Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong


 * 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. As mentioned, no-one is suggesting that some of this material does not belong in the main article. Equally, though, the arguments for not having this as a separate article are clearly made and I do not see that they are refuted by those supporting the article's retention. I am happy to userfy the article if anyone would like the content to add to the base article; attribution history can be worked out at that point. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article has "Although .... has never been found guilty" in the first line. Which is a pretty good reason not to have this fork. IMHO it is undue and a magnet for BLP breaches. If anything does need to be included in the main BLP it can be given due weight and will be protected by the watchlisters of that article.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that this chap is notable, clearly he is, as is the subject of doping. But we need to check this carefully against WP:BLP and ask ourselves
 * Are the article structure, overall presentation and section headings broadly neutral? I don't think a spinout article of this nature can pass that test.
 * Have we avoided claims that rely on guilt by association? We hadn't, I've just deleted a whole section that was pure guilt by Association.
 * Does this article comply with: "written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Not in my view.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a normal spinout.  The longstanding list of well sourced allegations has grown to be too long to be included in the main article, which is why it was moved to this spinout article in the first place.   Concerned editors can watch this spinout article just as easily as the main article. Moving this content back to the main article is an option, but, again, it's too long for that.  Deleting this content entirely from Wikipedia is unacceptable.  A spinout is rarely ideal, but probably the best solution for this particular situation.   --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it is not all that well sourced for something so contentious. Eight of the current links are tagged as deadlinks.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as article has plenty of reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  14:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete We prefer a summary style, not a catalogue of accusations which will tend, by its nature, to be inherently biased in the manner of have you stopped beating your wife and so contrary to core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article massively fails WP:BLPSTYLE. And 24K of info on unproved allegations does not provide a well-balanced perspective on someone's life. Trim, and put back into the main article. StAnselm (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The 24K of info is all properly sourced.  Though the title of the article contains the word "allegations", that's really a misnomer. Perhaps a better title would be, Criticisms of Lance Armstrong related to drug use.  --Born2cycle (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd accept an article with so many deadlinks as being "all properly sourced". As for the suggested rename, I think its even worse as it omits even the word alleged.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was already  involved in  a discussion  in  another place because I  felt this article should not  be in the encyclopedia. I  think  WSC sums it  up  perfectly  and I  have to  support all  3 parts of his rationale. The sources might  be plentiful  and accurate - accurate enough  for undue weight - but Wiki  is not  a Red Top or a Sunday  Supplement..--Kudpung (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all of the sources are well documented and there is no reason for its removal. The trouble with this entire article is there is going to be an argument of keep v remove from the realists, and the Armstrong fans who will hear nothing said against him. There are no impartial views on this one, so deleting it or keeping it is a ridiculous discussion. 90.200.209.114 (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just another way for people to mess with Texas. I really like Texas. In fact I am in love with him. Lance Armstrong has done more for cycling than the entire eastern bloc nations. This witchhunt has to stop somewhere. These are only allegations not proven facts like my superior power calculations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PythonRH (talk • contribs) 17:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

