Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Ayers election controversy


 * 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   no consensus for deletion, default to keep.   Sandstein   17:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ayers election controversy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

POV fork to get around WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT Scjessey (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is very obviously a coatrack-type of POV fork designed to evade the rules at WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. A campaign-related event with very little publicity. What little media coverage it received was in the context of the poorly-conducted TV debate in which the matter was raised. I recommend that this article be deleted. Only the BLP of Bill Ayers links to this page. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly opposed. Thirty minutes after I mentioned at Talk:Barack Obama that "no one here has nominated [this article] for deletion, Scjessey raced over here and nominated it for deletion. A blatant, shameless attempt to influence a content dispute in another article. Very notable, impeccably sourced. Should be a GA nominee rather than an AfD nominee. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a reaction to your mentioning it at Talk:Barack Obama. I had forgotten all about it, and realized this legacy WP:COAT page needed to be deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 *  MERGE  into "Bill Ayers" and/or an article in The "Barack Obama" series. But don't support deletion if not to end up being merged. $\sim$ Justmeherenow     21:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Strike merger proposal (per Wikidemo's argument, below).  $\sim$ Justmeherenow     22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Don't delete WP's coverage of the 2008 Obama campaign's Ayers controversy in some form. It's a controversial (for various reasons) U.S. cultural/media touchstone; in fact, the now-also-famous (and likewise controversial) The New Yorker cover cartoon's flag-used-as-kindling motif is just about universally compared to this controversial shot of Ayers in the Chicago Magazine from 2001 when he was promoting his, um, controversial memoir.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow     00:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not a POV fork; controversies that are substantial enough should get their own article, with examples being Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy, George W. Bush military service controversy, Rudy Giuliani promotions of Bernard Kerik, John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008, and many more. Is Obama-Ayers substantial enough to warrant an article? It's not a no-brainer, but given that this material is too detailed to fit in either bio article without throwing off the weighting there, and that much of the 'action' occurs well before the presidential campaign, and thus doesn't really belong in the campaign article, I would say yes. The article title is poor, though, since Bill Ayers has not run in any election. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - As the creator of the article I will vouch that it was not created as a POV fork. First of all, the material is eminently notable per the published sources.  It has kept attention for a number of months so far as an ongoing matter of nationwide interest.  Among these 400+ news sources most are about the connection between Ayers and Obama, and of those most are devoted to the controversy itself, not the biographical or historic details of the events.  It is not a fork because there is not a second place where this was forked off of.  It is the only place where this material is described.  It was spun off the Bill Ayers article because, although well covered, it was not an appropriate part of Ayers' biography.  That was done with consensus a few months ago at that article so that merge option should be taken off the table.  Ayers' connection to Obama was incidental to Ayers' life.  Likewise, it cannot reasonably be merged into the Obama or Obama campaign articles because of weight concerns - there is no consensus to include the material there, so that's not a legitimate outcome.  Standing alone it is notable, but compared to the overall weight of the Presidential election or Obama's biography it is not.  Weight is a concern applied within articles, not within the encyclopedia as a whole.  Wikidemo (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I proposed the deletion, I am starting to come around to the idea of keeping it; however, it would need to be under a completely different title from the misleading one it is under right now. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no preference as to title and I agree that it's not a great one. I can't think of anything better right now though.  Also, I'm not sticking up for the article quality.  It tends to accumulate random stuff. But I do think the focus should be on the election controversy, because there's probably not enough substance under the controversy to actually cover the event.  It's kind of like the Willie Horton thing, not notable for itself but notable as a campaign event.  But obviously not nearly as prominent an issue as that.  Wikidemo (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ..."Bill Ayers controversy"? "[Controversy surrounding.../] Bill Ayers' association with Barack Obama"? "Ayers-Obama association [/...controversy]"? $\sim$ Justmeherenow     22:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about "Guilt by association smears against Barack Obama" as a title? Then we can add things like ACORN too (partially serious suggestion). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did start an article like that...it was a list article on the more general subject of partisan attacks and controversies in the election, involving all the candidates. But it was deleted.  It's kind of funny, attack ads and other partisan political techniques are a pretty important factor in modern politics.  Lots of sources, a big industry.  But people get confused between writing about a partisan thing, and the article itself being partisan.  So our coverage is spotty.  Some things like Obama's supposedly being Muslim, survive in the main article.  Others like swiftboating get an article, and yet others are opposed as being POV.  It seems kind of haphazard.  