Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations (2nd nomination)


 * 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. It's not a good practice to renominate some article for deletion, barely two days after a previous AfD on the topic was nearly snow-kept.Anyone interested about deletion et al, may choose to re-visit this venue, after passage of a considerable span of time. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 15:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein sexual misconduct allegations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Failure of WP:BLP and WP:NOT to have this much of a detailed article outside of BL content. It is presently only allegations, and while there have been irreversible effects (eg removal from his company and the various Academies), these all can be discussed in content of his career on his article. But it's a BLP problem, especially listing out every person that claims to have been alleged, even if these are all people that are highly visible. M ASEM (t) 12:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I just noticed there was a previous AFD, but I didn't see any angle on the BLP side of that. Also, people that argued that merging this into Weinstein's article, it would be better to split out the Filmography from that article (a standard practice) to expand on a few details on the allegations, but it should not be covered in this much depth on Wikipedia while it is just an allegation and not formal convictions from a trial. --M ASEM (t) 12:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Regarding WP:NOT: according to Notability_(events): "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" I believe this is the case here. This is not just a routine news report about a minor event. The news have already made the topic notable.
 * Although some BLP issues could arise from this article, in general it uses reliable, published source. The BLP policy implies that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed. It does not imply that negative information must be removed, given the appropriate sources.
 * WP:BLPCRIME would not apply here. In the same way it did not apply to Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations.
 * Note that if we merged the content into the Weinstein's article, there would be no way of limiting its depth or avoiding bringing the original article out of balance. That would be a clear case of DUE.
 * Note too that if you want to remove a section of this article, you could discuss it in the talk page, but no AfD is needed for that.Hofhof (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While there is some reason to keep based on the volume of stories, BLP is a much stronger policy that we need to respect. The list of alleged victims is a complete failure of BLP - remember, he hasn't been convicted yet, and while these are all public names, all this is is effectively gossip of who said what - if they're named as plaintiffs in a lawsuit, that would be different. So once that list is removed, and removing what's duplicated in the biographical article, this fits perfectly fine there without UNDUE - this is an event that has changed his career 100%, so of course it is going to be a significant part. And as noted, it is standard practice to offload long filmography to a separate list when it runs long like this. --M ASEM (t) 13:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. I think the Trump allegation article is just as much a problem, as there's only been allegations and no actual conviction, much less legal action. In contrast, Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations actually has several trials in progress, and other clear effects that resulted that were beyond just what happened to Cosby. --M ASEM (t) 13:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say we should keep it because similar articles exist. I say WP:BLPCRIME does not apply here because it does not cover WP:WELLKNOWN. In the same way it does not apply to Trump's allegations or many other similar cases. Hofhof (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: Passes WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT, and as was noted in the closure of the previous AfD, to add this stuff to the main article would unbalance it. Also, regardless of whether these are allegations, the sheer amount of coverage of this topic is far beyond the routine. I am slightly uncomfortable with the inclusion of the list of accusers, but that isn't a reason to delete this. This is Paul (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that we should review the sources of that list. Sources like The New Yorker, The NY Times, The Guardian and such should be kept. Gossipy sources like The Hollywood Reported or Deadline probably not.Hofhof (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Definitely agree. This is Paul (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just removed some. Maybe better sources could be found for the rest. Hofhof (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * BLP takes priority over GNG or other notability guidelines. --M ASEM (t) 14:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There are other ways of dealing with BLP issues - tags or just removing the bit of unsourced information. An AfD would only be appropriate if the whole story were invented. But it is not.Hofhof (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we're giving far too much weight by having a separate article to go into allegations that have yet to be even considered in court. We shouldn't be covering it at this much detail per BLP at this point as well as per our purpose as an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. --M ASEM (t) 14:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The important point to remember here is that these are allegations, and this is made clear both by the title, and in the article itself. In terms of WP:BLP, all of the information discussed is verifiable and there is no original research as far as I can tell. Some work is perhaps needed on neutrality, but we're getting there. I don't see a major WP:BLP issue beyond that which we would have in any other topic of this nature. I will note, however, that this matter is the subject of criminal investigations both in the United Kingdom and United States, so we should err on the side of caution as regards the information we're adding, and take a look at WP:BLPCRIME. Finally, whether or not any of this stuff results in court proceedings, the impact of this whole episode has been significant already – significant enough for us to have an article discussing it. This is Paul (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and trout the nominator. We've been through this just hours ago and the result was a SNOW keep. The allegations against Weinstein are a global news event amply justifying an article, and this article is well within BLP. A frivolous nomination. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It definitely passes WP:NEVENT, the lasting impact of these allegations will be seen for decades in the movie industry and the debate over sexual assault. This is bigger than the individual now and the fact this is ongoing is not a reason to exclude it. So long as a neutral stand point can be kept about the allegations themselves, with no comment or implication as to whether he is guilty or not, the article does not fail BLP and as mentioned, including this within in the main article could have worse implications for neutrality. 333cale (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge back into "Harvey Weinstein." Zakawer (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, this was just snow-closed as such. This scandal obviously merits dedicated coverage, merging it back would not allow for adequate coverage including aspects where other people are affected. Listing the alleged victims is not a BLP problem, as long as we make clear that these are allegations, as plenty of reliable sources are compiling just such lists (eg, The Guardian, Newsweek). The names are necessary to understand the scope of the scandal.  Sandstein   14:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep I'm surprised an admin as acting so unconstructively. JJARichardson (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2017 (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.