Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Biden sexual assault allegation


 * 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 discussion procedurally closed. The nominator withdrew it, though after arguments to delete had already been made - but after further discussion, a deletion review determined that a second AfD was not productive to continue. ~ mazca  talk 13:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

POVFORK avoiding consensus on which material is DUE at Joe Biden. Ongoing discussions on how to treat the material at, appears to be created to circumvent consensus. Includes various minor publications and opinion pieces which almost certainly would not gain consensus in the main article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator After looking closely at the last discussion and current one, I realize that this nomination isn't going anywhere at this time. I strongly disagree with the creation of a new article to include content and sources that would not pass muster at Joe Biden, but perhaps this can be remedied by closer attention to this page. I think a merger discussion might be appropriate in a month or so depending on how things go. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a POVFORK violating NOTNEWS as an allegation that has been in the news but has not demonstrated lasting notability. It is UNDUE to give it its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This does not require its own article, especially with how sparse the page itself is. The information can easily be placed onto Joe Biden's article. Auror Andrachome (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This incident is absolutely worthy of its own article.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
 * Keep nominating the same article for the same reasons as a previous AFD (closed a few days ago as no consensus) is disruptive. These allegations easily pass GNG and are continuing to receive notable coverage. We can reassess after a few months, not days. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest this be closed and a DRV opened for the first close from 5 days ago, if the filer would like to continue. We won’t be seeing any different arguments after such short time has passed. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear WP:POVFORK. There is a substantial (and growing) section on the Joe Biden article, which is where it belongs. KidAd (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. If there was no consensus for deletion five days ago, why would there be consensus now? What is the point of opening up a second AfD less than a week after the first closes, providing the same rationales that failed to generate consensus the first time? Einsof (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This article really is a hot mess. Editors repeatedly add poorly sourced BLP content while at the same time obstinately trying to deprecate NY Times because it changed one misleading sentence in its thoroughly-documented investigative reporting on the matter. It's also a coatrack for side comments and cameo appearances by politicians who decline to comment on it and I agree, it is a FORK to legitimize content that is scraped from the internet and relevant neither to Biden nor even to the specific allegation of assault.  SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? - This article was already just nominated for deletion and the discussion didn't support deleting the article. Why is our time being wasted like this? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep 5 days ago a deletion discussion was closed. Per WP:DPAFD, After a deletion debate concludes and there is no consensus or the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep / joke, and a hearty trouting to the nominator. Seriously - this was just closed and kept less than a week ago. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The previous AfD was started two weeks ago. A lot has changed since then. Most importantly, as a result of many editors' efforts to make the article better, it's actually gotten much worse. There's nothing valid to work with past a two sentence summary of the matter, and that is included in the Joe Biden biography. In that location it has a lot of important context about Biden's behavior around some women.  SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Give it a break. The last AfD closed just 5 days ago with no consensus for delete. No change since. Still covers WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per wp:GNG. Albeit a merger might be suggested if its content might fit well elsewhere, even perhaps nearly en toto . . . such as, perhaps, to 2017–18 United States political sexual scandals (after updating its "'18").--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge There’s a paragraph devoted to an anonymous call 27 years ago to Larry King Live with a "potential" reference, that Tara claims was made by her mother. If an encyclopedia has to resort to this, we have a problem. A spinoff article of this type requires sustained coverage by RS. I subscribe to two RS print papers and have the news on much of the day and have barely heard of this. If charges are filed, or high-quality sources give the allegation serious attention, review this. If there is anything worth saving, merge it. If consensus is keep, WP:TNT it. WP:POVFORK WP:NOTNEWS
 * Keep This is a credible sexual assault allegation against a major party nominee for president. Donald Trump's own sexual misconduct allegations and Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct allegations have their own pages. Maybe this page should be renamed "misconduct" for consistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkitsuitesix (talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons I stated at the last deletion discussion. Frankly, it seems to be a bit of an abuse of process to re-nominate it for deletion less than a week after the previous discussion was closed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2020 (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.