Wikidemo (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Ayers continues to be mentioned in connection with Obama. Newt Gingrich did it just yesterday. Many sources think the issue will be revived again in the fall. The article is an NPOV treatment of the issue of their relationship. What this article doesn't say is that multiple reliable sources have reported that Bill Ayers has been unrepentant about setting off bombs in U.S. government buildings in the 1970s, and for helping to organize the Days of Rage riot when he was a leader of the Weatherman group. Despite the reliable sourcing, and despite no reliable sourcing to the contrary, bias on the part of Wikipedia editors has kept that out of the article. Also not in the article (something I plan to change soon) is the fact that Michelle Obama organized two panel discussions on which both her husband and Bill Ayers participated. Obama also wrote a rave review for one of Ayers books. Readers who hear about the Obama-Ayers connection deserve to be able to find a good, neutral Wikipedia article on the subject. [self-redacting my criticism of an editor] If anyone wants links backing up anything I said, just ask me. Noroton (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm at the moment neutral on this AfD, but wish to point out that (a) that "many sources think" this will be revisited in the Fall is hardly a reason to have an article now - if it were to be dismantled or deleted, it could always be reconstituted if indeed it became a major issue in the Fall (we can't see into the future);  (b) Ayers' past is amply discussed in Bill Ayers which of course is wikilinked, so this article about an alleged current event  should not go into those historic details - I don't see that as bias on the part of Wikipedia editors and think that comment here is unnecessarily provocative (and I have not edited that part of the article, so I'm not defending myself);  (c)  all the reviewers can do is look at the article as it now exists, not as you think it should be;  (d) the assigning of motives to the nominator is out of place here.  I remain neutral at the moment - but I do think the article should be re-named if it is kept.  Tvoz / talk 07:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tvoz, (a) we disagree; (b) [self-redacting my criticism of an editor] The existence of this article makes it harder to cut back on the information presented in Wikipedia that might cast Barack Obama in a bad light. (c) No, it's perfectly acceptable to look at the subject as it might look rather than only at the article as it is, because that's one way to remove issues of article editing from fundamental issues related to article deletion; (d) [self-redacting my criticism of an editor] Noroton (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Twenty-two hours to decide to redact your personal attack comments Noroton? Tvoz / talk 08:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All the "complaints" have fallen, unsurprisingly, on deaf ears. It was a perfectly legitimate AFD based on my belief that this was a WP:COATRACK article - particularly with the misleading and provocative title. Please keep your comments to the matter at hand, rather than your personal dislike for my contributions. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget an April 20, 2002, hour-and-a-half panel discussion "Intellectuals in Times of Crisis," part of a seminar on the social role of public intellectuals (see here ) featuring law instructor/politician Obama, memoirist Ayers, a columnist and other distinquished academics, at the University of Illinois-Chicago. As a Chomky fan, I'm sure these thinkers would have kept me on my seat's edge as well! .....& pps, a doctoral candidate at NYU I knowand who's working on a dissertaion on the history of anarchism BTWis collaborating with another candidate who personally KNOWS AYERS QUITE WELL! But the only "gossip" I could pick up from my acquaintance was that Ayers just happened to have been neighbors with Obama and so they just ended up having the kind of associations that folks have when they're both associated with academia/politics. Darn! Oh well.) $\sim$ Justmeherenow     00:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; use of the word "controversy" as an article or section title is prima facie evidence of NPOV violation Sceptre (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true. See Words_to_avoid: "controversy" is preferred over "affair" and "scandal".  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was startec by User:Wikidemo, who has been a supporter of Obama. I know, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, but the fact is that Wikipedia practice is to have controversy articles, and they serve an NPOV purpose of providing more information on notable subjects. Another controversy article is Controversies about the word "niggardly" which is neither a fork, nor POV. We also have these articles in Wikipedia about controversies in this campaign (and it wouldn't hurt to look at Category:Barack Obama and Category:John McCain to get an idea of how Wikipedia is treating this important campaign): Jeremiah Wright controversy, John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008; and we have these controversy articles from the 2004 presidential campaigns: George W. Bush military service controversy, And we have this Category:George W. Bush administration controversies, John Kerry military service controversy, Category:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities. And then, of course, there is Category:Controversies and Category:Political controversies and Category:United States Presidential controversies. So we have quite a tradition of covering controversies in Wikipedia and calling them "controversy". Noroton (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget MoveOn.org ad controversy. Noroton (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * or the recent The New Yorker $\sim$ Justmeherenow     03:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Definitely could use a change of title, if kept. Bill Ayers has not been elected to anything.  Bush v. Gore, now that was an "election controversy".  Mandsford (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and per Sceptre. It seems to be a POV fork to me. -- Chet B. Long Talk / ARK 01:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep article is well-sourced, and serves well to keep the material in one place where it can be at least be watchlisted (as opposed to 10 different articles where people might attempt to soapbox.) Could perhaps use better title Yellow Rain (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. We've tried all the other options (such as various 'merges') and they didn't work. Read through all the Talk page discussions which show why we need this separate article. Flatterworld (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This belongs in the election article and is hardly enough of a "controversy" to merit its own article. Gamaliel (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic with extensive mainstream press coverage. Content clearly warrants an article (especially in light of the perennial gridlock on Barack Obama and daughter articles). Rather than blithly alluding to WP policy, the nom could cite specific instances? In my eyes, the article fulfills:
 * WP:SUMMARY: "it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and can be split off into their own article.
