Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DHeyward (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 27 November 2017 (→Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations

Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Moore sexual abuse allegations Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Way, way too soon. There is discussion going on right now at Talk:Roy Moore about whether to split off the allegations into a separate article, and the consensus appears to be, to wait and see if it has lasting significance, which is not yet clear. (Right now it's a sensational but unproven story about one notable politician; if it turns out to affect the partisan balance in the Senate, for example, that could qualify as lasting significance.) In any case, this article is a BLP disaster, going into minute detail on the allegations, and often stating them in Wikipedia's voice. I wish we didn't have to have to wait the usual week for discussion before it can get deleted. MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep: Clearly meets WP:N. Very important and ongoing event that requires its own article.Casprings (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Obviously notable, obviously of lasting significance, huge amount of coverage, utterly not a "sensational" story, obviously not a "BLP disaster". Also I would remind MelanieN that WP:BLP applies to the women who have stepped forwards also. Artw (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mainly because whatever is salvageable is redundant to what’s already in the Roy Moore article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also support deletion because this article is a gross WP:BLP violation due to edits like this which portray Moore’s non-violent dalliances with girls over age fifteen as potential crimes, whereas the reliable sources report that they were not crimes on account of the age of consent being 16. Moore’s behavior is still yucky IMHO, but much yuckier is Wikipedians’ attempt to exaggerate the matter by excluding extremely pertinent facts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Artw. I'm not happy with the state of the article at present and the title is debatably a mess, but I think the topic itself is worthy of its own article and any flaws can be worked on. --RevivesDarks (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep': It meets the guidelines on notability. Sabot Cat (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; although it is noteworthy, right now there is overlapping content between this and the main article on Roy Moore, so it's twice as much work to maintain, and consensus should have been obtained first, given the heavy updating on the main article. However, if there is a consensus to keep, I urge that we remove nearly all discussion of this topic from the main Roy Moore article, again because of the difficulty in maintaining two overlapping articles that are heavily edited as events unfold. If another accuser emerges or new details on existing accusation emerge, we shouldn't be updating two articles with the same facts. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It should overlap with that article and the special election article. The right answer is to cut the content in the Moore article and link.Casprings (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Ideally we'd have a very short paragraph in the Roy Moore lede, a couple of longer paragraphs in the body and this article can go fully in depth with timelines, reactions and implications etc... it'll be a bit of a wrangle to sort out the balance but it's entirely normal and doable and solves a lot of potential problems with overwhelming the parent article. Artw (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Must admit I am a little confused here - didn't you spend a significant portion of last week arguing that the Roy Moore article was too crowded with negative material that was drowning out the rest. Now we have the opportunity to move out a significant and quite negative chunk of the article to a place where it can expand (which it surely will) without dwarfing the rest of the biography (which it surely would) and you are against that? Artw (talk) 03:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He did. Volunteer Marek  19:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not both? There's no issue in having info on this in both places. We do have plenty of articles of similar nature... actually make that A TON of articles of similar nature. For example Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations. Volunteer Marek  19:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a fork for now, but let's not say these are unproven allegations or something like that--they may not yet be proven in court, but that's not the same. We're NOT the NEWS, and what we have in the Moore article right now is more than enough for Wikipedia's purpose--said the lone voice crying in the desert. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've WP:BOLDly moved the page to Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations, as per the above examples. As I noted earlier at Talk:Roy Moore, it appears that sexual abuse is what is alleged [1]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the women mentioned in the article did not allege any sexual abuse. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's questionable. Also "sex abuse scandal" seems to be what a solid majority of sources are going with. Artw (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By questionable you mean you’re not sure? It’s a good title for a POV fork though. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By questionable I mean it;s fair to see the allegations as a pattern of stalking and harassment, including many things that could be considered as levels of abuse and with the physical contacts and rape attempt as their pinnacle, and that also I'm not sure why we should go out of our way to mininimisse that or pass a portion of it off as "dating" or whatever. Artw (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as a POV fork, and also per Drmies and the TheGracefulSlick. Lepricavark (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Roy Moore. It may be too soon for this, but I am somewhat ambivalent about it. I will admit that by all indications, more and more young girls are coming forward about Moore's predatory conduct. It would warrant it's own article if some criminal charges were expected, but this material is from a long time ago and it may be hard to either verify it, or refute it from a legal perspective. I believe the women here making the allegations and by all accounts it meets WP:V and WP:N and they are being taken by just about all the stakeholders within the GOP as credible. Octoberwoodland (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki page has moved and I moved this page. starship.paint ~ KO 07:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 November 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 07:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form, either as a separate page or merged with either Roy Moore or the article on the election. I would lean towards a separate page, as the sources here are numerous. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and move to "Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations", since the allegations here range from dating teenagers and serving them alcohol to sexual assault, which are arguably not as severe as the allegations leveled against Harvey Weinstein, and more along the lines of Bill Clinton or Donald Trump's allegations articles. I'm worried this doesn't comply with WP:BLPNAME because it includes lots of the names of living people. Nevertheless, this is a useful article so the Roy Moore article doesn't get bogged down in the details of the scandal. If, for some reason, this doesn't have a lasting effect, it could always be merged back into Moore's article. FallingGravity 09:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now – Let the dust settle and the story gel. After a time, we’ll know which allegations have resulted in what effects. O3000 (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As long as these are "allegations" and not a specific court case or Senate proceedings (e.g. expelling him from the senate should he be elected) - this belongs in Roy Moore and/or United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017 (where these allegations surfaced and play an important role) and not as a standalone article. We have an article on the campaign itself which should amply be able to cover these - as well as their political impact.Icewhiz (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – As a content fork, this makes a lot of sense, just like with Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, etc. There is simply too much information here for it to be contained in the main article; it was taking up an inordinate amount of space, and splitting is how we deal with that.
