start new WikiProjects at any time and are encouraged, but not obligated, to propose them before doing so." - WP:PROJ#Creating and maintaining a project. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide: "If your area fits neatly within an existing group with a larger scope (e.g., your favorite video game vs WP:WikiProject Video games), then please join that project, rather than starting yet another WikiProject." We already have "WikiProject United States presidential elections". Everyone knows that is what this new one is about. It was formed on the day she announced for president.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but you are wrong here. I did create the project on the day she announced her candidacy, but not for the purpose of only covering the upcoming election and attempting to influence it in any way. This is a space where editors can collaborate and create content about HRC and her career. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • So what? Several like-minded editors wished to focus their efforts on Hillary-related articles in particular, and created themselves a space to do so, there's nothing wrong with that. It is no better & no worse than the legions of nerds who toil away on Pokemon errata, or fanboys/girls who chronicle every stop of the latest Taylor Swift tour. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • A broader project exists for a reason: so we won't have gangs of political partisans teaming up in support of their favorite candidate here at Wikipedia. You can wait until after the election to create this WikiProject if you still want to, just like the Obama WikiProject was created after the election in 2009.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your insinuation that wikiprojects are just partisan-led gangs is insulting and denigrating to editors who work in good faith to improve subject areas in the Wikipedia. Seeing how you're just engaging in desperate sniping and trolling due to (literally) no one agreeing with your call to delete, I think it is safe to ignore any further input from you on this matter. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • • There was no such insinuation. We have laws against murder and robbery without insinuating that you, Tarc, are a murderer or robber, and people install security systems without insinuating that their neighbors are all fiends. And I didn't start this MfD, so it's a bit of a stretch to say no one agrees with me. Why not relax? This thing will probably go your way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSER: I have just notified the most pertinent WikiProject about this MfD. See here. This notification should have been made earlier, and I don't think they were even notified about creation of this Clinton WikiProject, much less about its proposed deletion. Therefore, I request that the time be extended for this discussion. Of course, it may not make any difference in the end, but it's a significant oversight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did notify the WikiProject. Please see a few sections above the link you just posted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, I have fixed my comment above. That WikiProject was not notified about this MfD until I just did so. I have also just notified five other places that were told about this WikiProject proposal but not about the MfD.[2][3][4][5][6]Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Keep – The project page does not contain any propaganda, which is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "chiefly derogatory Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view". Rather, it is neutrally worded and is focused upon improving Wikipedia content about Clinton. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I too have concerns about the scope of the WikiProject being too narrow—and perhaps more suited to a task force in an existing project—that's something that can be discussed by the editors working in this area without having to resort to the deletion policy. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if she were not running for POTUS she would be worthy of a project. Presumably participants will flesh out the scope of her career (her college years and after have great interest within a broader context). - kosboot (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – If two candidates are running for an office or nomination, and candidate A has a dozen large, detailed, up-to-date Wikipedia articles, and candidate B has barely more than a stub that hasn't been updated since 2009, then candidate B looks like they're not in the race, and not a serious contender. And maybe they're not. But it harms appearance Wikipedia's neutrality if ever the depth of coverage is out of proportion with reality, particularly in the midst of a campaign. If a project like this is to make Wikipedia better and not worse, then a top-priority goal of the project -- not some other project -- should be to prevent this state of affairs. If they can't or won't do that, then Wikipedia is better off not having such projects in existence. Clinton's major competitors' articles need to be kept as up to date and detailed as Clinton's. Like it or not, the public judges anyone without a strong Wikipedia article to be a nobody. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  We do not need to give less notable figures (even if they are highly notable, but clearly less notable) more coverage than they are due merely because a more notable figure is receiving due coverage. bd2412 T 18:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  And what you said right there is why this harms Wikipedia's credibility. You've already pre-judged everyone running against Clinton as not worthy of equal depth of coverage, or updates as timely as hers. Neutrality requires that in principle you at least strive to give others due weight. Project members can't just passively hope that somebody else comes along and gives due weight to others while they are busy only with Clinton's stuff. They need to take on the responsibility to make sure it gets done.

