Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Lee lane closure 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 The result was  speedy keep per WP:SK. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Fort Lee lane closure controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

100% of content is copied from the Chris Christie article. Checkingfax (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Guilty as charged. In light of the discussion on Talk:Chris Christie about limiting the scope of the controversy in the Chris Christie entry, I thought it would be best if the controversy had its own article. I pasted in the stuff from the Christie entry as a placeholder; I am hopeful that this entry will get filled out as our understanding of the controversy evolves. Superg2000 (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a developing story and, because of Christie's profile as a possible contender for his party's nomination for President in 2016, it's now getting significant international coverage. I'm not coming down with a decision yet, but I'd be surprised if the article doesn't grow by the end of this discussion. --TS 05:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Chris Christie article unless it gains enough coverage to warrant its own article.  Dough 48  72  05:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- There's nothing yet actually tying this scandal to Mr Christie except that it involved his staff. As the people I the other discussion said, including a long section in his article gives undue weight to something in his life he may have been tangentially involved in.  I guess if it had to be related to someone prominent it would be him, but that's not a very good reason for it to be in his article.  Also, even if it turns out he was centrally involved, it would still be weird for Mr Christie's article to focus extensively on minor details of this one scandal (per WP:SUMMARY).  So I think it should stay here unless and until it turns out later it needs to be deleted outright.  AgnosticAphid  talk 06:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I concur that this article should not be redirected to Governor Christie's article, as there are proven connections with his staff, and not the Governor (yet). The story is really only beginning and is already quite notable. This article will only grow from here, so I no reason not to let such a notable scandal be documented on this site. -- Caponer (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This topic is obviously notable and the article will expand as the scandal progresses. There will be plenty to write about.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no lack of reliable source material now for this article, the issue has exploded and is getting international coverage. I agree with A Quest For Knowledge, Caponer and Agnosticaphid above. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Beyond significant coverage, has made international media. Redirect would raise BLP issues for reasons noted above. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Governorship of Chris Christie. I didn't realize that page existed until now. This is more relevant to his governorship than to himself at this point, though it impacts him directly as well. At this point the governorship page doesn't even include the words "Fort Lee", so at a minimum it'll need to be updated. If this article is kept as a standalone, I think the word "controversy" should be stricken from the title. It's not an appropriate section header, so it's not an appropriate article title. I created a redirect for Fort Lee lane closure yesterday, and I believe that's a more appropriate title. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, keep. The US Attorney is going to open an inquiry. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was going to create this article myself when i discovered that someone already had. This is a very significant controversy considering Christie's potential 2016 Presidential candidacy. This is already too large of a controversy to fit into his bio.- MrX 15:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Has significant national coverage over time meeting WP:GNG and WP:N(E). 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - at least for present, and rediscuss in at least 2+ weeks. Has significant national and now international (BBC News) coverage, so would pass WP:NOTAB. Plus, if we delete at present, where do we redirect? The article for Christie himself is presently (rightfully) protected because of the disruption that this has caused. Might as well let the story develop, and use the article in the mean time as a catch-bucket for all of those updates/save the Admins some effort. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep  It needs more details, some key events are still missing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2014 (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.