Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franklin Coverup Scandal


 * 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The result was keep (nomination withdrawn).  Ark yan  &#149; (talk)

Franklin Coverup Scandal

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable accusations determined to be a hoax. The article also violates WP:OR, and seems to be an attempt to smear several Republicans. Pablothegreat85 19:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Comment. It should be clear that potentially libelous claims have no place in Wikipedia (see WP:BLP). On the other hand, the article can provide properly sourced information on a topic that appears quite notable and is still considered controversial by some. Everyone can then interpret the available information as she deems fit. Stammer 07:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn My peers have convinced me that I was wrong in nominating this article.  I appreciate why Morton Devonshire reversed the closure as keep, but I just don't see any reason to keep this discussion open any longer.  Pablothegreat85 19:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum I support any change to the title of the article that contains the word hoax.  Pablothegreat85 20:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Notable hoax that still generates interest. Removing this page will not make it go away, but simply means there is one less source that documents it as being a hoax.Brimba 23:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article does not smear anyone, nor is it OR (note the references). The hoax attempted to smear an number of people, but the article documents the lack of substance of the charges. --MCB 02:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. If there is original research (and not just accusations of it) then normal editing procedures exist to resolve that.  AFD is not an appropriate response.  As for the other issues, the accusations made front-page news, which sort of destroys the "non-notable" claim; yes, the charges were deemed to be "a carefully crafted hoax", but not a hoax on Wikipedia, which also eliminates that as any sort of rationale for elimination.  regarding "smearing", MCB has pretty much put the finger on it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Following from your arguments, it must be the case that any subject that has ever appeared on the front page of any notable newspaper should have an article. I don't think that's the case.  Pablothegreat85 03:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Following from your arguments, please explain how many front pages it has to make to protect it from deletion attempts? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Multiple.  Pablothegreat85 05:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if we started going through all the articles that no one has ever even considered trying to get deleted because they're quite obviously notable, I wonder how many of them would not meet your "multiple front-page" standard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Let me clarify.  It's not so much a "multiple front page" standard as the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."  That's the notability criterion.  You're making sort of an ignore all rules argument, but I don't think that applies here.  Pablothegreat85 07:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not making an WP:IAR argument by saying "I don't think this is so non-notable it has to be deleted" any more than you're making an WP:IAR argument by mentioning supposed original research in the article (none of which you've actually identified, or taken any non-deletion actions to remedy) as a factor arguing for deletion. You may not like my opinion that the subject does indeed meet a sufficient standard for notability, but kindly stop harassing me for it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that I'm harassing you. I've enjoyed our discussion, in part because I believe that we have been kind and civil throughout.  I'm sorry if you feel that I'm harassing you, as that is definitely not my intention.  As for the OR charge, I think that I may have erred.  The way the article is written, it is hard to tell from which source a claim is made, which is why I made the OR claim.  Pablothegreat85 08:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I was unclear on this in the nomination, so let me make this clear now.  I am not making a WP:HOAX argument; I am describing the subject of the article.  Pablothegreat85 03:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Indeed the hoax "still feeds conspiracy theories to the present day" (e.g.). That alone makes it notable, without me having to repeat my usual rant about contextual information. Stammer 05:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep, article would be difficult to source much better but here are TIME and NYT articles related to the story. I am very uncertain that the title is appropriate or helpful, though. --Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd support a title change if an appropriate new title could be found. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What about "Franklin Coverup Hoax"? Stammer 06:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The article needs a different focus...present sources indicating that it is a hoax. --Da Stressor 00:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. My below comments were deleted by [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards] and replaced with "[removed per policy on biographic material about living people]". In the below I don't mention any names of people accused of unseemly acts, except [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards], who pled guilty in the government's case against him. All other mentions of names can be verified from the public record (e.g., video-recorded interviews and mainstream major media news articles). Deleting my below comments is obviously intended to stifle honest debate here and maintain the false appearance of a consensus while removing information that demonstrates that the children's charges are not a hoax. Others