Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Matt Gaetz#Alleged sexual relationship with minor. Numerically, opinions are roughly evenly split between delete, merge and keep. There are sensible arguments for all three outcomes, but in the end it is a matter of our collective editorial judgment to what extent we want to cover these allegations; as such I cannot determine on my own whose arguments are stronger. I can, however, determine that rough consensus is against deleting this article but also against keeping it as a separate article at this time. This makes "merge" the most consensual outcome of this discussion.

It has been noted that the content of this article is not more that what there is already about this topic in the main article Matt Gaetz, which also indicates that most people think that there does not seem to be very much content for a subarticle at the moment. Consequently, given that most of the merger seems to have been already done, I think it best reflects this discussion and is best in terms of article quality to simply redirect the title, allowing editors to merge whatever they think is useful from the history. This does not preclude the recreation of a spinoff article per WP:SS if our coverage of the matter grows substantially, but I advise discussing this on the talk page first to avoid a re-run of this discussion. Sandstein 19:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations

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

Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined, redirect to his main page declined. The reporting on this is all less than what, 12 hours old? I have yet to see an actual story that says he was charged. All the reporting is about the fact that someone found out he was being investigated. Not enough for our BLP rules. Merging all this to the main article might be OK as he has been responding to the claims in the media. But keeping an article with the title format "firstname lastname child sex scandal" when the investigation has not been confirmed and charges have not been laid? --- Possibly ( talk) 04:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Admin note: this is being discussed at WP:AN#Matt Gaetz. I moved the article to Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations per BLP. Fences& Windows 01:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 04:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 04:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 04:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 04:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 07:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If it's adequately confirmed it may deserve a mention at Matt Gaetz, but it's not yet at that point. As a separate page, no. Athel cb ( talk) 08:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sensational breaking news story, essentially based on the reporting of one source. Grossly premature to call this a "scandal." It is early to even give this a mention in the Matt Gaetz article, due to BLP and undue weight concerns. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge keep, not delete. It's trivially easy to obey WP:BLP by limiting ourselves to reporting the coverage in WP:RS media. As for now, WP:TOOSOON certainly does apply, but this topic can be added to the Matt Gaetz page for now, with the option to fork back out into its own article when that section is more fully fleshed-out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 12:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm really uncomfortable with this. It says in the article that no charges have been brought, yet the article name uses the phrase "child sex scandal" without any qualifiers, which could well give the impression that not only charges have been brought but they've also been proven. I know WP:BLPPUBLIC sort of allows this, but while the article may be within the letter of that guideline, I don't think it is within its spirit. If it were my call, I'd say speedily delete this as wholly negative BLP that's also just WP:TOOSOON. But given that the story is merely a day or two old, I guess I could live with it being draftified for a while, pending further developments, assuming that's okay legally etc. (And just to say, I've never heard of this chap, I don't even know which party he represents, so my comment is entirely unbiased in that respect.) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 14:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete, per what literally everyone else said. Maybe send some info to Matt Gaetz a day or so later, or something. AdoTang ( talk) 14:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Mergeto the main page for reasons stated above.JTZegers Speak
    Aura     15:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (partial) to Matt Gaetz. Widely covered in reliable media: he himself has acknowledged. Djflem ( talk) 16:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment for those voting merge, a note that this material has now been covered in the main article here. --- Possibly ( talk) 21:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The topic of this article is not a random piece of gossip that can simply be dismissed by claiming it is a "hit job," it is an investigation being conducted by the US Department of Justice into whether a US congressman has committed the sex trafficking of a minor. Coverage in this article (as in the press, where it is a major story) balances both the serious allegations and the denials by the alleged sexual predator. The investigation which this article is about is very much a real and notable subject and therefore the article is completely appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UrielAcosta ( talk • contribs)
