Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy


 * 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

John McCain lobbyist controversy

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


 * Delete "Controversy" page, inherent NPOV, rumours about living people Will (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The Times' article is quite long and most readers seem to have not gotten to the end of it where the non-rumour important stuff is like: "Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision. Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman." There have been multiple additional reliable sources reporting this aspect. McCain's people have not denied this part of the story and this part (including the FCC Chairman's rebuke of McCain for interference)is completely verifiable. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete i tend to agree. the controversy does deserve/require mention in John McCain, but the depth of this controversy is not genuinely significant. So far, it is nothing more than allegations, none substantial. the ethics issues are real, but absent verifiable evidence that said ethics have been breached, it's mostly coatracking. Anastrophe (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Agreed. ITs just using wikipedia to "smear" someone and reeks of the stench of bias.  Delete this nonsense.  Wikipedia is not the Enquirer


 * Wikipedia isn't the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal either. This is verified information from reliable sources. What part of policy is this violating besides the POV that it is "gossip" and "smear"? It does not state that McCain did such and such. It states that the NYT reported that McCain did such and such or that aides feared that this and that happened. Third party sources, just as WP likes 'em. &#8756; Therefore | talk 19:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Coatracking? "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." Please discuss how this page is nominally discussing the lobyist controversy but instead is a cover for something else? This page uses nothing but very reliable sources and written neutrally. Absent verifiable evidence? Of what? We are not reporters. We add in verifiable information from reliable sources written in a neutral tone. This is an expansion of what is written in the McCain articles -- as is usually done via WP:SEEALSO] when the detail is best left to its own article. Where in this article (I'm not the primary author -- I added in the criticisms against The New York Times) that it is written with an editor's POV? &#8756; Therefore | talk 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the article exists precisely to confer greater weight to this "controversy" than it would otherwise have. thus, coatracking. the fact that it pertains to a WP:BLP further suggests that moving it out of the BLP assists in getting past what would otherwise not fly in a BLP. if the material would be considered inappropriate in full detail within the mccain article, then why is it appropriate here. this entire controversy - and the controversy article - can be summarised in about a five sentence paragraph in the mccain article, where it will have appropriate weight, and not dance around BLP requirements. this also very much bumps up into the 'controversies section/article' problem. Anastrophe (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see your understanding reflected in the WP:COATRACK essay. Neither the text nor the examples seem to apply. Help relieve my confusion.


 * There is no inherent bias in this article. Just as in many other places in Wikipedia, it expands on the verifiable detail. Have you been to the McCain article recently? It's extremely long with editors calling for off-loading detail to "See Also" sections. There is a fork to "Main article: Political positions of John McCain". Are you arguing that this is a coatrack because the full detail would be inappropriate? No, it's there to keep a summary discussion and the interested reader may visit the detailed page.  Same here. The page in question isn't POV, isn't biased, isn't a sneaky attempt to do things that wouldn't be allowed on the McCain page, but is an expansion on the subject. Where in this page is there bias, the requirement of being a coatrack? &#8756; Therefore | talk 19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * there is bias in the article's existence. perhaps my understanding of coatracking is deficient; i'll look into it, thank you. that said, there is a fairly strict argument made that having controversy sections and forked controversy articles are discouraged for BLP's, because of the fact that they become dumping grounds for POV pushes that would never fly within the body of a BLP. on that basis, i maintain that this is such a fork. the mccain article is in fact not extremely long; instead, it has many template transclusions and a plethora of citations, which bog down page rendering. since there's barely more than three direct RS's used to support the entire controversy article (the remainder are meta sources about the controversy itself), adding a short para to the mccain article with the few necessary details will not bog down the article at all. Anastrophe (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentI thought you were in favor of sending readers from the McCain article over here? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I defer to you about its length; I'm not a page editor but saw a discussion here. If this page has POV problems, then let us fix them. My efforts have focused on deleting non-reliable sources (Huffington Post, Drudge), adding in contrary evidence to the body (e.g., Daniel Schnur's observations), detailed McCain reactions and extensive criticism of The New York Times. The article appears to me to be balanced and neutral. However, if you have further POV concerns, then please let's fix that. This isn't a POV fork. &#8756; Therefore | talk 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are aware there are already two paragraphs in the McCain article with a link to this one? &#8756; Therefore | talk 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I lose patience opening the deletion log because it's too big. Nominations like these are to blame. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * shouldn't a vote have a rationale related to the issues associated, rather than matters of inconvenience? Anastrophe (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's a chance that it will get deleted I'll give a better rationale. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I split this article out of the Vicki Iseman biography specifically to keep that page from being a coatrack biography. We have a responsibility to cover this in a sensitive, balanced and non-scandalous manner, but the controversy itself is certainly encyclopedic. It was A1 in the New York Times, for heaven's sake. FCYTravis (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Writing history as it happens is a fool's errand.  We're all doing it, including myself, but we can't pretend that we know now whether this will turn out to be a major story with legs or a one-week blip.  As a practical matter, I like having this article for now, because it relieves the frequent edit and undue weight pressure off the McCain main and campaign articles.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's pretty depressing seeing all these people quoting for deletion what is nothing else than an essay, and as such is a mere opinion like Wikipedia is failing. Speaking of more serious things, as noted, the issue wasn't started by a third-rate paper like Insight but by the NYT and appears to be the result of an extremely complicated investigation and elaboration. The topic also, it may be found interesting to know, has been considered certainly notable abroad, as the foreign papers are giving it large space, often the first page. As for POV problems, it's just not a reason for deletion.--Aldux (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I lose patience opening the article creation log because it's too big. Articles like these are to blame. --72.209.11.186 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now; this sub-article relieves the pressure on the main article and documents a current news item. Once this is no longer current we will know how it should be treated properly going forward.  Deleting this will just mean that the John McCain article gets more editing churn. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete not because of WP:BLP or WP:COATRACK issues, but because I'm not convinced that this is other than an ephemeral news story or is of lasting encyclopedic merit. Yes, it was on page A1 of the NY Times, and there are hundreds if not thousands of stories in other sources. But it has been a story for only a couple of days, and may well be pretty much forgotten about in coming weeks or months, when there is other, fresher campaign news. I think for now it needs only a couple of sentences maximum, with citations, in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and in Vicki Iseman. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or news source. --MCB (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you'd be against an article on Brian McNamee? Or the immediate creation of an article on Virginia Tech massacre which garnered WP positive reviews? WP:NOT isn't some blanket prohibition against covering news items, it says:"Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." There is no question that his matter is notable and the sources reliable. I believe that it is written neutrally, though naturally that is up for discussion and improvement. &#8756; Therefore | talk 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * i can't speak for user MCB, but i don't see anywhere that he made the assertion that the article is prohibited, merely that it is not of "lasting encyclopedic merit". and it's not. just as what you quoted: "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own". in six months, this controversy will be completely forgotten, in my opinion. hell, i give it two months. it's much ado about very little ado. Anastrophe (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep There are several thousand Google News hits on this subject, and it is being covered widely in newspapers and on television, and has even reached the British papers. The scandal does not appear to be dying down, as the NYT has doubled down and McCain (according to The Note today from ABC) has essentially gone into something of a bunker mode.  Further, does anyone doubt that this will resurface again and again in the general election?  This story is big now, during a time when the opposing party has other things to focus on, and cannot devote organized attention to promoting and expanding the controversy: that is to say, it's only going to get bigger and louder from here.  Any merger would result in a loss of detail which is unacceptable in a story of this obvious and demonstrable importance.  Further, this information was forked from the Vicki Iseman article specifically to avoid coatracking, and is hardly a coatrack itself.  It is increasingly impossible to deny that this is a major, specific, self-contained series of events which will have continued and ramifying importance in American national politics.  It is notable, and people will be looking to Wikipedia to have an article covering the subject. Mr. IP (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, I'd note that the story's coverage has not waned since it first emerged - on the contrary, it seems to have increased exponentially. As we move into the general election, expect it to emerge again and again as a major flare-up, and to maintain a medium level of background prominence at all times.  It is roughly equivalent to the events involving Obama and Rezko in this respect. Mr. IP (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * wish there was a way to wager on that. i'd bet $20 in two months it's gone, gone, gone. ah well. time will tell. ;^) Anastrophe (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're on. Friendly bet for $20 WikiBucks.  Considering McCain's love of painting himself as a maverick, and Obama's love of contrasting himself with the "Washington games" of opponents, I'm thinking it gets brought up at almost every turn.  Like Rezko will.  I don't think the current cycle of the story has even reached crescendo yet.  We're gonna be glad we have a decent working article on this one! Mr. IP (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, for the time being at least. Yes, Wikipedia is not for just any news stories, but this story is still ongoing and currently of great concern to at least two major newspapers; it has received comment from various important figures, as mentioned in the article, as well as McCain himself. It's too early to declare it non-notable, when we haven't seen what (if any) effect it will have on McCain's presidential campaign; we should wait at least a month or so to determine the story's long-term impact, and only then consider it for possible deletion. Terraxos (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And as an aside, on the issue of neutrality: I think this article is actually pretty neutral at the moment, containing as it does a 'Criticism' section and making clear that the allegations are only that - allegations. But even if it wasn't neutrally written, that would be a reason to keep and improve it, not delete it. Before anyone accuses me of wanting to keep this for political reasons, I'll point out that I argued for the keeping of a similar article about Barack Obama's 'Muslim school controversy'; while that was eventually deleted, I think it should have been kept, and I think this article should be as well. Terraxos (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for major politicians, these things are important and do become part of history. At this point, as the obvious Republican candidate, he will remain relevant in American political history. DGG (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Just because printed encyclopedias tend to be out of date doesn't mean we have to be. :) The news is quite huge right now, and I don't doubt it will be regarded as prominent in the distant future as well. No doubt this will be a controversial article, but IMO Wikipedia has become fairly good at handling high-profile current political controversies... or at least not terrible enough to merit giving up completely. — xDanielx  T/C\R 07:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – It doesn't have a snappy name like "Lobbygate", but it's an issue being treated seriously in the press. The references are solid, and the controversy is developing a history, and therefore a context. Notable. –Yamara ✉  14:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep – It's irrelevant if there's any truth to the allegations made in the NYT article. This WP article describes a relevant, political event that people should be able to look up (like I just did myself). Schmappel (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, rumours have no place on Wikipedia, especially about living people. Will (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rumors don't but that is your POV characterization of this article. What belongs: verifiable statements from reliable sources written in a neutral tone. There is a difference. First, the romantic aspect, though the element getting the most press, is a small part of the whole story (and this article). The NYT said that two anonymous ex-aides of the Senator feared that he was romantically involved. The rest of the articles (including the new developments from Newsweek) involve his relationships with her clients. All of this is carefully covered in the article. If you believe there are POV problems with the article, let's fix them. &#8756; Therefore | talk 18:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep it's a legitimate controversy. Where else do you want to put the encyclopedic information about this issue, in Vicki Iseman, which should be nothing more than the biography of her, in the article about McCain's campaign, which shouldn't have an incredibly long section about this controversy, or in John McCain, which doesn't need this as a section either? eigenlambda (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This issue has been discussed in multiple highly reliable sources, including The New York Times (see ), and The Washington Post (see ). Moreover, the controversy itself has been discussed in secondary sources. It will likely be a substantial issue in the campaign; if it simply fizzles out, we can always delete the article later. It clearly meets the core content policies, and I see no BLP issue with repeating what was said by major, reputable newspapers. *** Crotalus *** 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons explained by Wasted Time R (even though he abstained).Ferrylodge (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a notable controversy not only because it involves John McCain, but because there are concerns about the motives of the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.orfannkyl (talk • contribs) 14:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Because a small portion of this sub-article, specifically:"Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision. Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman." is important as hell and actually belongs in the main BLP. Shuffling it over behind this curtain was just an accomodation to pov pushers who wanted it deleted entirely. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't that aspect of the story very old news? And given that's it's been known for a very long time, do reliable sources (e.g. biographies of McCain) continue to give it substantial coverage?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not the email from a lobbyist acknowledging initiating the letter McCain sent to light a fire under the FCC. Emails can be smoking guns and this one was not reported anywhere before last week. The email indicates McCain was acting on behalf of the lobbyist rather than just merely working for the good of the country as he claimed when this story first broke (about the FCC rebuke). Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems pretty clear from the link I provided that the newspapers all knew eight years ago that McCain was acting on behalf of "Paxson."