Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Party Sex Scandals


 * 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 Delete -- JForget 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Party Sex Scandals

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Any sex scandal should be mentioned in the individual's article. To group sex scandals by political party is unnecessary and blantantly non-neutral (POV fork). See also Articles for deletion/Republican Party Sex Scandals. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both articles for both parties. Quite apart from it being non-neutral, divorcing these "scandals" from their wider context just makes for a prurient and unedifying list. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Share fate (Delete) of Republican article. No need to repeat reasons here. - Aagtbdfoua (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both Although I don't see the merit in "Democratic" and "Republican" sex scandal articles (other than to demonstrate that both red and blue get in trouble), I don't agree with the idea that scandals should be mentioned only in individual articles either. The quality of both of these articles is poor-- the Democrat article is limited to Bill Clinton (author is probably too young to remember Gary Hart), and the Republican article focuses on Rush Limbaugh's drug rehab ("whilst not a sex scandal...").  However, political sex scandals merit their own separate article.  Mandsford (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The way I see it, this was created only to somehow "balance" the Republican article, which is also NPOV... just get rid of both of 'em. Sean MD80 talk 00:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Wikipedia articles shouldn't be an amalgam of tabloid journalism and attacks. Independently notable incidents, like the Lewinsky scandal, have their own articles. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, there is no good reason to separate out sex scandals by party, and right now only the Clinton sex scandal is discussed anyway and we already have a full article on that. *** Crotalus *** 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reason as Republican Party Sex Scandals - it's POV by nature due to its focus on a single political party. There is no encyclopedic reason to separate political scandals by party. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Political scandals of the United States per various delete recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both, per reasoning both here and in the other AfD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This type of article should be deleted from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for 'sex scandals'! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - whilst sex scandals and other naughtiness by political types are often notable, such things should be put in context, ie in the article of the individual concerned. Xdenizen (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect per Metropolitan90 Will (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, article functions as an open invitation to soapboxing and pov pushing. --Soman (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt both! Bearian&#39;sBooties (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - inherently POV --skew-t (talk) 00:38, 7 January 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.