Seems to me that if there is going to be an entry here it shouldn't be a redirect to Wikipedia. --Bob Burton 22:03, 10 Jan 2005 (EST)
Wasn't that done though with a number of possible entries, like Israel (which when typed in bounces you over to the wikipedia page)?
Could have been a few that escaped me -- D policy on the boundary lines of what belongs in Wikipedia rather than here is fuzzy at best. (A related consideration is that unless there is a compelling reason ie some differentiation) there's no need to double up. My thinking is that an article on Creel has potential relevance here in terms of the history of US Govt propaganda campaigns. An article on Israel and its history I guess I see is much more likely to be better covered in Wikipedia. However in D an article on Israeli government PR is closer to the heart of our role.
(For example, not so long ago we had one contributors posting big slabs of material using identical article structure on the debate over the US election counting - I removed it as there were more contributors on the topic in Wikipedia who had already done a better job than was on offer in D and I couldn't see the marginal benefit to the web surfing world of duplication. If D's article was unique, better or had more quality contributors I would have been more inclined to keep it). As I say, its a bit of a fuzzy line. Others may have different views on where the line goes. Cheers --Bob Burton 22:41, 10 Jan 2005 (EST)