Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edwards paternity allegations


 * 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. Approve of rename as well, less POV. Keeper   76  21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

John Edwards paternity allegations

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

This article was allegedly created as a content and POV fork of John Edwards, related to a recent controversy in which it has been claimed that he fathered a love child. The article was speedily deleted, but related discussion here seems to be against the idea of the speedy deletion; I myself agree, especially (as was noted in the ANI discussion) because a speedy tag was removed before the article was speedied. Personally, I believe that the article is giving undue weight to the subject, and therefore deserves deletion; I have recreated it just now simply because I believe it deserves a discussion here at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (Note: the said article has been renamed to John Edwards extramarital affair) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP NOT journalism, BLP-attack, POV fork because the original content placed in the Edwards article was removed per COATRACK. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, KC - could you cite an example of POV in the article, or of a BLP attack? Kelly  hi! 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, give me a few minutes pls, I want to try to be clear. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC) EDITED to add will be a little longer, apologies, I will be away from the computer for a bit. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Please assume good faith on the part of the author. This article was created because of claims of WP:UNDUE, not to generate a POV fork nor to create a COATRACK. Let's please argue the merits of the material rather than make assertions regarding motives. Ronnotel (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith on the part of the author. Her intentions (and hard work) and not in dispute - the result (ie; the article) is in dispute. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will be back a little later to comment more fully, but in the meantime I ask commenters to read the comments at WP:ANI here, particularly the ones at the end by Noroton, DGG, and GRBerry. The article is not intended to be a fork, but one covering the media controversy. Kelly  hi! 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete = POV fork, vandalism/trolling trap, undue weight to a monor event, attack bio, Wikipedia is not a news source, lack of decent sources... O the list goes on. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bearian - do you have any examples? I'm particularly unsure of the "lack of decent sources" claim, I tried hard to provide a lot of high-quality sources. Kelly  hi! 16:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to each policy objection:
 * POV fork -- If it would be a WP:COATRACK problem to be included in the John Edwards article, it can't simultaneously be a POV fork. The media coverage itself is an important element of this article (from what we know at present, I think it should be the major focus). You can't fit that in the John Edwards article and this is very obviously encyclopedic content which deserves to be in Wikipedia.
 * vandalism/trolling trap -- You can say that about all of our articles, and we certainly have plenty on controversial subjects. (This is actually not a policy objection, but it's a legitimate concern to bring up.)
 * undue weight to a monor event -- Others have brought this up, too. WP:UNDUE deals only with presenting "aspects" or "points of view" within an article. So UNDUE can't be a deletion issue, only an editing issue.
 * attack bio -- I think this is the strongest objection. The news organizations that have covered this and that are cited in the article are, overwhelmingly, not attacking Edwards, and the article presents information from them in a WP:NPOV way. John Edwards is a WP:WELLKNOWN person. This article was written after extensive discussions on the Talk:John Edwards page about whether it was proper to include the allegation in Wikipedia, and the consensus of a large number of editors was to include it (see Talk:John Edwards). The additional details in this article don't seem to make our coverage of the allegation any more of a potential attack than that sentence would be. I think this is the strongest objection because there's a case to be made that it doesn't meet WP:WELLKNOWN, which insists on reliable sources. The National Enquirer (NE) typically isn't considered an RS. On the other hand, NE has actually been a reliable source in the past, and the recent hotel incident seems to be what put this over the top (the paternity allegation had been first reported by NE quite a while ago). The many news organizations that have reported on the NE report, at some point, disolved reliable sourcing objections, especially when we look at news media coverage as part of the subject. Since this is a bit complicated and nothing in the language of WP:BLP is absolutely decisive here, look at the spirit. The spirit of WP:BLP involves trying not to harm a subject (although unless more important considerations may take precedence, as with WP:WELLKNOWN), not putting Wikipedia into legal liability and not harming the reputation of Wikipedia. The last two simply don't apply, and the first depends on how we cover this, not whether we do.
 * Wikipedia is not a news source -- Wikipedia covers things like this, as many, many AfDs have shown. Looking at the media coverage of a situation like this is useful when the next one comes up, just as looking at the information Wikipedia has on similar, past situations is helpful in understanding this one, so this is not an article of only passing interest, which we already know by now becuse of the media-coverage information that has already come up (I go into this in more detail at the 22:08, 5 August post, below).
 * lack of decent sources -- The footnotes disagree with you. They include the most "decent" news-organization sources that exist (also see "attack bio" item above).
 * -- Noroton (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep An important story about a very prominant politician. More reasons why this is news can be found here: http://www.slate.com/id/2196758/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.25.72 (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This previous comment supports the idea of coverage of this topic in Wikinews. I point out however, that this is Wikipedia, and in itself this argument has no weight towards the inclusion of the article here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - obviously, as the author, I'm saying keep. I think people have got it into their heads that this article is somehow trying to say the allegations are true. The article in no way presents the allegations as fact. (sorry for the bolding, I just wanted to make that clear for people who are saying "attack"). Some reasoning follows:
 * 1) The article was written in response to concerns at the John Edwards article that to include details about media coverage of the controversy was a WP:COATRACK problem. The article is intended to discuss the allegations themselves, and an important controversy in journalism that has received/is receiving widespread coverage. A similar article to this would be John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008.
 * 2) Yes, there are blog references, but they are only intended to apply to a discussion of blog coverage of the allegations (similar situations exist at Killian documents or Jamil Hussein controversy). Any controversial facts are referenced to the mainstream press - please look at the sources. Where less-than-stellar sources are used (i.e. the Enquirer or blogs), it is only to reference claims made or opinions given by those sources in the context of discussing the media coverage of the event.
 * 3) If there are concerns about undue weight or neutral point of view, could someone please be specific about those? I honestly have worked very hard to comply with all policies and have looked at all of the similar articles I could find to ensure I was meeting Wikipedia guidelines and community norms.
 * 4) There are two ways for Wikipedia to handle our coverage of this type of situation/controversial event - either close our eyes to the event, while numerous POV-pushers show up here to stir up drama about it on- and off-wiki, or to get ahead of the power curve, write a neutral, reliably sourced article about the event, and defend it against POV-pushers. I have no doubt the information will wind up in the encyclopedia in some form; obviously I think it's better if responsible editors control the form that information will take. I am trying to get in front of the issue and would appreciate any help or contructive feedback that anyone wishes to provide.