 * WP:CFORK: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork...Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View."
 * WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."
 * WP:NPOV: "he elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". ...Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular."
 * Title might need massaging, but otherwise throw this in on a watchlist, category, or navbox with all the other 2008 controversies and keep an eye on it. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a notable controversy. POV issues are not a reason for deletion, only for editing. The AfD page is not a good place to bring debates over article content. RayAYang (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Bill Ayers election controversy article is a WP:POVFORK created to violate WP:BLP.


 * For example, the first paragraph of its Interactions between Obama and Ayers section is based on a three-year-old blog entry by anti-Obama blogger " red rabbit " (based on her recollection of an event a decade earlier) -- violating WP:BLP which states that: "blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person" and that: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages."
 * The editorial boards of both major Chicago newspapers concur:
 * editorial (March 3, 2008). Clearing up another empty shot at Obama. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 27:"Time to move on to Phony Flap 6,537,204."
 * editorial (April 18, 2008). Guilt by association. Chicago Tribune, p. 20:"Now how about getting back to the real campaign?"
 * Newross (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Those appear to be excellent examples of content that should be included in the article to ensure its NPOV. They are not justifications for deletion. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed, the fact that this controversy has been the subject of editorials by major newspapers would seem to prove the notability of the topic. Per Newross's concerns, fix the refs to ensure compliance with WP:BLP, but otherwise, use the talk page, not AfD to resolve content disputes. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Doesn't look like the AfD is going to succeed anyway, but the article seems like slightly too much soapbox vs. encyclopedic content.  OTOH, merging hugely disproportionate material into the various proposed candidates would be far worse than just keeping this one.  LotLE × talk  06:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  08:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If this article hasn't already, it has the serious potential to turn into a WP:SOAPBOX, WP:COATRACK, and have Guilt By Association problems. If it is decided to keep it, then it should be strictly monitored to keep it WP:NPOV as those who are "crusading for truth" and adding any and every minor criticism of Barack Obama to show the readers the "truth", will continue to try to twist this into a negative POV/WP:OR attack on Obama.  Brothejr (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep That's like saying we should delete the capital punishment and evolution articles because they have potential to turn into soapboxes. NuclearWarfare (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As is the current situation with the equally substantial McCain-Hagee controversey and lots of other similar examples, the matter merits a mention on Bill Ayres' article and no more.--The Bruce (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The matter of Obama's past association with Ayers has been a campaign issue and is likely to continue to be, if only as background rumblings.  I may personally think that it's a prime example of a guilt-by-association smear, but it's a guilt-by-association smear that has been covered in reliable sources and as such deserves to be given encyclopedic treatment.  I suggest that active editors review WP:BLP, in particular the bits about balance and structure; the article could perhaps be reorganized to give more weight to the views of experts familiar with the Ayerses in Chicago.  But that's not an argument for deletion.  (Incidentally, I agree that the current title is awful and should be changed.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep . CENSEI (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some kind of reason would be nice, CENSEI. Please see Guide to deletion. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong deleteIt is clearly a WP:COATRACK article. Please stop analysing the nominator and the reasons why it might have been nominated. Docku (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled by the people who think this is a coatrack article. That's when an article purports to be about topic A, but instead is a vehicle for topic B.  Here, the article purports to be about the controversy concerning Obama's relationship with Ayers, and it is.  You want to see some real coatrack articles, look at Larry Kuca or Stephen Smith (Whitewater) – biographical content of articles minimal, mentions of Whitewater and Clinton pardons maximal.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, and I say that as a Democrat and an Obama supporter. I think the title is somewhat contentious, but at the moment, I come to the strange conclusion that this is a reasonably balanced article, though it can stand some cleanup.  