this is no witch hunt! and there are a lot of cyclist that have done more than armstrong.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.73.68.193 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Non-trivial topic, highly notable subject, clear criteria for inclusion, finite list, fully sourced = good list. It is extremely important that this page be monitored as it's a potential BLP mess if unsourced material creeps in. Nevertheless, this is a logical split from the main Lance Armstrong biography, it seems to me. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep with preferably change of name. Judging by the news I see, I'd have thought it more noteworthy if an athlete was found to be totally clear of any sort of drug, but that's irrelevant. This article could be taken to be an attack, but if the clearing on each allegation is also documented, then it could be to his benefit. So long as everything is reliably documented, and he himself is notable (personally, I had never heard of him and so am quite neutral on the issue), then it appears to me to be quite encyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article simply details the allegations made with a very well researched list of sources, the fact that the allegations have been made cannot be disputed. The article itself does not accuse Armstrong of having doped so the article cannot be accused of being biased. Thaf (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - article is suggestive of a WP:POV fork with cherry-picked references. The semantics of first sentence clearly imply that  what is to come is going to be a negative portrayal. Nothing has been proven against Armstrong, so this article does not even need to exist. In simple terms, it's like having an an article such as 'List of reasons why the Apollo landings are a hoax'. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral - always. --Kudpung (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources that provide "reasons why the Apollo landings are a hoax". There are reliable sources for "doping allegations against Lance Armstrong".   Big difference.  Also, most sources for most articles are "cherry picked" (they're not chosen randomly).  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been plenty of articles over the  last  40 years  that  suggest  that  the Apollo  landings are a hoax. The sources to  those articles are all  reliable. Depending  on  how one 'lists'  them and wraps them in  tabloid style sensationalism, it  could influence public opinion.   Sources for courses. --Kudpung (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I challenge the assertion that "there have been plenty of articles [in reliable sources] that suggest that Apollo landings are a hoax". Consider the sources used in this article... The Guardian, The Times, BBC News, The Austin-American Statesmen, Lequipe, San Francisco Chronicle, Daily News, ESPN, the Los Angeles Times, NPR, etc.  Are you seriously suggesting that secondary source publications of this caliber have had articles that suggest the Apollo landings are a hoax?  Please.  --Born2cycle (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete absent a reliable source of clear evidence of doping. Fred Talk 14:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment CN has more information about these issues. RR theHog and myself we all believe in miracles and Texas is proof, we all are his #1 fans and can not believe these unfounded allegations.PythonRH Talk
 * Second vote by an account, User:PythonRH, apparently created specifically to vote on this. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Second !vote struck through. Peridon (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a WP:POV fork structured in a way that is liable to breach WP:BLP rules. If reliable sources can be found for evidence of doping, they should be given in the main article on Armstrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Allegations serious enough for the U.S. government to launch an enormous investigation, as documented in reliable sources, are not serious enough to be documented in Wikipedia? This is not a POV fork. This section was part of the main article for a long time, it just kept growing because the well-sourced and serious allegations kept growing and so finally became too long for the main article.  This is a legitimate and normal spinout, not a POV fork. Folks, let's try to be objective here. NPOV, please.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A plain and, in my opinion, outrageous, violation of NPOV and BLP. Even if he should eventually be convicted of something, a separate article on that would still be a violation of both, as excessive emphasis--even though he is a public figure, and even though what is alleged is relevant to his notability. I do not know how anyone could claim this is a normal sort of a fork.  . Looking at Category:Drugs in sports I can see only Legal problems of Barry Bonds, and he has at least been actually indicted.    My normal reaction to an article like either that one or this  would be speedy G10 as an attack page.    DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did consider G10 but restrained myself because of the "and unsourced." clause, as though the sourcing isn't all that good, it is far from unsourced, and much of it to reliable sources as well. However I note on rereading it that WP:attack does not restrict things to unsourced pages, so my bad - clearly it needs to be deleted, perhaps I should have deleted it G10 rather than filed an AFD. I'll post a query on talk speedy as to whether these policies need to be synchronised.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there is O. J. Simpson murder case, and Simpson was acquitted. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete DGG makes a good point, anything with "allegations" on it is a violation of WP:BLP Secret account 01:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see, BLP.