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, the link you provided says nothing about an email from a lobbyist to the New York Times acknowledging that a lobbyist initiated McCain's improper pressure on the FCC. That is new information and can be seen as an indicator that McCain was acting as an agent for the lobbyist and her client. That was not reported eight years ago because the email was only sent recently. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete In a year's time, no one is going to care. In fact, it is already off most politico type blogs and websites.  Its just feeding a ridiculous fire.  Queerbubbles (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this whole incident can be summed up in approx. 4 sentances, and can fit easily into the John McCain pres. candidacy article. Queerbubbles (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to know where this is heading. A week ago most(including me) thought this was just another meaningless sex story and would die in a day or so. The fact he's got by far the most lobbyists (59) working on his campaign could also generate further examination of his lobbyist connections over his political career and this article might be just in the beginning stage; I do,however,think those 4 sentences you refer to should be in the main BLP right now. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well see, the fact that he's got lobbyists working on his campaign should go in the campaign article. Its not a direct association with this "scandal", as much as it is with the campaign as a whole.  I'm not directly involved with the McCain articles as a whole, so someone much more involved (and experienced) can go ahead and add a few sentences.  ;)  Queerbubbles (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was one of several who suggested and supported this material removed from Vicki Iseman for new article creation; it doesn't belong there. This pagespace is the best place for this material; page watchers at John McCain don't want it merged there. BusterD (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * watchers at John McCain don't want it merged there Perhaps thats a sign its not notable... Queerbubbles (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's mainly pov pushers[ who don't want it merged there: nothing to do with notability. [[User:Mr.grantevans2|Mr.grantevans2]] (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article is well written, well balanced and NPOV (presenting both the allegations and their denials), and cited to a reliable source. Even here in England I've heard of this and came to Wikipedia to learn more, and this page fully explained the situation to me. Xmoogle (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that it would easily go on the candidacy article instead. Its been almost a full week now, and is mostly out of the emdia.  The same discussion is had at the Brit Spears talk page regarding her breakdown.  It is notable, but can be summed up in a few sentances, and there shouldnt be a seperate article for it.  Queerbubbles (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it's getting stronger legs and more reliable sources by the day: 50 new articles in the past 1 day alone, and the articles are concentrating more on the important influence peddling allegations and less on the sleazy sex innuendo. Maybe it's time for editors here to stop making personal crystal ball type predictions about the future of this information (and using strawman arguments to bury and minimize it) and, instead, simply provide it in its entirety in a NPOV fashion to our readers as its being reported by reliable sources. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that this isnt notable... I'm asking why this cant just be a few sentances or an enitre section in the candadacy article? Why give it its own room when in the larger scale of things, there arent many people talking about this on the TeeVees?  Queerbubbles (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is an op-ed piece considered a reasonable source for wiki content? Macutty (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Story received widespread coverage. Article in question is an appropriate sub-article of the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Should be included in McCain's presidential campaign page but does not constitute its own article. If Norman Hsu's affair didn;t get its own page, neigther should this. The piece that is getting the air time and print space (the sex/sizzle aspect of the story) is nothing but hearsay from an anon source. Typical media reaction. Macutty (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The John McCain page is so long that there are problems loading the page. Despite the backlash that the NY Times provoked, there are still some very important issues not only about the perhaps dubious salacious rumors, but the more important and undisputed ties of this "maverick" to lobbyists JonErber (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not saying the main Mccain article... rather the 2008 Mccain candidacy article. Queerbubbles (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep and possibly rename. Ample precedent for such articles; it's the only way to give adequate coverage without overloading the main article about a candidate. Savidan 15:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am a strong McCain supporter and feel this information is beneficial to my understanding of the candidate.  I don't feel that this article is detrimental to his campaign or that it is biased against him.  It seems like a review of the facts surrounding the issue - which I followed closely when it came out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.216.137.110 (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete for all the reasons above. Horrendous case of recentism and a strong testament to the major ongoing problem we have here of editors who persistently conflate news stories with encyclopedic content. Eusebeus (talk) 00:25, 29 February 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.