As for lasting impact, we can only crystal ball it at this point, but I see two possible outcomes: he wins the election or he doesn't. If he doesn't (either by withdrawing or losing the vote), it will be because of these accusations – he was a shoo-in before all of this. And if he does win in spite of this, these accusations will almost certainly hang over him and his party, unless the Senate refuses to seat him or something else similarly drastic happens. In either situation, I don't see how we get away from this having lasting impact.
But beyond that, the information in this article is relevant to Roy Moore, and I think everyone agrees that these allegations are notable and belong in the encyclopedia. (I will concede that others think this article goes into too much detail.) The question is whether it needs to be a stand-alone article. As such, NOTNEWS doesn't apply. And for a stand-alone article, I think this clearly meets the basic requirement of WP:EVENT: it has received significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time.
Finally, I think this is exactly what an encyclopedia is for: a thorough and neutral accounting of what has been reported in reliable sources. If someone wants to know what's going on with all these accusations against Roy Moore, they shouldn't need to read through dozens of reports from different newspapers but rather should be able to turn to one source for an in-depth and neutral accounting, and that is exactly what an encyclopedia ought to do. -- irn (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 09:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 09:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity 09:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason for deletion (see WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also saying "someone on twitter said so" is... well, silly. Volunteer Marek  19:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"This man is not yet a notable politician" - he most certainly is a notable politician and was one even before this scandal. Volunteer Marek  19:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"unless something comes out" - uh... like, what exactly? "Something"s have come out. Plenty of them. It's ... strange, to pretend there's nothing here. Volunteer Marek  06:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I am not sure what you mean about me pretending there's nothing here? There certainly is, just not enough for a POV fork yet. "Something"s is not enough for it's own article. PackMecEng (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a POV fork. What is it a POV fork of? The Roy Moore article? It's the same info, just in more detail. As it should be. There's no POV difference between the two. Is Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations a POV fork of Harvey Weinstein? Volunteer Marek  07:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a legitimate content fork for now, with the possibility to merge later. agtx 23:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This scandal is, as others have noted above, highly relevant and noteworthy. I think we can reasonably consider merging, down the road, once things have settled down a bit, we have a clearer picture of what we're dealing with.CarlsonC (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong, sustained coverage in reliable sources. When an event sparks discussions of things that have not happened in 150 years, e.g. the possibility that the Senate could be likely to expel him if elected, that pretty much cements it as an event of historical importance. TheValeyard (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Heavy press coverage, including in-depth articles discussing many parts of the situation. Very significant in 2017 American electoral history, and foreseeably, something that will have historic impact on US politics in general. The strategy outlined in the deletion nomination above seems to inevitably encourage not discussing this at all in Wikipedia (well, until after the election), so is not, in my opinion, a valuable option. Cook's Kitchen (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - easily meets notability standards due to great deal of coverage; BLP based deletion requests reek strongly of politics. 128.223.223.136 (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This is probably ready for early closure as Keep based on the consensus of the editors. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain the violations?
WP:LASTING: This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.