 * With respect to all - Kelly  hi! 16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A little thought experiment - let us pretend that we are looking back from 25 years later and everyone agrees that this marked the end of Edward's political career. How much material would belong in the John Edwards article in those circumstances? Probably no more than one or two paragraphs, because what he actually did during his career would need to be covered also, and we wouldn't want to unbalance the main biography. Additional coverage about the mess would belong in a sub article. This projection is comparable to how the Lewinsky scandal is handled in Bill Clinton. If no matter how important this becomes, we wouldn't put significantly more in John Edwards than was already there when Kelly wrote this page, than the issues we need to handle definitely do not include it being a POV fork. As one of the admins who is monitoring John Edwards (and the latest to use my tools on the main biography), I'm reasonably well aware of the consensus there (which continues to shift to fine tune the paragraph as more sources become available - just as it should). I'm also highly aware that new editors will probably be back in a couple days (when the current protection period ends) trying to get more material added. Kelly was attempting to get ahead of that forthcoming problem and wrote an article that if it had a POV problem was only going to far towards "this story matters". (I.e., it was neither an attack page nor unsourced, though bits might have needed to be edited to be more succinct.) Kelly definitely does not deserve any opprobium for his/her writing this article. As to whether or not now is the time for this article, I've long been an occasional advocate for taking WP:NOT a lot more seriously than we do. (I think if someone were to propose adding that to the policy now the community would reject it, because the evidence is that the community largely ignores it and writes articles whenever a major news story occurs.) So I'd be happier if we now had a Wikinews article, and waited a while before we started a Wikipedia article, possibly just keeping a soft-redirect to wikinews at a reasonable title. Assuming this doesn't linger on - and it might, depending on whether or not any of the mainstream news sources decided to do investigative journalism the way they did years ago and what such hypothetical investigations might find - then in a few months we'll be able to have better encyclopedic perspective. I refuse to predict whether the main story will be about how the media and blogosphere handled this, the substance of the allegations, or something else we have yet to identify. And until we know the main storyline, we are just to close to the event to know how to handle it. So my preferred outcome would be to have a wikinews article instead, and adopt a temporary policy of just waiting a few months here. But if this comes to DRV for a straight up/down decision, I'll have to opine based on those two options. GRBerry 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While I commend the main writer for the effort to document sources and then write quite an extensive article with neutral (at least at a sentence by sentence level) tone, the article is in some sense a victim of its own success in that it is an extraordinarily long article on what is essentially gossip and discussion of said gossip. As such its very size alone violates WP:UNDUE, thus reducing the article to a POV fork of the main subject.  Per this and additionally BLP considerations, it is, at least, imperative for this material to be greatly condensed and most if not all of the material sourced only to blogs not up to RS standards for BLP articles removed.  Some could argue then this is only an editorial issue.  However, the main article covers this issue in a plausibly reasonable way already.  I would argue then that it still is a fork; even if neutral and well sourced it would then be redundant.  Further, such an article would be intrinsically difficult to maintain (someone might keep adding "at his two public appearances today, Edwards refused again to discuss the allegations"; even if well sourced, this is a clear disservice to the project).  I thus propose the project is clearly best served by deleting  (updated below Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)) this article (with the caveat mentioned below) and any editorial effort put into updating in a prudent way the content in the Edwards article regarding the topic. I note that this article's main author was one of the main forces to get good, balanced coverage of this topic into the main Edwards article. Her efforts, if she desires, towards my suggestion would be much appreciated as the main article's talk is starting to percolate more fervently with editors misinformed (at best) about our policies. Update As events have unfolded as told by reliable sources, it is no longer obvious that a balanced and properly weighted summary of the topic can be summarized in the main John Edwards article while still doing justice to what can be adequately sourced.  I feel it still can, but I am no longer convinced that the article should be deleted per NPOV, BLP and other policy grounds, with the obvious caveat that the current article is still a de facto mouthpiece for un-BLP tabloid reporting, so would still need immense cleanup, in any case.  There still would be great merit in either deleting this article and refining the main one, or starting this article from scratch (which might make it easier to write encyclopedically).  So while I believe the project is best served by its deletion, I am not convinced that it it required by policy (although it may still be). With regards to this discussion, my own position is now neutral, and I do hope the points I have raised lead to further discussion and project improvement. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Update 2 Per ABC News coverage pointed out here, any balanced coverage consistent with reliable sources in John Edwards would end up being undue weight. This article needs keeping. My following comments were prescient. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Additional comment/caveat to the closer: it is very possible that during the running of this AfD, reliable sources will greatly increase the encyclopedic nature of this article's topic, to the point of early comments becoming out of date.  While that is always the case, when tiptoing close to the line between Wikipedia and Wikinews it is all the more important to keep in mind. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to article length, the model I used was John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 - I think this article is actually somewhat shorter. Is the McCain article too long? I really don't know. That said, this article could probably use some condensing, particularly in the blog/pundit coverage paragraph - I don't read many blogs and am not a good judge of their notability...I used Wikipedia articles to get a sense for that. Feedback on my editorial judgment welcome. :) Kelly  hi! 16:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article documents a ongoing controversy of importance to the political career of a major public figure; this controversy has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is written in a straightforward and relatively unbiased fashion; a content fork in order to expand in detail on a substantive topic is legitimate. There may be too much narration and not enough reflection, but that is a fault of style, not of substance, and certainly not a reason for deletion. Quibbling with BLP issues on particular points of the article are a reason to edit it, not delete it. At this point, the Edwards controversy has received at least as prominent a degree of coverage as the McCain lobbyist controversy, and deserves an article of its own. RayAYang (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The story is pertinent to the Vice Presidential selection process for the Democratic party. Further, the incident is demonstrating relevant differences between traditional media coverage and new media coverage of an important public figure. Lockesteps (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Lockesteps