  If a group of marketing professionals formed a project to maintain a group of articles related to the leading brands they are paid to write about, the project would be crushed. If they pleaded that their competitor's products were less notable and not as worthy of coverage, nobody would listen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That's absurd. It does not harm Wikipedia. We have policies and guidelines. We do not give equal weight to people in order to be "fair", we give proportional weight based on coverage in reliable sources to maintain NPOV. That doesn't mean that we give equal coverage in articles to every Joe Schmo who decides to run for an elected office. Sanders has about a 0% chance of winning the Democratic nomination for President, despite the left-wing hopes. Wikipedia has nothing to do with that. Even if we decided to enact polices to make sure every single person declaring to run for an elected office received an equal amount of articles with equal word counts, Sanders wouldn't win. This line of reasoning is ridiculous. Dave Dial (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Welcome to the wonderful world of the crowd-sourced volunteer encyclopedia project. Editors are free to edit any article they like, any topic they like; if enough show an interest in creating a WikiProject for, say, George Pataki, another recent hat-in-the-ring, more power to em. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Coverage will always be uneven because there will never be an article on Bernie Sander's tenure as Secretary of State or George Pataki's tenure as Secretary of State. bd2412 T 19:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will always be uneven, but it will be less uneven if WikiProjects focus on elections wholistically instead of focussing on just one individual candidate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing you can actually do about that. Even in the absence of a wiki-project, like-minded editors still can and will gather to edit articles collectively as they see fit. If someone thinks they are gonig to stop that by preventing the creation of a project, that person is sorely, sorely naive. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me saying "it will always be uneven" is the opposite of naive.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This project is not focused on a candidate, it is focused on an unquestionably highly notable individual. Look, we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Bob Dylan, and he's not even running for anything. bd2412 T 20:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This WikiProject is focused on a person primarily because she is a candidate, the WikiProject was created on the day she became a candidate, and for the duration of her candidacy a larger existing WikiProject is adequate. Others don't see it that way, but I call 'em like I see 'em. It makes no difference to me whether this candidate is Democratic, Republican, or whatever. This is the first time at Wikipedia that a WikiProject has been created primarily for a single candidate, and I don't think it's wise. At least the Obama WikiProject existed for years before he was a candidate. What is the larger WikiProject that covers Bob Dylan? Our guideline says, "If your area fits neatly within an existing group with a larger scope (e.g., your favorite video game vs WP:WikiProject Video games), then please join that project, rather than starting yet another WikiProject."Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's obtuse to accuse me of saying I want undue weight given to less notable candidates. What I said was that members of the Clinton project should not leave it to others to give other candidates their minimum due weight. It's a very simple principle, and comparisons with The Beatles or Bob Dylan are not pertinent. This is a campaign that is happening right now, and Wikipedia is a media heavyweight which can influence this campaign. Should Bernie Sanders get more than due weight, as defined by policy? Again, no, of course not. But Clinton project members should not leave it to chance that Sanders (or whoever else might be out there) gets less than fair treatment. They should make sure Clinton's opponents get the minimum due weight; more than that is not desirable or necessary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, editors can work on whatever articles or within whatever topics they desire, and can freely neglect whatever topics or subject they desire, leaving it to others to edit those articles. If Sanders-related articles get scant treatment while all of Hillary's are driven up to GA or even Featured Article status, then that's the way the wiki-cookie crumbles. The Wikimedia Foundation is, as of the end of 2014, sitting on $53.4 million, so when Jimmy Wales decides to drop me some of that paper, I'd go balance whatever they wanted to see balanced. Until then, I edit on whim. Tarc (talk)

(ec) It doesn't work like that. This is a volunteer project and people will research and write and edit on whatever interests them and won't on what doesn't interest them. In the later stages of 2007 one editor became very interested in John McCain and researched and wrote many thousands of words about him, which soon produced two FA and two GA articles about him. McCain thus had much broader and higher-quality articles about him during the 2008 GOP nomination contest than Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson, who were his main rivals, did at that time. Fair? Maybe not, but as JFK said, life is unfair. Now in the case of Hillary, she has had extensive coverage on WP all along, and the existence or not of this project isn't going to change that, so as I see it it's pretty much of a non-issue. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is kind of a novel situation, it's hard to say how it would play out. Pres. Obama had a WikiProject in place by the 2012 election, and that article has always been very tightly controlled. Having Hillary Clinton (or HRC) in a WikiProject with wider scope seems harmless at worst, and at best it could ensure that competing candidates get the weight that is their "due" while inhibiting excessively coordinated control of the Clinton articles..Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. This is pushing into new territory and this isn't an ordinary WikiProject, as envisioned by the guidelines. The way this project's goals are defined, it could create a situation that violates the principle of neutrality. I'm arguing that the Hillary Clinton project can exist without violating neutrality if it sets giving due weight to her opponents as one of top goals. Nobody can stop volunteer editors from doing as they please, but the community can define what our ideals are, which over time tends to lead most volunteers in the right direction. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started the discussion (also somebody else certainly would have), and I say we have had enough talk, so let us just keep the darned thing and go write or edit some articles. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A no so subtle way to concede... - Cwobeel (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't concede. It's contrary to guidelines, unprecedented, and unwise. So there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We have many articles that describe topics related to Hillary, so it is reasonable that editors could benefit from a WikiProject. No evidence has been given that this project is doing/will do anything other than improving articles. From WP:PROJ, "WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles." gobonobo ^{+ c} 21:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no reason for people with interest in a certain topic not to make efforts to improve a group of articles related to that topic. As for "campaign propaganda", that suggests that it will only be Hillary supporters in the project. HRC has enough aspects of controversy in her career to keep busy people whose concern it is to make sure that those aspects of controversy get thorough, reliably sourced, encyclopedic treatment in WP. So it might be appealing to them to join this WikiProject also. Regardless, she has been a significant, high-profile figure in U.S. politics and culture for almost 25 years; I am not sure what other 2016 candidates (of any party) that is also true of, so, I am not overly concerned if they don't have their own WikiProjects. (Wikipedia is not symmetrical.) KConWiki (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. If some editors want to organize to write or edit some articles, what say let's get out of their way. Weak nomination. Respectfully request close. Hugh (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh, whether this results in a "snow keep" or not, I would like to say that many of these "keep" !votes are extremely weak in that they simply ignore the guideline that I will now put in bold italics one last time: "If your area fits neatly within an existing group with a larger scope (e.g., your favorite video game vs WP:WikiProject Video games), then please join that project, rather than starting yet another WikiProject". We already have Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a project is a sub-project of something else is not a good reason to delete it. Sub-projects are fine if they have sufficient scope and enough participants to be viable. WikiProject United States presidential elections is itself a sub-project of WikiProject United States, that isn't a good reason to delete it. In any case this isn't entirely a sub-project of WikiProject United States presidential elections because Hillary Clinton is well known for things other than running for the presidency. Hut 8.5 20:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. I don't know why the guideline I quoted says not to create subprojects if they are sometimes perfectly okay. After this is over, maybe I'll urge them to clarify the guideline.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say not to create subprojects. Every WikiProject is a subproject of something (just like every category is a subcategory of some parent category). Softlavender (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's what I expect they'll say when I ask them to clarify it. But the fact is, the guideline that I quoted is apparently frowning on something, and it ought to be made clearer what that something is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peruse WP:BLUDGEON at your leisure, and consider that you might be arriving at the point where it is better to, as the kids say, STFU. Tarc (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe after you peruse WP:Civil, sweetheart.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that a dick is being a WP:DICK isn't uncivil, kid. A spade is a spade. Tarc (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using acronyms like STFU is not model behavior AFAIK. If you'd like to keep going in that way, please visit my user talk page, and spare the other people here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your quoted guideline example is "your favorite video game vs WP:WikiProject Video games", and also that the operative words in the suggestion are "neatly fit". Obviously subjects that are large in scope (such as Opera within Classical Music) do not "neatly fit" and need and deserve projects of their own, where editors can focus and cooperate on the subset. Same with Clinton. Softlavender (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment

"...many of these "keep" !votes are extremely weak in that they simply ignore the guideline that I will now put in bold italics one last time: "If your area fits neatly within an existing group with a larger scope (e.g., your favorite video game vs WP:WikiProject Video games), then please join that project, rather than starting yet another WikiProject" We already have Wikipedia:WikiProject United States presidential elections."

Let me just mention that Whitewater controversy, Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, It Takes a Village, Rose Law Firm, United States Senate election in New York, 2000, etc. are not articles that I think would be appropriate for WikiProject United States presidential elections. KConWiki (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball Keep. As of this timestamp, exactly zero bolded delete assertions in this process, other than the weak nomination. Even the nominator has asserted keep. BusterD (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.