Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Weiner sexting scandal: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:17, 7 June 2011

Anthony Weiner photo scandal

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

PRODded on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS. PROD was heavily contested. This nomination should not be taken as a vote on my part for deletion; I am listing as an AFD because the PROD was heavily contested. —Lowellian (reply) 10:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The PROD was "heavily contested", but if you read the talk page where IP's stated their reason... well, you can see they aren't exactly using the soundest arguments. My favorites are to keep "because subject is news" and "This page should not be speedy deleted because it's about a penis, which is fucking hilarious!" Those are direct quotes. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is getting more than minimal traction, and because it is a unique case, is very likely to have a lasting effect. The event has gotten bigger than being just news at this point. As for the PROD, if you don't think it should be deleted, then you shouldn't be listing it at AFD. PRODs are for uncontested deletions. If it is contested, let someone who really wants it to go to AFD to send it. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This page should redirect to Anthony Weiner because it does not expand upon, detail or improve information within the biography of the congressman. Have a look at John_Edwards_extramarital_affair and tell me that this scandal passes WP:NOTSCANDAL. John Edwards was just indicted by a federal grand jury. His name yields about 10,000 hits in Google news.[1]. Anthony Weiner's name yields about 5,000 hits in Google news.[2] The term "Weinergate" yields about 500 hits in Google news.[3] Let's please have some sense of proportion regarding notability. So far there is nothing that can be said in this article that can't in the main article. Furthermore, there hasn't been enough time to see how it will affect his career, whether there will be lasting effects how political leaders use the internet and social media. All the things people are clamoring for is in the context of Wikipedia, either original research or looking into a crystal ball. I also think the article would be use by editors pushing a certain point of view, whether this is people giving a coatrack to his critics or trying to downplay the scandal. It's just too soon to see how it all plays out, and we can't see the future. Wikipedia isn't a current events newswire. There are plenty of places to go for up to the minute news, punditry, and editorializing, but Wikipedia isn't it. Have some patience. Given time, the implications of this scandal will be made clear. If they are far-reaching beyond his marriage and career, then a separate article will be appropriate. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTSCANDAL deals with rumormongering and hearsay. But no one denies the central facts of the case, the nature of the published photos, or that Weiner himself held a press conference to admit his actions. Hardly rumors and hearsay. μηδείς (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTSCANDAL also reads, "Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." It is clear, particularly with the expansion at the Weiner bio to include a section about "responses" that the intention is to pile punditry. Noting Minority Leader Pelosi's pledge to seek an investigation is appropriate, and there may be some other notable response or there may not be. The point is that we are condoning the creation of articles and sections in advance of the things actually justifying those things. So people will start filling them in with all the inanity they can cite, because there's a section for it, or a whole article page and they want to remove the "stub" tag, rather than because this is actually materially relevant to concise encyclopedic coverage of what happened and the result. At the moment, this is simply a scandal about sending photos and other communication between people who had never met. We make it more after it becomes more, not before. Abrazame (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political commentators in various news organizations seem to be of the collective opinion that this event has already changed the landscape of the New York City mayoral election, 2013 (see below). That makes it notable. The content you're complaining about can be fixed by editing. We're only debating here whether the article stays, or not. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Merge and redirect, has no wider significance outside of his own career. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The original article Anthony Weiner is still short enough to absorb the everything there is to say about the subject without giving undue weight. In my searches of the subject I have not been able to find enough additional information that comes from reliable sources that would expand the current subject much beyond what it says at this point. At such time that the article is reaching 100k of readable prose then the article should be split into subsections. We gain nothing from splitting this off now. GB fan (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:SNOW. Fulfills all criteria. The article has so much room for expansion and shouldn't be judged by how it compares to what's on Anthony Weiner's biographical page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When there are two redirects and two keeps (including your vote), the AfD is far below criteria for a SNOW close. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. This is a blurb in Weiner's biography, but there is no indication this needs a separate page. In fact, it should be noted that there was clear consensus not to create a fork for this on Talk:Anthony Weiner, but someone went ahead and did it anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect this page It is simply copying what is already on Weiner's page.--Politicsislife (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the article title leaves something to be desired. I'm something of an eventualist ... it's eventually going to have an article, so why bother deleting it? See Mark Foley congressional page incident, Larry Craig scandal. --B (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So through your crystal ball, you're sure this will reach those same levels? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Mark Foley article was created the day after the story broke. [4] --B (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument doesn't work. That was Foley messing around with underage congressional pages, this is Weiner sexting some randoms. Foley's situation contributed to the 2006 election results, including the loss of Foley's seat. There is no indication this event is anything more than a blip in Weiner's career. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - And you were able to predict the day after the scandal broke that Foleygate would contribute to the 2006 election results? --B (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The Foley scandal may or may not be a good model for this, but the distinction is that the allegation about Foley was that he invited an under-age subordinate to his home in exchange for oral sex, among a pattern of other such incidents including asking teens to send him a picture of their erect penis. Beyond the obvious illegality and abuse of power there that is not present in the Weiner scandal is the fact that, as it says in that article which I've just for the first time clicked on now, "Foley was chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, which introduced legislation targeting sexual predators". Abrazame (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This can affect a popular and potential New York City Mayoral candidate's political career's future. Why this is even on the deletion policy is beyond me, but then again, Wikipedia took weeks to rename the Libya War article to Libyan Civil War, so I've come to expect this. This is a newsworthy story, and there will be an ethics committeee investigation. This is big. --24.192.70.167 (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is going to be an investigation, and will decide the future of Anthony Weiner. We all know this. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL, and tell David Vitter that a sex scandal will decide his future. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you read WP:CRYSTAL? It says that we don't include speculative content in articles, nor do we include articles about purely speculative topics. It does NOT by any remote stretch of the imagination state that Wikipedians cannot use speculation in formulating their own opinions about what articles we should retain. Rather, attempting to weigh the historical significance of a topic is exactly what we should be doing. --B (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Basing a vote you call "strong keep" on the phrase "...an investigation...will decide the future of Anthony Weiner. We all know this" is not at all a strong justification, and that is what is WP:CRYSTAL. We might all have assumed the long-married, family values Republican Vitter going to prostitutes would have ended his career too; we'd have been wrong. And that's the point. Say what it was that happened, and leave the soothsaying and the punditry for the talk shows. Abrazame (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a merge discussion on the talk page. Yes this is a news story, and for me, it falls somewhere on the edge between the tabloidy stuff that WP:NOTNEWS suggests be deleted, and a legitimate encyclopedic topic. For now, I just don't think there's enough for any sort of distinct article, and would be best covered under Wiener's own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge without prejudice The only real question is, is there too much info for the main article. IMHO it's right on the borderline at the moment. If we merge it back it should be with the understanding that it's likely (although not a certainty) that further developments will require the article to be re-broken out to allow for expansion.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Those who continue to cite WP:NOTNEWS should understand that blurb is meant to cover "breaking news", or one time coverage. In this case, this story has been enduring and there is way more then breaking news coverage to sufficiently create an article. According to WP:NEWSEVENT this article fits into inclusion criteria number 2: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" -Marcusmax(speak) 14:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - Far from notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia page. Does it have consequences beyond what might happen to Rep. Weiner in the future? If no, then the incident should be covered on Weiner's page. Educatedseacucumber (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article will continue to expand with the ongoing fallout from Weiner's wiener.--RaptorHunter (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:NEWSEVENT. This has even been heavily covered internationally not just in the US due to all the trouble Twitter is involved with. IJA (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:SNOW.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - Anthony Weiner photo scandal doesn't have enough useful information to merit its own article. I say it should be redirected to Anthony Weiner#Twitter photo scandal. The same should be done for Weinergate, which is how I found Anthony Weiner photo scandal in the first place. Macai (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS, and due to BLP concerns. This is an event which may merit mention in the subjects biography, but there is no indication (yet) that this will be notable in its own right. In the meanwhile, BLP trumps eventualism. Martinp (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event is currently receiving too much news coverage to justify deleting it at this time. I decided to check and see how much coverage it is receiving on Google News. I found that the current lead story there is "Will constitutents forgive Weiner?" (from CNN International), and below that it says "See all 2,507 sources". If the coverage dies down and Weiner experiences no long-term repercussions from this event, then we can consider merging this article back into Anthony Weiner later on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The question is, does this have any significance beyond his own career. Thus far, no evidence of that at all. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Just another minor incident relating to a Representative. Deserves a paragraph on his own article. —Diiscool (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was neutral, the only argument that made any sense was merge, but the verifiable information is now too much to justify cramming into the weiner article. μηδείς (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has become pretty huge, I think. Perhaps a merge, later, but for right now I think it should be kept. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP - per SNOW. How silly that this is even being considered for deletion. Come now ... really? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. This is way past WP:NOTNEWS already and is now affecting the political landscape. For example, The Washington Post ran an article today in which Jason Horowitz says that the event "is a devastating blow to Weiner’s mayoral ambitions in New York, which seemed highly realistic only a few days ago". I think it's nonsense to claim that an event that affects the leadership of NYC in a fundamental way is not notable on its own – uncontroversial "keep". Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