The "controversy" seems pretty silly, once it's explained.  Obama was on the board of the directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which seems to have gotten an article for no other reason than to support this article.  Professor Bill Ayers, who, back in the 60s and 70s, before he was a professor, was part of the Weather Underground group, served on the board during some of the yars that Obama served on the board.  It's harder to make the "guilt by association" argument on Bill Ayers than it is on Jeremiah Wright; trying to explain this one is like trying to explain the BCCI bank scandal of the 1990s.  Why keep an article on Wikipedia?  Not because they will stumble across it as a featured article on the main page, but because "Bill Ayers" will be mentioned by someone-- Stephanopoulos, Limbaugh, perhaps one of the moderators of an Obama-McCain or McCain-Obama debate, and people will turn to Wikipedia to find out what's up with this; a sourced article provides the information needed to understand the background.  Mandsford (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Keep Curious people will want to know about this. What I get after reading this article? There's a lot of hype over nothing. Carefully documenting all the accusations, we find -- nothing. So it's not like this is an attack page on Obama; it has exactly the opposite effect. II  | (t - c) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - well-sourced; I can't see any reason for deletion. In particular I don't see how this is a POV fork; as Mandsford mentioned this is a reasonably balanced article, and what exactly is this a fork of? The Bill Ayers article has very little in common with this article, and this subject certainly could use its own article because including all this well-sourced information in either Obama's or Ayer's articles would be ridiculous. -- Samuel  Tan  13:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose the main concerns I had when nominating this were driven by the title of the article, and some of the section headers. Not only is Bill Ayers not up for any kind of election, but there isn't actually anything controversial about the relationship he had with Obama (or lack thereof). The only controversial matter I can identify is the huge uproar over the conduct of the moderators of the ABC debate in which the matter of the relationship was raised. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Bill Ayers election controversy. Everyone wants a better title, but no one has thought of one (yet). If you can think of one, please suggest it. Flatterworld (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Or see the similar discussion at "John McCain lobbyist controversy." The first words on its talk page are,"Article name Just to throw this out here, is this article properly named? So far the controversy has involved McCain and The New York Times. Not to mention the whole NPOV issue with the title.. Perhaps something like The New York Times' John McCain lobbyist article would be better? (But then, that seems a bit long to me)--Bobblehead (rants) 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)" but after awhile it just peters out. Presumably 'cause nobody proposed a demonstably better one? $\sim$ Justmeherenow     16:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Our job is not to exclude baseless, manufactured controversies but to exclude non-notable controversies.Bdell555 (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A controversy is notable if it has been covered in reliable sources. This one has been covered in spades. Our personal politics and attitudes about whether this is a "manufactured" controversy are irrelevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete . Tempest in a teacup.  Title is misleading.  Any content worth saving can go into the Bill Ayers article or into the Obama campaign article. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On further consideration, I'm leaning towards keep but rename. Perhaps something like Obama-Ayers association controversy.  The current title makes it sound like Ayers is running for election, which is a falsehood. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Probable Keep (is that allowed?) per concluding argument of User:Mandsford. But I think the name could be improved upon. Cgingold (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. For the new title, let's try "Obama/Ayers controversy." Curious bystander (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep It is well-sourced, neutral information that cannot reasonably fit in the main articles on Ayers, Obama, or Obama's campaign. Thus it makes sense as a separate article. There's no BLP problem here since the material is neutral and it doesn't reflect any Ayers any more negatively than the main article on the man (note that even if that were the case it would be a cause for concern but wouldn't necessarily be a BLP problem either). JoshuaZ (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obama's running for President, and everything about him that gives a clue to his past, present, or future is notable. His association with Bill Ayers certainly gives such clues.  I think this issue is important enough to not be merged with other articles on Obama. Vegasprof (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.