Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hush agreement


 * 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 and redirect to Non-disclosure agreement. Spartaz Humbug! 06:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hush agreement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Arbitrary article about what legally is a non-disclosure agreement, but has been coined "hush agreement" by popular press. Also, the title is too broad to just look at this in the context of Trump/Daniels.There are probably hundreds and thousands of "hush agreements" out there for various causes. Although this particular confidentiality agreement has gained some coverage, unless this leads to more severe political repercussions, it is most likely a singular event that does not have persistent impact and may fail the 10 year test. Therefore, propose to delete this article and include whatever may be noteworthy about the "hush agreement" in the Stormy Daniels article. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect -- to Non-disclosure agreement per WP:RPURPOSE as an exceedingly likely search term these days. Concerns about recentism don't apply to redirects, obviously, as they cost us nothing. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete without redirect. It's just an appellation used by some press for the Trump-Daniels agreement, not a term in general use. I would oppose the redirect to Non-disclosure agreement. An NDA is an agreement that supports the ability of one party disclosing confidential information to another while constraining how that information is used or disclosed. NDAs are never referred to as "hush agreements". The idea of a "hush agreement," to the extent that term is used generically at all, is to shut up someone who already has the information. No reader searching on "hush agreement" will be helped by being redirected to an article about nondisclosure agreements. There may be some other article where a redirect would be appropriate, but none comes to mind. TJRC (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment -- It turns out that the agreement between Stormy Daniels and Trump is referred to in the press as an NDA as well as as a "hush agreement." See e.g. .  The exact same kind of agreement between other parties is also called an NDA in the press, e.g. here's an example with Weinstein.  The conclusion is that even if your technical point about these agreements not being NDAs is correct, it's not important to this discussion.  The press calls them NDAs and the press calls them "hush agreements" and that makes "hush agreement" a likely search term for NDA, and so we should have a redirect. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to hush money because widespread media use makes it a probable search term. As between the two possible possible redirect targets for this portmanteau (hush money and Non-disclosure agreement,) I lean towards hush money because it is nearer to the facts of the case in which a well-know man pays a woman to keep mum about the fact that he paid her for sex.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your argument but the trouble is that hush money only talks about bribery and other shady kinds of payments. In the cases at issue here everything's legal.  It's not bribery. Thus I'd oppose redirecting to hush money. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no very strong ppinion about which redirect to choose. For the curious,  Here's  a gNews search on"hush money" ; here's one on "non-disclosure agreement" , both very Stormy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge anything useful to the article on Daniels, and possible mention on some more general page about Trump. The term itself is much too generic to have it covered with an article on just one such agreement.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Non-disclosure agreement per 192.160.216.52. Agricolae (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hush money. Hush money is indeed a bribe.  That article describes it as thus: "one person or party offers another an attractive sum of money or other enticement, in exchange for remaining silent about some ... stigmatic ... behavior" and "The person or party who presents the hush money may be attempting to avoid ...a leak of information to the news media". Exactly what the Stormy Daniels hush agreement is about. Non-disclosure agreement may seem to be a broader category, but those agreements are usually executed before any interaction occurs.  The hush agreement is entered into after the event has occurred. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Non-disclosure agreement. Broad enough to cover whatever "hush agreement" may refer to, but not overly broad as to become useless. Money may not necessarily be involved. feminist (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect. My preference would be to hush money, but I wouldn't object to it going to non-disclosure agreement either.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:05, 15 March 2018 (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.