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a news source and not a courtroom. Reporting on this only serves to boost the Enquirer's circulation.  None of the Enquirer's allegations have been corroborated by any reputable news source and this article is a biased, weighted, POV coatrack.  Non-related events and facts are strung together in a manner designed to implicate and cause harm.  Until there is any corroboration, proof, statement, or fact then there is nothing to report. Macduff (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources listed in the article specify corraboration and reporting by reputable news sources. Can you cite an example of bias in the article? I would be happy to fix it. Kelly  hi! 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't speak for the OP, but there is a whole section of material much of which is from the National Enquirer. That is not a good thing in an article like this (indeed any article, but especially this). Where reliable sources discuss the allegations, it might be OK to use content from those sources, even to the point of them reporting that the Enquirer said this or that.  But it needs to be another reliable source doing so, not the Enquirer itself.  The same for blogs: for an article like this, we cannot use most blogs as sources, even for verification of what they themselves said (although in that case only, there may be somewhat more latitude to use them; and many not even for that).  A reliable source's coverage of what's happening in blogs might or might not be reasonable, subject to editorial discretion.  But to have large swaths of the article devoted to allegations and/or commentary sourced to blogs and unreliable sources is simply a Bad Thing: it is a recipe for bias if only because it provides a mouthpiece for an unreliable source, even if that source's content was accurately transcribed.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - in most cases, the fact that the Enquirer published something is also mentioned in the mainstream news, particularly the longer pieces by The Times, Fox News, McClatchy Newspapers, or WCNC-TV, and can possibly be resourced. But are you saying it's unacceptable to source a sentence in the article that says "The Daily Newspaper published this claim" with a link to the Daily Newspaper article itself? That seems odd, I have never heard that interpretation. I do understand that a lot of people have an almost visceral reaction to seeing a National Enquirer link in a Wikipedia article, but they are only ever used in this article to source the paper made a particular claim, not for any assertions of fact. The context is one of history of media coverage of the allegations, not the accuracy of the allegations themselves, which is still a question. Kelly  hi! 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In a BLP-relevant article, if there is any remotely reasonable way of avoiding sourcing an unreliable claim to its (unreliable) source, yes it shouldn't be done. If such content belongs at all in such an article, it will be necessarily (but not sufficiently) because a reliable source reported on that very content.  If those other (more reliable) sources that you mention (for instance) report on content, then that reporting becomes reasonable, again subject to editorial discretion (read: NPOV and its children; UNDUE etc).  But at that point, linking to the original NE source does nothing to enhance the article.  In some cases it might be plausible to add such a link to the External Links section, but in a case like this that should be done with extreme care.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, though I guess we have to agree to disagree on the specifics. I think your policy makes sense for a biography, but not for the history of a media story. But the question is probably better discussed on the article talk page, as opposed to here. Kelly  hi! 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK [[Image:Artículo bueno.svg|18px]]. Kudos to your levelheadednesss in this and related discussions.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With GRBerry's kind permission, I am quoting his earlier post to WP:ANI below:
 * End quote... Kelly  hi! 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep—So, while considering what to say about this I wondered how similar past situations have been handled by WP and wandered over to Gary Hart. The Donna Rice "situation" gets a 4 paragraph subsection.  I had forgotten that the Hart/Rice photos were also published by the Enquirer, an uncanny resemblance to the current situation.  I think that this topic deserves coverage in Wikipedia, but I personally think that it should be included in the main Edwards article, not in its own article.  However, since the consensus of editors there seems to be to exclude any mention of this until it is picked up by the likes of the Miami Herald, I suppose my only possible reaction is to keep it, though I really wish it could be merged back in to the Edwards article, hence my "weak"ness.  Livitup (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the consensus on the Edwards article is (and has been for a few days now) to have a paragraph on the topic. So in some sense the merge you wish for already exists. I would imagine this might further weaken your keep rationale, but allow you to elaborate as you see fit.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a minor correction - the only consensus there is to have a couple of sentences on the allegations' impact on his VP changes. There is a consensus against including any other details of the controversy. Kelly  hi! 21:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Although Wikipedia is not a news source, the initial allegations were made almost a year ago. How much time needs to pass before Wikipedia covers it? Given the quality of the article (notice how few specific complaints about it are made above?), the article should be kept. I also agree with the reasoning of RayAYang above. Although the article is by no means perfect, that is a reason for editing, not deletion. It also seems to be the clear (and reasonable) consensus at John Edwards that very little space there should be devoted to this topic. That's fine but also another reason why a separate article is needed. David.Kane (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep While some of the sourcing in this article is subpar, a lot of the sources are reliable. The topic is, therefore, clearly notable and belongs in this encyclopedia. There is currently enough content on this subject to justify its own article, so "keep" is preferable to "merge/redirect to John Edwards". Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * delete blp this is not a 'fact' nor 'knowledge' it is media speculation still about a living person. --Buridan (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notable, decent sources, any problems with the article can be fixed by contructive editing. Arkon (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep although at this point, when the allegation itself has shaky sourcing to the National Enquirer (and only sourcing of part of the allegation to Fox News), the focus should be on the overall media coverage, with the allegation as background (and therefore worth giving fewer details per WP:UNDUE). But the shape of the article is not an AfD decision: AfD is about whether there is a subject we can know is worth an article. There is just no way that the subject of the tortured, complex media coverage of this allegation is not a worthwhile subject for this encyclopedia. I'm not just talking about the NE and Fox coverage, but even the coverage of decisions by news organizations not to cover the allegations. There are plenty of sources that have discussed these decisions. Note the long section on media coverage at John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008. That section is encyclopedicly useful to readers interested in the media coverage of this issue. Above (timestamp 19:29), User:Livitup used the "Donna Rice affair" section of the Gary Hart article to see how we cover that. He found information worth considering in thinking about the media coverage here. In other words, Livitup used the encyclopedia as an encyclopedia and that editor could do so because we covered the subject as an encyclopedia of our size should. This is what we do.
 * And you can't have an article on the media coverage if you don't say what the coverage is about. You also can't fit an article (or even a long section) on the media coverage into the overall John Edwards article.
