Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States journalism 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 was   delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

List of United States journalism scandals

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

Not needed since there is United States journalism scandals which contains the same information. A suggestion to merge the pages hung around for several months with nothing happening. I don't see a reason to merge since this article contains no new information. Redddogg (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another Note I would vote for deletion of United States journalism scandals as well, if it were nominated. That would be its third nomination. Redddogg (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note I informed all of the major editors on both articles about the AfD. Redddogg (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What must be said about this, is that it is possible that people will support the 'more content' version, as it backs up specific scandals they feel personally about, which cannot find consensus elsewhere. Originally it has many 'scandals' detailed that had no other mention elsewhere on Wikipedia at all. Scandals like the Obama "Mulsim seminary/madrassa" issue was once forked in around 5 or 6 different places, and was very hard to keep bias-free. It is likely that some contributors to various sections in the more detailed version are naturally going to want to promote their work, and I think this should be taken into account when judging this Afd. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect info from List of United States journalism scandals and United States journalism scandals to either page. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  20:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there is nothing in the list article not mentioned in the other one, unless I overlooked something. Redddogg (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've replaced the merge tag that was deleted with this AfD - the original idea was for a merge to the list page, but too few people have so-far watched either page to properly create a consensus. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as best option (and merge into here), or Delete Both per Steve Dufour below The list was originally created to be in line with Wkipedia policy. United States journalism scandals has been a 'POV' nightmare, as it has just forked information from other articles, often with 'POV loaded' bias, in little paragraphs that are hard to keep fair. Guidelines dictate that these things should only be lists, and more work has been done on this one clearing out non-scandals than the other. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete or Delete Both Two articles are certainly not needed. The whole thing is really a mixed bag, with "scandals' ranging from the New York Times alleged support of Stalin down to Bush inviting a blogger to White House press conferences. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I must admit my initial reaction was that this is not really what Wikipedia is all about. Theoretically it can be massive, and a nightmare to handle. What actually is a scandal? Creating the List verion was a more guideline-based compromise by me - as at the time people were trying to cover Wikipedia with the Obama Insight smear (an article all about it justifiably died at an Afd). I'm happy for both to be deleted, and I've revisde my 'keep' to include this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete redundant. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In case people don't realise - this was created after the other article - to follow Wikipedia guidelines on lists, and to prevent POV 'coatrack' style content forking in the 'parag per scandal' article. As if fits more with Wikipedia's clear guidelines on making lists (and the other article certainly is a list), this one makes the older list redundant. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The other article has already survived two AfD's. People seem to prefer it to the list article. Borock (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This list was actually created per advice at the last Afd for the other article (which I think you voted to delete, at that point). Afd's are often headcounts, and my problem is that these lists don't appear to be widely watchlisted at all: ie it's mainly the contributors who attend - in the six months there has not really been anything new - its been mainly just minor c/e's. I'm particularly worried that this AFD got brought up after an editing flurry over the Insight/Obama thing too - that it seems to have been central to a lot of the existing interest in this. It would keep all this simple and manageable, or delete them both. If either of these lists did become well-known they would be very hard to manage anyway - the parag-based one especially.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also not object to deleting both articles. Redddogg (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could make that clear at the top? It may be the result. In the long run, all of this is forked material at best, so full deletion of both articles would be the best. Of the two, the shorter list is more per policy, IMO. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did that. The reason I started this AfD is the stupidity of having two articles which say the same thing. At least that could be taken care of. Redddogg (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * er... You are not stupid Matt. However, your attempt to improve the situation by starting a second article didn't work the way you intended. Redddogg (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Redundant.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete one or other. The longer one seems to be more suited to this, as it has space to explain why it was a scandal.Yobmod (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been adding some items to United States journalism scandals to try to broaden its scope. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:52, 29 September 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.