In another article at CBS news, Chris Smith, a columnist at New York magazine said "I think his chances of running for Mayor are zero. It's pretty simple. He was the frontrunner until two weeks ago". Seems pretty conclusive that political commentators collectively believe that the NYC political landscape has already been changed by this specific event, nevermind that Weiner may ultimately be forced to resign his current post, as well. Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

'Keep' This is a historically significant scandal in that it is one of the first where Twitter is central, and it also illustrates the perils of the "I've been hacked" defense. We also have a US Congressman lying repeatedly, and a pending investigation by the US House. There are multiple people involved now, and is just too large to include in his biography. By any reasonable standard this article should be kept, and the improvements over the last few hours suggest there is plenty of verifiable info to include. Tbear1234 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This will occupy the attention of the US political media and blogosphere for maybe two weeks. Come the dawn, it will be as forgotten as Earl Butz's joke, or Wilbur Mills making like Anita Ekberg in a Washington fountain. Probably merits coverage in Anthony Wiener, but not a standalone article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's precedent. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Fully notable, but requires expansion.

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 *'''Delete'''.  This will occupy the attention of the US political media and blogosphere for maybe two weeks.  Come the dawn, it will be as forgotten as [[Earl Butz]]'s joke, or [[Wilbur Mills]] making like [[Anita Ekberg]] in a Washington fountain.  Probably merits coverage in [[Anthony Wiener]], but not a standalone article. - [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] - [[User talk:Ihcoyc|killing the human spirit since 2003!]] 17:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 *'''[[Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal|Keep]].''' [[John Edwards extramarital affair|There's]] [[Larry Craig scandal|precedent]].  --  [[User:Wikipedical|Wikipedical]] ([[User talk:Wikipedical|talk]]) 17:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Strong keep''' Fully notable, but requires expansion.