 * Editors have already decided by consensus at John Edwards that the allegation itself is OK to mention essentially because there's enough media coverage surrounding the Enquirer's stories. That decision got the camel's nose in the tent and when you let the nose in, you can't stop the rest of the animal from coming in -- this article is the whole camel. This is -- and should be -- an uncomfortable, extremely sensitive subject. Edwards has a wife and children, and, as our article says, at least one newspaper columnist thinks Wikipedia coverage itself may have an effect on news organizations decisions to give this more publicity. Edwards is also a WP:WELLKNOWN person under consideration for vice president or possibly a cabinet position if Obama wins, and that also tends to make this subject encyclopedic because it affects those hiring decisions. It's worth noting Wikipedia's standard practice of having articles on controversies, political and not: see Category:Controversies and Category:Political controversies (and including what are usually referred to as "scandals" and "affairs" -- see Words to avoid)-- Noroton (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I was on the fence about this. I can certainly support removal of many of the blog refs. However Noroton's arguments about the need for encyclopedic material push me into the Keep camp. Ronnotel (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. cf John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008,Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal, Mark Foley scandal, ad nauseum. It's interesting that an attempt to redirect Rielle Hunter to this article was rejected, yet Vicki Iseman still has an article about her, along with the mentions in John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and John Weaver (political consultant).  Horologium  (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The McCain Lobbyist controversy, the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and the Gary Hart/Monkey Business scandal were all reported and confirmed in reputable news sources. The John Edwards paternity allegation has only been reported in the National Enquirer, a non-reputable source.  I don't think a fair comparison can be made. Macduff (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you take a look at the sources, the allegations have been reported on by numerous mainstream sources, including The Times, Der Spiegel, McClatchy News, and multiple American major metropolitan newspapers, as well as Business Week and US News & World Report, among others. Kelly  hi! 00:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This easily passes the notability test. These allegations have apparently derailed the political career of one of the most visible politicians of this decade. Prior to the allegations there was talk of Vice President or Attorney General. Now that the allegations have been aired by the mainstream media, talk has shifted to the death of his political career. 69.204.74.75 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep To summarize what I said at AN/I referred to above, Quite independent of Edwards, the subject is an important controversy in journalism that we cannot avoid covering. Either as a possibly unique example of the prototypical US tabloid -- actually publishing against opposition something of national political importance or a spectacular example of how that journal's incompetent/biased journalism, was adopted not just by political opportunists, but the London Times, publishing on the authority of the Enquirer. We will have to cover this separately form our coverage of Edwards. I would leave Edward's name out of the title (as it reads, either he made allegations about someone's paternity or someone made allegations about his.)  I think the version of the article is acceptable, describing what the E, the LA T, and the T have published, and the major blogs; some details of the accusations are necessary to set the context, because their (im)plausibility is a major part of the charges against the Enguirer et al.    As for its role in his bio, we should wait and see. I'm not worried about harm--quite the opposite--there has been so much malicious nonsense published elsewhere that a sober article here would help decrease  its effect.   DGG (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on blog references - some of the blog sources I used were to bring balance to arguments from the "other side" in this dispute. A couple of examples that come to mind...the woman in question, and the claimed father, issued their denials to MyDD, not normally considered a reliable source. But I don't want to simply mention the allegations (which were reported by mainstream sources) without also mentioning the denials. Another instance is the LA Times blog "gag order" which was covered in the mainstream press - the LA Times editor in question responded and defended himself in a blog interview. Drafting this article has been a lesson to me on how the line is fraying between print and online journalism. But surely consensus on this can be found by editors of the article. Kelly  hi! 03:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (or Merge). Normally I wouldn't like to keep an article like this, but reading through it and the references, it does pass the notability test - this story, and more importantly how the media has (or hasn't) covered it, has been the subject of attention from multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time. There are nonetheless BLP issues involved - in particular, I'm concerned that the length of the page may give undue weight to what is arguably a fairly minor event in Edwards' life. It would be better if it were cut down, and/or merged into the John Edwards page, similar to how the Donna Rice scandal is covered in Gary Hart. However, whether this is merged or not, I'm convinced that the subject of the article is notable and the content belongs on Wikipedia. Terraxos (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt until people come to their senses and more perspective is available: This is exactly the sort of circumstance that WP:BLP is designed to prevent. "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?" The "mainstream" coverage is not presenting this material as true, and even if true, its relevance is entirely unclear at this early juncture. Being "conservative" in the BLP sense means waiting to find out whether this incident has any real impact on Edwards' career before expounding on it at length in a content fork. Not everything that's mentioned in a newspaper automatically belongs here. And if you're citing a list of other examples that have been handled differently, most of you should know better than to expect consistency from Wikipedia. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And to the liberal-bias bunch, I felt exactly the same way about Vicki Iseman's article and POV forks. Speaking of consistency, I hear a lot of complaining about Wikipedia's fast and loose way with BLP's, and yet some of the same voices are encouraging us to aggressively amplify a tabloid storyline in this particular case. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Right now, this is a tabloid story. The third-party sources merely confirm the fact that yes, this is a tabloid story. MastCell Talk 05:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC) On the basis of the new sources cited by GRBerry, including an ABC News interview in which Edwards admits the affair, I'm withdrawing my delete !vote. My position was (is) simply that we need to wait for such reliable sources before running with these things. Now that condition is met, so I have no major objection to this article. I would prefer to see the effort expended on how to work the now-confirmed allegations in Edwards' main article rather than a content fork, but the existence of the content fork seems justified by new sources and revelations. MastCell Talk 19:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * this is a tabloid story There is a reason why this particular tabloid story and not others has received so much coverage in the rest of the press: It's more than a tabloid story even though it happens to have appeared first in a tabloid. It just isn't that cut and dried, and your comment ignores the reasons why. (a) The fact is that it becomes a serious matter when a potential vice presidential candidate and potential cabinet member gets into a mess like this; (b) it's only a mess now because 1. He was in that hotel at that time, as Fox News confirms; 2. He hasn't denied he was there when reporters have asked him; (c) it ain't hard to prove or disprove paternity these days; (d) if he did it and can't admit it, he can be blackmailed, probably not in this case, but, if he did have an affair, it shows poor judgment that could get him into similar situations -- a legitimate public concern; (d) The Enquirer has developed a track record for breaking a number of these stories, lending some credence to this; (e) you've ignored rather than addressed the main argument of the "Keep" side -- a significant part of the justification for this article is that it's subject is also the media coverage -- a solid subject for this encyclopedia. Even if the allegation is proven false, the media coverage is still a legitimate subject. Your objections were adequate for rejecting an article as the situation existed before the hotel incident, but not with the changed situation afterward. The fact that Wikipedia has a practice of creating and keeping these articles is an argument relying on outcomes (even though this kind of subject is not listed there) and an ongoing consensus (after many AfD discussions) that hasn't yet been reflected in policy, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Noroton (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we agree on many points. If Edwards does, in fact, have a child outside his marriage and an ongoing extramarital relationship, then that will undoubtedly impact his political career and be a relevant and notable aspect of his biography. I'm uncomfortable with including it based on the current level of sourcing and certainty, though. As far as I can tell, the Enquirer is the only source standing behind these allegations, and while they have occasionally been correct, their overall record of reliability is atrocious. The reliable-source coverage has been extremely cautious, and it's clear that reliable sources won't put their names and reps behind these allegations. That's a major red flag at present. If a reputable source turns up some corroboration, or is willing to go to print backing the story, or reports that paternity is established then most of my objections would disappear (maybe this has already happened, I haven't been following that closely). Right now I see us jumping in to amplify a lurid tabloid story from the Enquirer which reputable sources have clearly declined to endorse at present. I don't see the rush, and I definitely don't see the need for a content fork at present. MastCell Talk 19:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just now saw your comment above, MastCell Masthead (Due to an editing error, a reference in this AfD to one User:MastCell was misidentified in a discussion comment. "The Daily Noroton" regrets the error.), but we've been thinking about some of the same things, so my long post with the seven points below (04:03, 8 Aug) answers some of it. As Kelly says above (19:18 5 Aug), citations to the National Enquirer are only ever used in this article to source the paper made a particular claim, not for any assertions of fact. The context is one of history of media coverage of the allegations, not the accuracy of the allegations themselves. When there is enough media coverage of even false allegations, and the allegations, true or false, start becoming historically notable at the level where Wikipedia typically starts creating articles and keeping them at AfD, then we're not dependent on the truth or even reliable sourcing of the original allegations themselves. I actually hate saying that. If Edwards were not WP:WELLKNOWN but instead a "non-public" figure (WP:NPF), then I'd be manning the barricades for a delete. If Edwards were not in the position he's in, in which he has been repeatedly asked to state whether or not he's the father and whether or not he was in the hotel and why, and in which he can disprove paternity, then we're in a situation where harm to him can't be our paramount concern. He's put himself forward as someone who wants to help run a government, previously as a candidate for president and vice president, currently as someone open to taking the VP nomination (a credible possibility until this situation) and possibly as a cabinet official. Then he made a public spectacle of himself in a hotel (it's been described as a Keystone Kops situation with the NE reporters in the hallways, stairwells, garage and bathroom of the hotel; this is the episode confirmed by Fox News). I'd rather turn away -- really -- but his private concerns are now our public concerns as the result of his (public) confrontation with the NE reporters and his (public) unresponsive responses to reporters' questions afterward. Covering the media response and the historical significance is more important than protecting him (or, unfortunately, his family) from this folly. (Note that the phrase "Do no harm" has been removed from WP:BLP lead section and replaced with the more moderate, The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement.) You mention corroboration, but I don't see a mandate in any policy or guideline for corroboration. If there is one somewhere, I see a commonsense exception supported by consensus that in this particular case, the circumstances show that it's important enough to cover the WP:N ripples in the pond and mention that someone (uncorroborated) saw a stone fall in. If it was a falling tree or a meteor that caused the ripples, we have an article about the ripples either way. No matter how this turns out, coverage of the media response remains encyclopedically useful. This might be a good test for future cases: If the allegations were proven false, would it still be justifiable to have a Wikipedia article on this? In this case, there would. Noroton (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC) (((correction issued -- Noroton (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC))))'
 * Did you just call me "Masthead"? I demand an immediate retraction :) Yes, I see your point, though I'm not totally in agreement. I think the consensus that was worked out at Talk:John Edwards regarding brief mention of the allegations was reasonable - not necessarily what I personally would have done, but reasonable. I'm pretty strongly opposed to amplifying these allegations in a standalone article at present, though, which is the focus of this AfD. MastCell Talk 19:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. Correction published. But everything else I said was correct < >. -- Noroton (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I just looked to the bottom of the page and saw the ABC News source cited by GRBerry, in which Edwards admits the affair. With ABC News standing behind the story and an admission from Edwards, I no longer have any objection to the existence of this article, and I've withdrawn my delete !vote above. MastCell Talk 19:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Trying to circumvent WP:NPOV by the expedient of claiming to document the "allegations" is just bias by the backdoor. A sentence or two in John Edwards is the most that would be appropriate; the concept of undue weight still applies when a topic is spun out to a separate article - It's why we don't have George Bush incompetence allegations or Allegations that Barack Obama is unfit to be president. CIreland (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, CIreland - I am not trying to "defame" anyone. Is there something in particular in the article that you can state is POV? I will happily work to address your concerns. We do have an article called Criticism of George W. Bush - I'm not sure about Barack Obama equivalents. Kelly  hi! 05:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an invalid comparison. We don't have an content fork entitled Allegations that George W. Bush has fallen off the wagon and is drinking again, even though the National Enquirer and its ilk routinely make that claim, and it has been repeated occasionally in more reputable sources. We should not have such an content fork, nor should we have this one. MastCell Talk 06:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - I'm not aware of the George Bush drinking allegation spreading around the mainstream media like this allegation has - can you cite some examples? Kelly  hi! 06:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One example: David Owen, formerly the British Foreign Secretary and currently Chancellor of the U. of Liverpool, wrote in his recent memoirs that Bush's "pretzel choking" incident was alcohol-related, citing physicians at Johns Hopkins who treated the President. The allegation was picked up in Vanity Fair, among other outlets. Of course, I spoke too soon and was insufficiently cynical about Wikipedia: we do have the article I alluded to. See George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. Needless to say, I think it should be deleted and the relevant aspects, if any, covered in one of the other Bush articles, but I'm giving up this particular ship. MastCell Talk 18:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My NPOV concerns are pretty simple - considering the totality of Wikipedia's coverage of John Edwards, we are giving undue weight to recent tabloid gossip. As for Criticism of George W. Bush and Movement to impeach George W. Bush they have issues of their own - related to the problem of articles dedicated to summarizing mainly negative commentary rather than the balance of commentary on a given topic. Do we give undue weight to negative commentary of George Bush? Absolutely - and that's bad. What's more we'll probably do it to the next US President, regardless of political colour. It doesn't excuse it in this case, especially when the particular issue has a personal as well as a political dimension. CIreland (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks - I understand where you're coming from now. I disagree but your point is a legitimate concern. I have one request - would you mind striking out the "defamation" thing above? I definitely do not like being tarred with that. With respect - Kelly  hi! 06:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed defamation and replaced it with bias which probably more accurately expresses my concerns anyway. CIreland (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the fear of undue weight is a good reason to balance things within an article, but not a good reason to delete an alternative article. As I understand it, this article was created in part to avoid giving undue weight to these allegations within the article on John Edwards, while providing a good level of detail to those interested. It is the nature of Wikipedia that certain subjects will attract more editor attention than others, and to delete on those grounds would not help the project (to say nothing of the howls of Buffy fans as their collection of pages is pared down in proportion to the importance of World War II). RayAYang (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Noteworthy due to Edwards being an important Democrat who may still run for President in 2012. Also, as an aside to CIreland, we do have a similar article to the "incompetence" article, the one about the movement of impeaching Bush (which  moves like a snail).-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  05:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Frankly, the "tabloid" issue is a prejudice of exactly the sort to which Wikipedia ought to be a response: the degree to which this story is notable or important doesn't depend on whether the paper folds horizontally or vertically, and the Enquirer has a pretty significant history of breaking this kind of story; contrariwise, the New York Times' recent history of poor sourcing of "gossip" articles (viz the McCain lobbyist article) might call into question whether it can be considered reliable. In any case, in this kind of article, Wikipedia ought to practice a sort of "Cǣsar's Wife" caution toward speedy deletion, rather than continue the impression that Wikipedia as a whole can't be trusted to be NPOV. -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to John Edwards per undue weight at this time. A paragraph or two would suffice at this point, sourced from the reliable sources used to construct this article (ie, not the blogs or the National Enquirer). Should this actually significantly impact (ie, end) Edwards' political career, then yes, at that point you could justify spinning it back off into an article a la the Lewinsky scandal. Neıl    ☄   08:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A paragraph or too would be OK, but this has not been possible due to endless obfuscation over very unreasonable UNDUE WEIGHT concerns. This is better this those concerns are not relevant and this article is anyway inevitable and informative. Bonobonobo (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge  relevant content to John Edwards based on notability. This story has hardly been touched by the mainstream media, and a lot of references cited by the article are blogs and tabloids.  For goodness the main claims haven't even been corroborated or confirmed by the mainstream media yet, and there's already a page on this? Ethereal (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a content fork. Removing such topics from main article (John Edwards) is a good thing.Biophys (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete and merge until (if at all) more substance and notability arises. CENSEI (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC), alot of good points for keep and even if these allegations come to nothing, its going to become a notable story regardless at this point. CENSEI (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Suggestions to "delete and merge" are incompatible with the GFDL. RFerreira (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep More than a stub, reliably sourced, clearly notable. Joshdboz (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The love child story has still not been picked up by any of the major main stream media outlets. Even after almost two weeks they have not touched this story. The original source the National Enquirer promised photos that show Edwards with his "love child" as the centerpiece piece of evidence that the story was true. All the photo shows is man holding baby in a very blurry picture. Nobody with the naked eye can even tell if it's Edwards or not. I believe that Wikipedia has cowered under the pressure of right-wing bloggers and Wikipedia editors who just want to use Wikipedia to spread this tabloid gossip during an election year. The same company that owns the National Enquirer also owns Globe magazine another supermarket tabloid that has just printed a story about an alledged Barack Obama love child now. How is that any different from John Edwards? Because it has not yet been picked up by right-wing bloggers? Because a group of Wikipedia editors have yet to start crying about being censored by Wikipedia Moderators? The "relibable sources" that have been used as a reason to not only have this story on John Edwards' page but for it to have a page of it's own are not even reporting any new info. All they've done is "report" that it hasn't been reported on in the MSM. The MSM loves a good sex scandal and if this story were true they'd be all over this story (i.e. Jesse Jackson and David Vitter), but day after day passes and they haven't said anything. Why? Because they unlike some Wikipedia editors here know the story is false and doesn't deserve attention. Maybe if I whined enough I could get Wikipedia mods to let me edit the George W. Bush page to have an section that says Bush is having an affair with Condi Rice and Laura Bush is divorcing him, the Globe has "reported" that story more than once. I'm sure I could find some liberal bloggers that could push that story and plaster it all over Google news too. I could photo shop a blurry photo of Bush and Rice kissing. This story has no place on Wikipedia because it has not been proven to be without a doubt true. If things continue as they are this page and the paragraph on the Edwards page will end up being deleted anyway; and all our time will have been waisted on this tabloid trash.--MrKing84 (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the Globe, I haven't done any research on them. Have their Barack Obama or Bush/Rice allegations been picked up by the mainstream press like the Edwards allegations? Kelly  hi! 16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Obama "story" just came out recently so the mainstream media hasn't picked up on it and considering the source I doubt they will. These are the same tabloids that have claimed that Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and JFK Jr. all had love children. In fact I recall they had a photo of Ted Kennedy's "love child" on the front cover not to long ago. The Obama story is just as true as the Edwards story. Now some MSM outlets did "report" (rather spred untrue gossip) about the Bush marriage. [|MeriNews], [|Pravda], [|PhoenixNews], [|MacedoniaOnline]. Now just because they picked up on this tabloid story (like they did the Edwards story) that doesn't mean a page about the alledged problems in the Bush marriage needs to be here at Wikipedia, like the Edwards love child story is. It's been 15 days since this Edwards story broke and all we have is a blurry photo, a bunch of right-wing blog articles, and a few stories in the local North Carolina media who have done more speculating rather than reporting, and speculation on why the national media hasn't picked up on the story in the last 15 days. People are using Jesse Jackson, Rush Limbaugh, and Gary Hart as examples. But the difference is those stories snowballed quickly with new info coming out very soon after the tabloids published their stories. While the Edwards story hasn't snowballed, but rather the snow is melting with each passing day. Simply put this "Edwards paternity allegations" page has no place at Wikipedia. Has anybody who wants to keep this page thought for a second, what if these allegations are NOT true? Then what? This page remains even though the allegations are unture? The paragraph on the Edwards page remains even though the allegations are untrue? Just because it's the flavor of the month? If this article remains, it will just show that Wikipedia is not about educating it's readers on what is and is not true. But rather if enough people yell loud enough and find enough blog articles on Google news, the mods will give in and let a page remain whether or not what is said on that page is true. --MrKing84 (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm hard pressed to find a policy that doesn't favor deletion here... WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:NOT... take your pick. It's all be covered ad infinitum above.  / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Blaxthos...in regards to the policies you cited, I think Noroton addressed those in his 01:57 post above, and I can't improve on his responses. However, I did have a question in regards to WP:NPOV being cited - I noticed that several people have mentioned this, but nobody has responded to a request for any example. Could you possibly cite an example of POV in the article? Could your concern be addressed by editing rather than deletion? Kelly  hi! 16:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep article is newsworthy, and is well documented and supported by facts ↔NMajdan &bull;talk 14:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. A separate article such as this is a good solution to avoid burdening the one on John Edwards.  The flurry in the media about covering/not-covering the story is absolutely notable, as is the palpable impact on Edwards' career.  This is not just gossip or tabloid fiction akin to "Hillary Clinton Adopts Alien Baby."  N.B., I supported Edwards in the primaries, so I'm certainly not part of any conspiracy against him. Kestenbaum (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Major reputable news organizations are now reporting that Edwards himself has confirmed the affair but is still denying the paternity. How Wikipedia chooses to organize the information is certainly debatable, but it looks like the affair needs to be included in Wikipedia somewhere. Studerby (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Random break