Also I really don't see any crystal balling - and sourced and attributed predictions by experts are fine. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 06:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just because they're unproven doesn't mean they aren't important - aren't worth to be covered. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 06:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can start with the lede - they're politicizing the allegations of sexual misconduct. I seriously doubt the man behaved that way thinking it would advance or hinder his political career. While the allegations surfaced at the time he was leading against his opponent, to make politics the focus makes it POV. Think about how our female readers see it. Atsme📞📧 19:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a POV fork. You're complaining about the POV of the article, which is something to be discussed on the article's talk page. A POV fork is when a new article is deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view. That's not the case here. The same point of view is reflected on the main Roy Moore article, just in less detail. Exactly as it should be with a content fork. -- irn (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How do you see that as not the case here? Your explanation actually supports my position. How can you not see that? Atsme📞📧 21:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely missing his point. The same "POV" (actually neutral text based on reliable sources - you're mistaking your own WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT for POV) is present on both the main Roy Moore article and this one. So it cannot be a POV fork. For it to be a POV fork it would have to say something completely different than the main article. It doesn't. Please actually read and learn the relevant policies before citing them. Volunteer Marek  07:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I personally wish that we would not have these types of detail-laden articles per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTSCANDAL, but since this is the norm that has been embraced by the Wikipedia community for years, it would be very strange to delete this article. The subject has been covered internationally for ten days with no signs of diminishing. It's obviously notable, and it's too complex to adequately cover in Roy Moore. - MrX 20:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There seems to be general consensus that the story is not "sensational", so I see no reason why it should be deleted. Not just a news story, but an ongoing issue with wider reaching consequences.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep No reason for this to be deleted. Well-sourced, significant allegations; there are similar articles for similar offences by other public figures. Recommended close, due to the strong consensus for keep. Davey2116 (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment = Since I got involved in this article, it has troubled me greatly. As you can see by reading the comments above, some treat all nine of Roy Moore's accusers as sexual assault victims. Yet, if you read the RS, with the exception of the three women who are charging sexual abuse, all the others have claimed that his behavior never went beyond dating and kissing. And all of those six were of the age of consent. The overall tone of the article is very negative rather than neutral. I have argued repeatedly that the tone should be changed by putting the charges in the mouths of RS rather than directly stating that Moore is this or that or did this or that. My arguments are constantly met with "it's RS", which strikes me as a copout to avoid the hard work of remaining neutral. However, I don't see that deleting the article will do any good. The same people will move over to the Roy Moore article and continue the same behavior. I think what is needed is someone with the authority to review the article, make decisions about BLP and NPOV and make them stick. Txantimedia (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep Even if the allegations were all proven to be false tomorrow, this would still be a notable topic. Thus, there is no rational argument for deletion. It seems like the main problem is the sub-optimal title, which is a reason to change the title, not delete the content, or force people to plow through Moore's entire biography just to find out more about his inclinations to pedarasty. I thought Wikipedia was not censored. Was I wrong?Eternal return of the same (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly wrong about charging Moore with pederasty. I will assume, in good faith, you don't know the definition of pederasty. What Moore is guilty of, if he's guilty of anything, is Ephebophilia not Pederasty and possibly sexual assault. Asd so far, none of the charges have been proven, so it's a bit premature to judge him. But your comment points to the problem with this issue in both pages. There is a lot of heat and not much light going on, and we really need an experienced admin to resolve the issue. Txantimedia (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So... Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations should be deleted too? And of course the United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017 article too, since that's also "recent". More to the point, by now this isn't even "recent" and the overwhelming amount of coverage clearly justifies this article (note also that WP:RECENTISM is NOT actually Wikipedia policy). Volunteer Marek  07:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:RECENTISM. I'm not being a smart aleck. When I read it, I immediately thought that it was a perfect description of the article. Txantimedia (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I double-checked with the pending closer if I was ok to voice my opinion here despite the pending close. Oshwah was fine with it. ~ Rob13Talk 11:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are 2 women that called it sexual abuse. This article is a WP:COATRACK for accusations unrelated to sexual abuse. For example, this initial WaPo piece makes it clear that there was no sexual contact with 3 of the 4 that came forward. None of the three women say that Moore forced them into any sort of relationship or sexual contact. and Of the four women, the youngest at the time was Corfman (14 y/o at the time), who is the only one who says she had sexual contact with Moore that went beyond kissing. Creepy dating but not sexual abuse as this COATRACK article implies. I believe there are 2 accusations that would be deemed sexual abuse and they can be handled in the Roy Moore biography. --DHeyward (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy_Moore_sexual_abuse_allegations&oldid=812403712"