here get to throw out the "hoax" charge without presenting any evidence (and no, appeal to authority is not evidence, it's a logical fallacy), yet when someone (such as myself) comes along to present evidence to the contrary their comments are kicked out of court under a truly constrained pretext. Is [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards] now going to troll the talk pages to delete any comments that mention, e.g., the current U.S. president or some other living person? I hardly think so. If the self-invented standard that [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards] applied to me were to be applied across Wikipedia, virtually no intelligent discussions could take place on the talk or vote pages of Wikipedia. ### The article should point out the voluminous amount of indefeasible evidence that the charges are hardly a hoax (besides which, how do many children from around the nation get together to conspire such a hoax while recounting details they wouldn't likely have known unless true?) and that there is very strong evidence that the children were used for sex by a number of high-level U.S. politicians involved in this case. As it stands now, the article is highly erroneous and inaccurate, and so gives an exceedingly false picture of the case. For example, the article mentions the [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards] vs. [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards] ruling by United States Senior District Judge [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards], but it misrepresents Judge [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards]'s ruling while not providing a citation link so that people can read it for themselves. As well, no mention is made of [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards], Republican and former Nebraska State Senator, who was hired by State Senator [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards], Chairman of the special committee to look into the allegations, as an investigator for the committee. [Deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards] came into the case thinking that the charges must certainly be false and was hired because it was thought that he would help to whitewash the case, but he found out that the evidence showed that the charges are true and spoke out about it. Former CIA Director William E. Colby is interviewed in the documentary Conspiracy of Silence (1994), wherein William E. Colby backs up the importance of this case and also talks about the real risks of assassination that [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards] faces for speaking out on this case. As well, the article misrepresents the news report "Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards]: 'Call boys' took midnight tour of White House" by [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards] and [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards] (Washington Times, June 29, 1989), in that it attempts to make it appear as if the matters brought up by that article were settled with the Nebraska case. One author of that report, [Deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards], is also interviewed in the documentary Conspiracy of Silence, wherein he mentions that even though government officials called the callboy ring the largest male prostitution ring ever uncovered in the Washington, D.C. area, bringing in over a million dollars annually, the government only prosecuted [deleted per certain censors' self-invented standards] (the dispatcher) and three of his partners. The same journalist points out that the prosecution never went after any of the clients, and the government sealed over 20,000 documents involving credit card receipts, client lists, etc., by court order (which is still in effect). The Washington Times obtained hundreds of these credit card slips (in addition to cancelled checks and client lists) which contained the client names of "government officials, locally based U.S. military officers, business men, lawyers, bankers, congressional aides and other professionals." As this journalist details, the clients involved people from the White House, to Capital Hill, to the statehouses, to the churches, etc. The above is barely even scratching the surface of these matters.--209.208.77.100 11:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't really make an argument for keeping the article. Pablothegreat85 23:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Somewhat true, but not really. My argument dealt mainly with the veracity of the children's charges (which others on this page were calling a hoax), and given my attempt at conciseness, I only touched on a few points of the manifold evidence demonstrating that. But that obviously argues to the importance of this case.--209.208.79.222 23:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The AfD page is not the page for you to spew nonsense like this. The discussion is whether or not to keep the article.  Pablothegreat85 05:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself. You and those who you agree with are the one's knee-jerkingly spouting "hoax" with absolutely no evidence to back it up (and no, appeal to authority is not evidence, it's a logical fallacy). You're the one censoring me on baseless and made-up rationales in order to prevent a fair public hearing. And since when has documented, verifiable (i.e., in the public record, including government records and mainstream major media articles) facts become nonsense? Oh, silly me, that's always been the case when it involves ruling elites via their apologists.--209.208.79.222 06:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not appealing to authority, I'm appealing to facts. Pablothegreat85 09:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article at this moment seems neutral, and is sourced. I do still see posters on DU talking about this subject as if it was all true, and you never hear them mention the "carefully crafted hoax" part. This article could be considered a minor analgesic for BDS. :) - Crockspot 19:23, 26 April 2007 (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.