Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congressional page sex scandal (2006)


 * 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 speedy keep because this is a current event and is definitely notable. (Page has been properly renamed.) If it dies down in a few weeks, anyone can feel free to merge it back into Mark Foley with consensus. Ashi b aka tock 17:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Congressional page sex scandal (2006)
There is no reason to believe that any congressmen/women, other than Mark Foley, was involved, and the topic is already adequately covered in that article. Delete. (If kept, because no actual sexual conduct is alleged to have occurred between Foley and the pages, rename to something like "Congressional page explicit messages scandal." --Nlu (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep The associated press, as noted in the article, quotes three top Republican leaders who knew about Foley's actions in 2005. Arbusto 05:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Roll Call reports "at least" 4 Republican leaders, and it was purposely withheld from Democrats. Meanwhile Congress has approved an investigation. Also the article has only been up for two hours. Arbusto 05:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Given the number of confirmations and what will almost certainly be a media frenzy, there's no reason to think that this won't go beyond Mark Foley. Heck, even if it eventually turned out that no one knew about it (which has been pretty well disproven) it's still going to affect other members of Congress. -Senori 06:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)i>
 * STRONG Keep: With the new information that top Republicans knew and ignored/covered up this event, this is the single most important American political story since Clinton's impeachment. Preston 06:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: This isn't going away, its newsworthy, and important. Vertigo700 06:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Arbusto, this seems to warrant its own article. Nlu's suggestion of a name change might be worth considering. I'm pretty sure this isn't "the single most important American political story since Clinton's impeachment." though. -- IslaySolomon 07:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Maybe rename to "Congressional page scandal (2006)". --Arbusto 07:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A political event with major and mainstream media coverage, and which has led to the resignation of a member of congress and a major stir in the 2006 midterm house election. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, qualifies as speedy keep. This is explosive. I think "sex scandal" is fine as most people agree that cybersex is, well, sex. (It's all in your head, right?) Sorry I moved it during the AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 11:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. One (1) congressman having trouble keeping it in his pants (virtually, at least) does not a full-blown sex scandal make. Put those lurid details into Mark Foley, and don't bother calling it a (general) sex scandal until it draws in others or until someone uncovers the Jeff Gannon/Mark Foley/ orgy pix. --Calton | Talk 12:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep you have freaking got to be kidding me, AFD'ing this. There's probably not a paper on the planet that isn't covering this. A separate article is required since the news coverage is much broader than Foley; it's focusing on the leadership response. Think Catholic bishops. Change "sex" to "sexual harassment" though, unless he actually .... Derex 12:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename or delete. Wikipedia articles should exist under a title that the average user would be reasonably expected to search for. Nobody is going to come here and run a search on "2006 Congressional page sex scandal" or anything along those lines. At the very least, this title is a WP:NOT violation; Wikipedia is a not a crystal ball, and as of this point there's no evidence anyone is going to be taken down by this besides Mark Foley. --Aaron 13:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep. I have to wonder why this was even nominated.  I can see the argument for re-naming, however, although since sex was clearly discussed, it is sexual in nature. Moncrief 15:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable event. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep for every reason mentioned above. --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, consider renaming: since the name seems to be the only actual point of contention. There is no question of this being notable and verifiable. I would be concerned about partisan attempts to keep this under Mark Foley and thus avoid potential political damage to the Republican House leadership, but the WikiFairy reminds me to assume good faith. At any rate, there's no way this qualifies for outright deletion. Alba 16:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Calton. Wikipedia is not (no. 6) for breaking news.  Pan Dan 16:55, 30 September 2006 (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.