 * This material about a public figure is all well documented in reliable third-party sources, like the NY Times and Wall Street Journal. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the nub of it "it belongs in the article" - no one is arguing that we shouldn't cover this topic in the BLP, the question is whether it belongs in the article as a reliably sourced section, or should be spun out in this fork which was padded out with stuff that wasn't reliably sourced.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So the criteria for inclusion of content in a legitimate spinout of an article is different from that for that article? On what grounds?  This is exactly what a spinout is:


 * The reason this section was made into a spinout article was because it had "a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article". I agree it's an area that needs particular care, but that's just as true of a section of a BLP as it is for a spinout of a BLP - in neither case is it basis for deletion. If there is "padding" in the article that is not well sourced, than it should be properly sourced or removed; not the entire legitimately spunout article. I should point out that I argued against spinning out this section, but consensus was for the spinout because it was felt the section was too long for the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked. There are no tags for "source needed" in the entire article.  Not one.  I'm not saying everything is properly sourced; I'm saying that if something in a legitimate BLP spinout is not properly sourced the correct action is to delete the content in question or cite it accordingly, depending on the situation, not to call for deletion for the entire article.  --Born2cycle (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On the 12th I mentioned 8 deadlink tags, I now count 7....  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. Lots of articles have that problem.  How about tagging them accordingly instead of deleting the entire article?  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, but carefully. The issue here is whether or not doping allegations against Armstrong are themselves an encyclopedic topic, and they clearly are, based on the RS coverage.  Having said that, is it possible to write a neutral, BLP-compliant article covering the topic? Sure: the exonerations are as important as the allegations themselves.  By covering the allegations in a comprehensive manner, noting the timeline of allegations, appeals, debunkings, and whatnot is essential to provide material in context in a way that allows the reader to come to his or her well-informed conclusions or simply withhold judgment.  There is no one connected to the Internet who hasn't heard about these allegations, so by deleting this article, we would be depriving the public of a neutral, encyclopedic reference to the topic.  It may seem paradoxical, but by deleting an article on such a BLP basis, we may be doing Armstrong a disservice: while allegations always scream to the top of the headlines, exonerations and retractions do not. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It looks awfully naive to want to delete it when the heading is "List of Allegations". These are oft-reported and some of them the subject of ongoing formal legal proceedings(see other references). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.71.76 (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and reduce I think that this content, if taken as part of the larger picture of "Our coverage of Lance Armstrong" violates WP:UNDUE.  I support remerging the verifiable information back to his main article, and reducing the detail of the coverage.  Note that I am here because of canvassing on WT:BLP. Gigs (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete there's been a number of allegations, that can be narrated and illustrated in the biography, where is is properly balanced with other aspects of his life. Having this article breaches WP:WEIGHT in term of our coverage of this individual (and just feels wrong).--Scott Mac 16:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:COATRACK, WP:CFORK. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Coatrack??? The article in question is only ostensibly about "doping allegations against Lance Armstrong"?  That's absurd. Yes, WP:CFORK, specifically CFORK, a "completely normal Wikipedia procedure."  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree this isn't a Coatrack article Secret account 22:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This situation reminds me of cops who don't like to see bicyclists riding in the road, and then look for laws hoping to find one that the bicyclist is violating. Impeding traffic!  Yeah, that's it (never mind that only drivers of MOTOR vehicles can be in violation of that statute).  Coatrack!  Never mind that this is article IS about what says it is about, and coatrack is the opposite.  CFORK!  Never mind that this is the quintessential spinout explicitly allowed by CFORK.  There is no limit to how much human beings can rationalize, it seems (often not at all maliciously), especially when they don't like something.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think the argument that it's undue weight is just pulled from thin air? I agree it's a normal spinout, so we need to consider the weight compared to the total coverage of the topic.  When you do that, it becomes clear that this is too much coverage of what should be a fairly minor aspect of his biographical coverage. Gigs (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I stand corrected.  No, I don't think the argument that it's undue weight is pulled from thin air, or a rationalization.  I have no reason to doubt that those who argue the article gives undue weight to this topic really believe it's undue.  However, the broad coverage in secondary sourced indicates otherwise. Remember, there are entire books devoted (mostly) to this subject, like David Walsh's From Lance to Landis: Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France and L. A. Confidentiel.    As someone else noted, the allegations about 7-time Tour de France winner Armstrong cheating to win is a real and very serious sports issue, and Wikipedia readers deserve to have an objective and well-balanced article about it.  The article as it stands notes ten separate allegations, each well documented and presented in a fairly balanced description (and thus not a violation of WP:UNDUE).  To remove any of it, much less all of it, would be a disservice to our readers. Deadlinks are a problem that should be fixed, but not a reason to delete.  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2010 (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.