  • Keep and speedy close this. Yet again again again, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot with stupid deletion tags, on another big and somewhat complex story that people are looking up and wanting to learn about. It's as if someone dreamed up the most evil strategy for giving a bad image of Wikipedia, to be widely spread whenever Wikipedia is most useful / most visited. Instead, there oughta be some sign put on the page "ANOTHER GREAT BREAKING STORY EXPLAINED SIMPLY AND ACCURATELY AND WELL BY wIKIPEDIA, YOUR FRIEND. BE SURE TO REVISIT THIS PAGE AS MORE FACTS BECOME AVAILABLE. WE ARE PROUD OF WHAT WE DO. CONSIDER DONATING $1,000,000 TODAY." But no, our message is "We are stupid and divided!". -- Doncram ( talk) 02:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We are not Wikinews. This is just a handful of allegations at the moment. No charges have been filed, and we aren't exactly sure where the investigation is going, though I'm sure Twitter is loosing it. TOOSOON, we'll see if this develops into anything, then we can have our article. At the moment, a small paragraph on the Gaetz page will suffice. - Indy beetle ( talk) 04:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Premature WP:CONTENTFORK that clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS. Problematic title as well. KidAd • SPEAK 06:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply
    • This article does not violate any of the four points in WP:NOTNEWS. The article is not OR, it is not written as a news report, it's not a who's who, and it is not celebrity gossip or a diary. However, it is valid to suggest that at this time, this is a premature fork. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Matt Gaetz article. This page is simply not large enough to justify a separate article. ★Trekker ( talk) 13:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. Though I think the content should be saved for possible merging into Matt Gaetz or to even be released as its own page in the future, we don't know enough about the story, the validity of the claim, or the motive of the claim to merit its own article. I agree with DoubleGrazing that the title and spirit of the article are quite harsh for something that hasn't even been officially proven yet, upon looking at the most recent developments to the story today I would argue there is not enough information for its own page. Possibly also makes a good point that there is already a section for this topic on Matt Gaetz's page. Yy958 ( talk) 16:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Matt Gaetz: per WP:TOOSOON. A section in the main article is suffice for now. Curbon7 ( talk) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is more than enough reporting from a vast number of reputable sources to qualify this for its own article. All it needs is a WP:CET, and then we should get to fleshing out this article rather than scrapping it. (Everyone here citing WP:TOOSOON should maybe find an actual Wikipedia policy that backs their argument rather than an essay Internetronic ( talk) 04:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Chessrat: Saying it's pointless is kind of pointless, seeing as more than 50% want to delete and the outcome is very much in contention. It's your basic relevant discussion.--- Possibly ( talk) 23:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC) reply
It's a situation where an article about a rapidly-developing story gets AfD-ed when there's less coverage of it, and as more information comes in it's obvious that an article is needed. Note that most of the delete votes were from a few days ago, and most votes now are to keep. Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. Per WP:SNOW, The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes. Nothing about this page's notability is "likely" or "quite likely." KidAd • SPEAK 16:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
just out of curiosity, what if the scandal section of the Matt Gaetz article ends up growing until it's 90% of the article? That would still be okay and not a case of WP:UNDUE, would it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 21:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Your hypotheticals have no bearing on the issue at hand and your comments thus far haven't advanced the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
^ WP:OTHERSTUFF KidAd • SPEAK 22:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Not really. That's if my argument was solely based on the other article existing, which it is not. That sentence was merely another way of saying that the story has received lots of coverage. Davey2116 ( talk) 00:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Your "argument" is that this controversy has gotten as much coverage as another controversy which has an article. That's WP:OTHERSTUFF. KidAd • SPEAK 00:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Not at all. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't just whenever someone mentions another article. Davey was very clearly comparing the coverage of the two incidents, which is the metric we use to determine notability.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged Elli ( talk | contribs) 22:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge with a redirect - I don't really see the rationale for deletion. It's a developing story receiving substantial coverage in secondary sources. The only question is where we should cover it (here or on Matt Gaetz), not whether or not the content should remain on the encyclopedia full stop. This should have been listed as a merge discussion on the talk page, not brought to AfD.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Wait, leaning towards Keep. I think this is actually very similar to the Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign AfD. Initially yes it was WP:TOOSOON but over time it developed much more into a complete article. As the investigation pans out, I am certain there will be more information which will make this a more complete article, but we just need to be patient and find out how much merit these claims have. Right now, I think this article is in that sweet spot of being too short for its own article, but too long to merge with Gaetz's article. Apoorv Chauhan ( talk) 03:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The main article currently contains more text on the "scandal" (18 sources/ 659 words/ 4250 characters) than this standalone article (16 sources/ 520 words/ 3350 characters) does.--- Possibly ( talk) 05:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ SunDawn: Merging is not the same as deletion. And when merging, the article would typically be converted to a redirect for multiple reasons including attribution purposes. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 17:49, 5 April 2021 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Gaetz_sexual_misconduct_allegations&oldid=1138063575"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE