Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Republican sex scandals


 * 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 of the debate was} delete; if someone is interested in creating List of political sex scandals of the United States by POV-removing the article (adding all Democrat scandals) and fact-checking all entries in this list, I'll be more than happy to undelete the content and made it available to him/her in his/her userspace. - Liberatore(T) 19:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Republican sex scandals
Delete - Do Not Merge or Rename non encyclopedic list & as per Deville below Strothra 11:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, an interesting and useful list. Markb 11:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename to List of political sex scandals of the United States, provides details to substantiate events where Political scandals of the United States, its parent article, cannot due to space reasons. Ans  e  ll  12:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is interesting and useful information that cannot be integrated into its parent article due for space's sake. -- Grafikm_fr   (AutoGRAF)  13:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 *  weak delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. See also WP:AWW. Also, By definition, its POV. I would feel better abott keeping the article if it didn't focus on just ONE political party or set of political values. Roodog2k 14:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * comment' further, whats the definition of a scandal? An 'indecent' act someone was accused of that wasn't illegal? An 'indecent' act someone was accused of that WAS illegal and never charged with?  Found not guilty? Guilty? Roodog2k 14:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you be more comfortable with a move and addition of other related political sex scandals in the US? Ans  e  ll  23:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The simple answer to that is yes. But I don't think that its that simple. What distrubs me about the article is that its a copy/paste from another wiki, which as a political bias and agenda. The bias is anti-republican WP:POV.  The agenda is to demonstrate that republicans do not have the moral high ground WP:AWW. Roodog2k 12:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Would be okay if it were non-partisan, and if it actually was linked from Political scandals of the United States, which already has a list of sex scandals with no mention of this page. --Allen 14:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I linked it via a see tag, would you change your vote now that it is referenced? Ans  e  ll  23:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag, because having a link only to Republican sex scandals makes Political scandals of the United States POV. However, if this article were to be kept in a form that covers both parties, it would be quite logical to restore the tag. NatusRoma | Talk 01:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

--Strothra 19:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind as per other comments on this discussion in favor of deletion which I had not thought of. --Strothra 23:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful and encyclopaedic list. --Ter e nce Ong 14:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Inherently POV due to concentration on one party. And the alleged "parent article" that could put it into context doesn't even link to this one. Fut.Perf. ? 17:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I linked the article up, its parent is a list article itself, and has the correct context for this article to follow from it. The fact that this focuses on one party does not automatically violate NPOV. NPOV would be violated if the scandals were not portrayed from a neutral point of view. There is nothing stopping someone creating a similar article for democratic party scandals, it would have its own place on wikipedia. Ans  e  ll  23:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fut.Perf. ?. --RWR8189 18:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete violates WP:RS, WP:WEB, WP:NPOV, WP:BALLS, WP:BEANS, and WP:OR, and because Ansell voted to keep. Morton devonshire 18:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Morton devonshire --Mhking 18:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Soapboxing! -- E ivindt@c 18:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It provides details not in Political scandals of the United States However, rename something like List of political sex scandals of the United States so that it can accomodate members of other parties. ??????? 19:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you infact just promoting rename and rescope the article, which would indeed be a keep of sorts as the information stays, it just gets expanded on. Ans  e  ll  23:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Schizombie. Yeah, I know he voted keep.  I'm going to be a bit nuanced, so it's kind of hard to put something in bold up front, but I will explain this discrepancy.  As it stands, this article is an egregious example of WP:NPOV and I suspect it was put here in the interests of making a couple of WP:POINTs in the light of the debate on the other article.  Also, I'm pretty sure that the people calling this list encyclopedic didn't read very far down.  This article is a mismash of fact, allegation, innuendo, and just plain insanity.  Some of the entries are bona-fide sex scandals, but the rest is simply junk: several of the entries are just assertions that some person got divorced, or has had out-of-wedlock children.  One more notable example is Rush Limbaugh; this article simply asserts he has been divorced three times.  All well and good, but how on earth is this a sex scandal?  One also notes with some amusement that this article insinuates that George W. Bush raped a woman and later had her killed.  Somehow, I didn't hear about that on the news... :-)  Seriously, guys, this is a perfect article for dKosopedia.  And, hey, look here and here!  What a coincidence.  Tying this all together, I would say that what needs to happen to this article is that about 85% of the stuff in here needs to go (as we come up with an objective standard of what "sex scandal" is in the first place), it needs to be renamed to a NPOV name, and then all of the analogous Democratic and other non-right-wing stuff needs to be added here as well.  In short, I am advocating exactly what ??????? said.  But the cleanest way to do that, I think, is to just destroy this article and start over.  One notes that since a copy of all of this information exists at dKosipedia, then any of these entries can be copied from over there.  One also notes that exactly zero people did zero work on this article, as it is a straight cut-and-paste from another site, so we're losing no labor by deleting it. --Deville (Talk) 20:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have done work on the article to remove entries that I could not personally substantiate, and to remove POV. The article right now is not anymore a direct copy, so deleting would lose the work done so far to wikify it and remove unsubstantiated claims. The move you are advocating can be done without wiping out the current article. Ans  e  ll  05:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Deville, WP is not a mirror. Some of the content may merit keeping, but perhaps it would be better to start from a new article.  Keep if someone can radically demirror and dePOV the article. before the AfD closure. ??????? 20:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The page is not a repository of links, as the quoted policy states should not be on wikipedia. Mirroring encyclopedic content does not fit under that policy. Ans  e  ll  23:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Fut.Perf., would be fine with the idea of a List of political sex scandals of the United States article, but many of these are not well sourced, some criteria for inclusion into that article would need to be created (I have a hard time believing a scandel is notable if we don't have an article on the person involved), and some of it looks POV, so a fresh start is probably best. BryanG 20:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)10--12 July 2005
 * Deleting the article would destroy what information is around now. Is the information that flooded with unrecoverable bias that it doesn't deserve to be transformed? I wouldn't mind a result which moved the article to a title as you say. Wikipedia may be able to justify having articles on the people listed here just because of this page. It is self-defeating to say that because if the persons article was created after this lists deletion then it could be removed as it wasn't able to be linked into wikipedia due to the lack of this list, and lack of recreatability of the list due to the deletion review process. Ans  e  ll  23:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete--Ton e  22:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redeeming value. Dr Zak 23:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very interesting and useful list. Buchanan-H  e  rmit(TM) .. SCREAM!!! ..[[Image:Flag of British Columbia.svg|24px]]..[[Image:Maple Leaf.svg|14px]] 00:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to List of political sex scandals of the United States, add any content regarding non-Republican politicians, and take a very close look at how many of these scandals are presented as fact when the reference links make it clear that they are only allegations. &mdash;Stormie 00:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if someone would track down some of the links to their original pages. Pages from armchairsubversive.com are mostly mirrors of newspaper articles. References possibly through archive.org would be able to trace them back to their original postings, if they are available. Allegations I believe fit on a scandals page as long as they are clearly stated like that. I converted all the references to format, however, it would be ultimately better to convert them also to cite's instead of direct links to make the references section readable. Ans  e  ll  01:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep if the article includes all USA parties, not only Republicans. Otherwise, delete for POV. -- ReyBrujo 01:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to List of political sex scandals in the United States. After much deliberation (I nearly slapped an AFD tag on it myself when I ran across this article earlier today, I have decided that this topic can (and, much more importantly, should) be cleaned up enough to comply with WP:NPOV. NatusRoma | Talk 01:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Ardenn  02:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete OR allow me to make th article List of political sexual preversions of bill clinton and the kennedys--Ham and jelly butter 02:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - It has references which, from the few I randomly chose to look at, do re-inforce the points. For neutrality there should be a Democrats page too. Better yet, fuse the two and let each side bicker over it; that's politics. The comment above me proves how some bipartisan Wikipedia can be... -- Greaser 02:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, are you kidding me? It can't get much more POV than this. --Rory096 04:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * POV mostly comes from the wording and scope of the article. There have been suggestions above to enable the scope to be widened to avoid POV, and if you have any problems with the wording for a certain claim then you are free to fix it. Ans  e  ll  05:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While it may be possible to have a NPOV list on sex scandals, it can't be based on a POV one. --Rory096 05:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So you are not opposed to the creation of List of political sex scandals in the United States, or similar wording, which is based on an NPOV scope? Ans  e  ll  05:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not, but just moving a list of republican ones to that name isn't how one creates an NPOV list of scandals. --Rory096 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, the rename needs to include a rescoping, and making NPOV in total based on the new scope. Ans  e  ll  04:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete violates WP:NOT and WP:NPOV 216.239.38.136 12:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete clear soapboxing. --Bachrach44 15:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Good grief. Thatcher131 16:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This is what categories are for. Some of the names on this list do not have their own articles, meaning they are probably not notable enough; some sources do not meet WP:RS.  Some are not really scandals at all but examples of what the left would like to think of as hypocracy  (as if Democratic sex scandals are excusable because Democrats don't claim to be moral). Delete the article and create a category for U.S. political scandals.  Those scandals which are notable and verifiable per policy can have articles, which can be included in the category.  To satisfy NPOV, the category should be non-partisan. Thatcher131 20:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. A list that treats Ted Bundy as a major Republican figure, or that tells me that Arnold Schwarzenegger "had sex with a 16 year old when he was 28", or that includes staffers, partisan bloggers, or Right Wing evangelists, under the banner header of Republican sex scandals has no place here. Before this is deleted, should probably receive an award as one of the sleaziest articles ever placed on wikipedia. -- JJay 17:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if renamed to an NPOV title like Political sex scandals of the United States. -Sean Curtin 18:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * comment even if renamed, still would be seriously POV and would basically require being reworked from scratch. Would still also be in violation of WP:NOT as in "Wikipedia is not a mirror", as this content is basically a copy/paste from a POV/Left-Leaning wiki: here. Roodog2k 20:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete original research soapboxing. As non-American I find it utterly un-encyclopedic who wants to sticks his willy into whom regardless of his/her political affiliations. People, please, if you need to engage in petty political infighting please keep it to yourselves. You are making your whole nation a laughing stock. How about working on an encyclopedia instad, huh?! Weregerbil 20:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete plenty of it is silly. President George W Bush raped a woman according to the National Enquirer - that's somehow a Republican sex scandal.  Uh huh.  Paul Crouch paid $425K to settle a wrongful termination suit.  Therefore, Paul Crouch must be gay.  Oh and by the way, he's a Republican because, as we all know, all people who have anything to do with Christianity are Republicans so therefore Paul Crouch belongs on a list of Republican sex scandals. BigDT 20:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The claim about the president is not just on that site. Changing the reference to a more reputable source would be a progressive action as part of this process. On the other hand, this discussion is about the overall place of the page on wikipedia. Ans  e  ll  04:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * comment doesn't this almost fall into the category of speedy delete? It seems like the only reason this is going through something as formal as AFD is to give people their best shot at throwing out random flames before it gets deleted--152.163.101.8 21:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, it does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. Also, please consider registering an account! --Rory096 21:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. As stated above, this is a clear copyright violation of, and has been marked as such. --Rory096 21:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I change my opinion to Speedy Delete based on "blatant copyright infringement" BigDT 22:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The site it's from isn't really a "commercial content provider," so it doesn't fall under WP:CSD a8. --Rory096 22:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I left a note on the page. I'm not sure what that site is published under but I'm guessing the same as Wikipedia considering their similarities in policy(at least a first glance). Meaning that it would not be a copyvio if attributed to that site. Hopefully it can be redone however. Falphin 23:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, it's not GFDL unless it specifically says so, and I can't find anywhere where it does. --Rory096 03:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note that each page actually used to say it was licensed under the GFDL, but now doesn't, which may mean that they're no longer using the GFDL. --Rory096 03:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I went to check if there was any licensing policy over there, but I couldn't tell if there was one or not. They do claim to follow the same guidelines and policies as we do (although I'm not sure how they make WP:NPOV consistent with their fundamental goals).  