Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edwards extramarital affair


 * 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. Non admin closure. (non-admin closure) &mdash; neuro(talk) 06:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards extramarital affair

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an affair between two indviduals, one of whom is a public figure. The affair certainly belongs in the article of the public figure. Unlike Bill Clinton's affair, or Elliott Spitzer's affair, there was no political consequence to this affair, and hence, I do not think the affair itself is encyclopedic to warrent its own article Dems on the move (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. You're looking for Requested mergers. If it belongs in the article on the public figure, a merge should be discussed. I think that the affair had a significant impact on his chances of becoming Obama's running mate, hence it having political consequence. Either way, there's no case for deletion to consider. - Mgm|(talk) 20:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is already a good section on the affair in the John Edwards article. Dems on the move (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whether or not the affair had any impact on Barack Obama's choice for runningmate is pure speculation. Dems on the move (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant event documented by multiple news sources that describes the reason for a major political figures disappearance from public view.  Prior to the affair being revealed, Edwards was being talked about as a potential Vice President or Attorney General.  Since then he has effectively vanished.  Summary style properly used by having a short summary in the Edwards biography with most details in this subarticle. A merge does not appear practical without removing a large amount of valuable content. --Allen3 talk 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- this guy almost became Vice-President, and his extramarital affair has had a profound impact upon his political ambitions. The subject is notable, sourcable, relevant... - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a matter of opinion about whether there was no political consequence from the affair. Sometimes, as with the Chappaquiddick incident, it isn't a career ender, but becomes a permanent part of one's record.   Generally speaking, one's career is not advanced by a showing of having lied about fathering a child out of wedlock in the course of adultery.  True, there is a section about the affair in the article about Edwards himself, but is it "too long", overshadowing the rest of Senator Edwards's biography?  Or is it "too short" to the point of glossing over the whole affair?  Depending on how much people want to know about the dalliances of the Senator, one can read either article.  Mandsford (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Probably a Speed Keep actually, but I'll just go with keep. No political significance? There are many more offices in American than that of President.  Edwards political career is dead now.  In any event, that is open to opinion and certainly not the criteria.  The criteria is notability and sourcability, of which this article has in spades.  Dman727 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep much as I hate the inclusion of tabloid material in Wikipedia, this one received highly extensive coverage over a long period of time, beyond the scope of a traditional newspaper or magazine thus WP:NOTNEWS would not apply and the threshold for verifiability through reliable publications is more than met. JBsupreme (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As noted above, it's plainly notable, so any removal of the article should be done by merging. As a significant incident in his history and a plainly notable topic, we need to devote plenty of coverage to it, and as it's too large to merge adequately and yet stay in summary style, it needs to remain an article.  Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a snowball... Mandsford (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this is a viable article, and in fact it has drawn attention to the fact that the Gary Hart/Donna Rice affair actually does not have an article of its own ... and it certainly warrants one. 23skidoo (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2008 (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.