 * Keep Highly notable controversy, which is now excelent impartial and complete. Solves the problems of weight on the Edwards page, and means wedon't need an article on Hunter IMHO. This is an excelent and elegant solution and mirrors the phoney McCain scandal. Wikipedia at its best, fair and seen to fair too. There are many more sources that could be added.Bonobonobo (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The incident seems notable. Any who claim the article seems biased are free to edit to balance it, but that's not the same as deleting well sourced information they don't like. --GRuban (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is more than a content fork. It is a well written and NPOV entry on a notable event. Some have mentioned that they think there are too many references to blogs in the sourcing; i see that point, and do consider it a weakness with the piece. I also believe that simple editorial pruning would solve that, through concensus. However, in aother (and i believe better) solution to this problem, i think that the blog material might be used in support of further descriptions of the way that this event (as a news event, not as a "John Edwards scandal") has brought to the fore important issues concerning the emerging and evolving ascendency of privilege and power accruing to the blogosphere, and the subsequent loss of privilege and power accorded to the traditional "gatekeepers" of news, the print journals. By adding in the tabloid media, the article presents us with an unusually clear view of the current uneasily contested triangle of "gatekeeper" privilege being waged by mainstream media versus tabloid media versus blog media. Also important, and well-mentioned here, is the pressure that this event has put on Wikipedia, as it impinges on Wiki's traditional print-medium encyclopedia directive to not report "news" while still allowing it to claim the advantages of electronic-media "up-to-date" online publishing. For me, these issues of media authority are the real story here, and they are the reason i have continued to participate in discussions on the subject of the Edwards paternity allegations. cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" Catherineyronwode (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The "story" is simply a tabloid-manufactured rumor, pushed by conservative media outlets and activists in the hope that it somehow snowballs from "rumor" to "news". Apparently, these miscreants hope that merely repeating the rumor long enough and loudly enough will do the trick. And the article here is primarily the work of conservative activists who are attempting to co-opt Wikipedia for blatant political purposes. J.R. Hercules (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? I'm a "conservative activist" now? Kelly  hi! 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Hercules, I don't see how this is possibly a valid argument for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not.  Horologium  (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a argument at all, if anything it is an arguement to keep, since the travesty of this conspiracy would be a much bigger deal than Edwards shtuping some employee. It is irrelevant whether the story is true (it is true by the way - and I say this as a Kerry Edwards voter, you have to be very naive to bet against this story at any odds). The only question is it is a relevant news story. If it is we need a conservatively worded article that conforms to wiki policies with particular reference to BLP. Even if you are correct and this is the work of the VRWC (y'know like all those Monica LIES!) this article will discuss the phony conspiracy which will still be relevant just like the McCain and Rathergate articles, a BS-based controversy is still a controversy, Oh and I'll gladly eat my giant dunces hat if the NE story isn't ultimately vindicated. Bonobonobo (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Highly notable and relevant, considering who Edwards is, former VP candidate, former Prez candidate, current VP candidate, former Senator, the list goes on and on. Please NPOV for wikipedia and keep this -96.237.252.71 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, Edwards would make any list of the 10 most prominant living US public figrues. No question. And as the reportage around the world shows he remains an international figure of note too.Bonobonobo (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. As is the case with the Zinoviev letter, the allegations themselves are notable because of the media and political hubbub they've caused. Even if none of this is true, it's become important. -- The_socialist talk? 23:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is too soon to know what the ultimate impact of these events will be. The media coverage/noncoverage controversy is still developing, and reaches questions of journalistic ethics, for which this could become a classic example no matter what way this turns out. Whatever the eventual resolution, if any, the matter is receiving widespread attention and a number of media outlets and their readers are following the controversy. Dano —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danoldh (talk • contribs) 00:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The parentage has been fully admitted to by both parties, without challenge or equivocation. That this fact is tucked way down into the article shows that this is nothing but a POV pushing BLP vio. Until such time as something substantial, beyond rumors and reactions to rumors and blurry photos happens, this should go. Should a DNA test prove otherwise, or Edwards or one of the two parents reverse their statements, there's nothing to see here. That most of the MSM isn't touching this is proof it's nothing but rumors all the way down. They know that without proof, there's just smoke and mirrors. ThuranX (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? The claimed parentage is covered in the opening paragraph. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So when Edwards fails to receive any sort of visible role at the convention, as seems like from the latest reaction, are we to shrug our shoulders in mystification? Senior figures are going on record and telling Edwards' he done unless he can come up with an explanation. How is this not news? Ronnotel (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this not news? Erm, WP:NOTNEWS. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Allow me to restate. How is this not notable? That a former VP candidate has been given his walking papers (there is no other reasonable interpretation of these on-the-record, seemingly coordinated statements) seems like something of relevance. Ronnotel (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Wikipedia is always updated immediately. I remember back when I was a mere IP just occasionally reading Wikipedia, that the article on Hurricane Katrina was being freshly updated as new updates occurred. I found this to be one of the main benefits of Wikipedia and was one of the main reasons for my gradually increasing participation. Kelly  hi! 17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * something substantial, beyond rumors and reactions to rumors -- how 'bout destroying John Edwards' chances for the vice president nomination; a cabinet post in the possible Democratic administration and a speaking spot at the Democratic National Convention for "something substantial"? (If you need sources for that, see the article.) This has gone beyond the WP:NOTNEWS essay's description of "events that have strictly passing significance and interest. Events which only garner transitory attention do not merit encyclopedic articles". As WP:NOT states, Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. We're now well into "historical notability" territory, and if that sounds too highfalutin', keep in mind that Wikipedia covers rather small historical events and situations with their own articles. Noroton (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Besides being the subject of multiple secondary sources, the primary criteria of WP:NOTABILITY, signs are emerging from reliable sources on the implications of the allegations on the Democratic party. --Oakshade (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This story is beginning to become a major impediment to Edwards' participation in the '08 DNC process. 68.214.96.96 (talk) 12:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Fundamentally, what is the point of Wikipedia if it refuses to be a reference point for something that people are widely talking about? Whether or not there's doubt about the actual allegation, there is ZERO doubt that this is an issue out in the public sphere.  What good is Wikipedia if you can't find the things that people are most interested in at the moment?  Let the MSM be in charge of not covering things until they're good and dead, the point of the Web is to be timely and fluid.  Now, I think there are legitimate questions about whether a long separate article is needed, though there is something admirable about the attempt to nail all the sources down in one place and evaluate them for credibility. But it appears to me that part of the reason that long article exists is because Wikipedia biggies were so trigger-happy about yanking any shorter mention of this in the main piece about a figure on one side of the political spectrum (not the first time; try to find anything about alcohol abuse on Ted Kennedy's page, for instance, despite the numerous documentations of such over the years).  Surely Wikipedia can see that all that does is increase chatter about whether Wikipedia is politically biased.  The responsible thing to do here is to include calm, objective content stating that the allegations have been whispered about throughout the primary process and are, as of this moment, being reported on by a major tabloid (readers can judge the worth of that for themselves) and the story is developing.  