But I think it is reasonable to guess that they are operating under some kind of open license like what we have here.  In short, this is probably not a copyvio.  A blatant soapbox, yes, but not a copyvio. --Deville (Talk) 03:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * While it's true that many wikis do have an open license, not only is this run by a for-profit site (Daily Kos), even sites that are under CC licenses aren't compatible with Wikipedia (for example why we can't transwiki from WikiFur, IIRC). --Rory096 03:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)\
 * I requested verification of the issue here. Ans  e  ll  04:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See for confirmation that it's under the GFDL. --Rory096 04:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The license statement at the bottom of the page appeared since I was last at that page. But since it is there now at least we have to assume that no copyright violation has occured. Ans  e  ll  05:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be because the MediaWiki:Copyright page (pointed to just above) is the page that controls the message at the bottom. Though yes, it's not a copyvio, it does make it clear that this is POV (as it comes from a very left wing site) --Rory096 05:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Fascinating! ..er, horrifying.  Like watching a car crash.  Except the damn car keeps on moving! Myciconia 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this page is beyond cleaning up... (Adelphia is not a republican... its a cable company), (getting divorced isn't a sex scandal), (ruch limbaughs drug addiction has nothing to do with sex), (the national enquirer is not a good source of info for anything), (you would think I would have heard about the George Bush claim)... the topic itself is probably worthy of an article, but the best way to do that is to delete and start over--T-rex 03:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between deleting and creating again and rewriting, nothing, except for the 75% majority needed to get it past deletion review. You would have thought that Americans being in a free country would hear about scandals involving their president, but apparently not. Ans  e  ll  04:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference is that to start by deleting the whole thing is the easier way to fix this up --T-rex 23:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete And santion the editor(s) of the article for trolling. 172 | Talk 05:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a very bold call, which may infact violate WP:AGF. Ans  e  ll  23:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bona fide topic. &mdash; goethean &#2384;
 * That doesn't mean it's NPOV. --Rory096 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sayng that the topic is POV, or that the article is POV? That the article can be improved is no reason to delete. It is a bona fide topic, and as far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia can report on any bona fide topic. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of political sex scandals in the United States, although Republican sex scandals seem to be more notable because they often have a larger degree of hypocrasy in them (they're pro-marriage, pro-family, anti-abortion, and anti-gay, per their platform, so anything that contradicts those values -- extra- or pre-marital sex, abortions, gay sex, stand out more), we should dump the Demos' sex scandals (if they could agree on what sex is) then we could have an NPOV article there. Carlossuarez46 21:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Jeff Gannon Ewlyahoocom 22:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of political sex scandals in the United States or something not party specific.--Nick Y. 02:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep useful and important list but renaming would be good Yuckfoo 19:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Deville; mostly soapboxy copy-pasted junk content. Sandstein 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, garbage, magnet for warriors not contributing a bit to encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 20:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep but it needs serious editing. Information that is not verifiable should be removed.  Information that is sourced is legitimate and should be kept. Poliwonk 23:34 10 May 2006
 * Delete - a sewer of unverified charges, conspiracy-mongering, and POV-pushing weighted down with a huge number of non-notable sheriff's deputies and preachers. Not that those Republican bastards don't deserve a page like this, but that's what dKosopedia is for. —phh (t/c) 17:39, 11 May 2006 (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.