It is not to pretend it doesn't exist at all-- or that Wikipedia saying it hasn't happened means it isn't being talked about everywhere else.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgmax (talk • contribs) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Just finished reading a newspaper article on how these allegations may cost him a convention speaking slot. Not only is it in the news, but true or not it's impacting his career and should be covered, with proper care taken, but still covered.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. No legitimate policy-based reason has been presented for deletion. This is a notable controversy involving a highly public figure, written in an unbiased manner. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I was tending toward the idea that this article was giving undue weight when I nominated it, my primary reason for nominating this for AFD was to enforce what seemed to be consensus on ANI against the speedy deletion and to give a way to debate deletion here. Please make sure (and I'm not saying that you didn't already do this) that you look at the ANI debate, linked at top, before you say that no legitimate etc. reasons have been presented.  Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, this has now been mentioned in way too many reliable sources to be deleted. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: BLP and RS concerns This may look like beating a dead horse, but since WP:BLP issues are important here, and because I think it's possible that a closing admin or DRV might ignore this consensus, I want to answer some possible objections. I haven't seen most of these explicitly stated, but I think it's implicit in some comments: WP:BLP insists on good sourcing, particularly for extraordinary claims (which applies to this situation), so it might be objected that The National Enquirer (NE) is just not a reliable source, and therefore the article violates WP:BLP, and that this concern outweighs the benefits of having an article that discusses media coverage and even the historical significance of how this impinges on John Edwards' political influence and career (obviously an important subject). As WP:POL states, application of any policy, including WP:BLP and WP:RS, needs to be treated with common sense. Only a consensus that violates core policies can be overturned by a closing admin or by deletion review, and it would be improper to overturn a consensus that reasonably treats and applies those policies in a commonsense way (whether or not the closing admin or DRV ultimately agree with the consensus, they only have to recognize it as reasonable). Reasons why WP:BLP and WP:RS (and WP:V) are not violated, and instead are treated with common-sense in this case:
 * The NE story has been treated as something serious by responsible news organizations. Fox News, a reliable source, confirmed that Edwards and the NE reporters were in a confrontation of sorts at the Beverly Hills hotel. Edwards has refused to say why he was at the hotel and, since the NE story about it, he has not denied that he is the father. With this event in the hotel (even before the Fox News corroboration), the story started being mentioned by other news organizations. Those organizations were using their common sense that there is something important enough to cover. Although not every news organization has decided to mention the allegations, that isn't required by any Wikipedia policy.
 * The lack of denial by Edwards about paternity and the lack of an explanation for his presence in that hotel at that time increases the credibility of NE coverage of this situation. With influential Democrats now reported as saying Edwards needs to clear this up or be denied a speaking spot at the convention, the credibility of NE increases even further.
 * The article name states clearly that the subject concerns allegations. Wikipedia isn't asserting the truth of the paternity. By having the article, Wikipedia is implicitly asserting that the allegations are important (historically significant), and they are.
 * The spirit of WP:RS is that we shouldn't be irresponsible by citing irresponsible sources. When many news reports from solidly reliable sources identify a historically significant situation, we are not being irresponsible by covering that situation and citing those sources. Instead, we're using our common sense.
 * WP:RS states: When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used. The widespread repetition of the allegations by high-quality news organizations allows us to rely on them for proof that the allegations exist and are notable. Without coverage from those organizations, there would be no justification for an article here. The word only should not be a sticking point here. The NE story is obviously necessary to this article about this significant, notable allegation. The fact that high-quality news organizations have covered the issue also answers possible objections based on WP:REDFLAG and WP:BLP.
 * WP:RS states: Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made The claim made by numerous reliable sources is that there is an important allegation, not that Edwards is the father (only NE claims that).
 * Imagine that NE were not a tabloid sheet and that it was instead a person who happened to make charges against Edwards that were then reported by various major media organizations, that Edwards did not deny the charges but simply said the person who made them was acting "like a tabloid", and that Democratic Party figures were saying that Edwards couldn't expect to be the vice presidential nominee or even speak at the convention unless he explained the situation. If that were the case, the sources we'd rely on would be the various reliable news organizations that have reported on this, and we might refer to the statement of the person making the charges. That's essentially the situation here -- the reliability rests on the other news organizations, not NE.
 * -- Noroton (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - the National Editor of the Los Angeles Times has apparently now gone on the record that, because of the impact on the Democratic National Convention, this is now a "legitimate story". Kelly  hi! 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (or move wholesale to his biography), as pointed out above, it's now a "legitimate story" according to the LA Times, with regards to Dem. Convention and he's recently run for POTUS and possibly trying to garner a spot as VPOTUS, or a cabinet position. The National Enquirer, of course, isn't the most reputable source, but we can source other news sources that reference them. --Rajah (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

News Break

 * Comment All of the above comments made before Edwards had this interview by ABC. GRBerry 19:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Regardless of whatever else happens, that new interview means this story will almost definitely be permenantly needed as a sub-article of John Edwards, even ignoring the story about media coverage angle. GRBerry 19:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is real news now.  You freaking libs can't pretend this is just tabloid.  Please remove the "article up for deletion thing now."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.248.172 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Always the charmer, aren'tcha. MastCell Talk 19:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:SNOW is the only way we can have a premature "keep" close, and we've had way too many "delete" votes to close this for that reason. Nyttend (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, based on this new, reliable source, I for one am withdrawing my delete !vote. It was predicated on a lack of non-tabloid sources attesting to the allegations. Now that there are such sources, I no longer have an objection to the article's existence, though I think it will require continued vigilance and I'd rather see the effort expended on how to incorporate this now-reliably-documented episode into the main John Edwards article. Thanks for the update, GRBerry. MastCell Talk 19:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Now that we have confirmation, I see it being at least as worthy of an article as John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008. Oroso (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Concur, now that there are reliable sources confirming the allegations, this needs to stay. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Meaning all my arguments were for nothing? How DARE he admit it before this AfD closed! At this point we should be considering a name change on the talk page. Noroton (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's already been moved to John Edwards extramarital affair. (Not by me.)  Horologium  (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Now that JE has confirmed the majority of the speculation, the entire process, including the wikipedia arguments, are part of the story.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowking (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Should this AfD be closed per WP:SNOW? Ronnotel (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Let's just get past the bureaucratic BS and make the article not look foolish.
 * Keep, per GRBerry above. There is really no choice now. Nsk92 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per recent disclosures. Better page name now too. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  21:09, 8 August 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.