Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political sex scandals in the United States


 * 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. (non-admin closure) C T J F 8 3  chat 05:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

List of political sex scandals in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Article is inherently POV. The current article does have a number of sourced entries, but I've also found a lot of unsourced ones, many of which are BLP violations as such. Would be better as a category. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep You want POV?  Go read Ronald Reagan.  Sex scandals have swung several recent elections which makes this article important and I couldn't find any unsourced entries here either. Leeroy10 (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)  Struck out vote by obvious sockpuppet
 * Keep  You have found NO unreferenced entries here.  You did find three in Political scandals.  Two have been sourced and the third removed before you began the deletion process for the whole article.  As long as politicians keep throwing this mud, someone should be keeping track of it. Richrakh (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep throwing, maybe it will stick, Richrakh. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * keep Perfectly good article about a subject of interest to many people. If it were a category, then it would be attacked it as lacking a place to to put explanatory comments that an article can, and this article does, contain.  Most of the entries are sourced either directly or though their linked WP articles--the comments above are misleading.  And there is nothing 'inherently POV' about documented facts.  By the way, BLP only applies to living people, not dead ones.  Hmains (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. POV? The nominator already admits that at least some of the entries are sourced. And if it's good enough for a category (like say Category:Political sex scandals in the United States), it's certainly good enough for a list (and undercuts the contention that it's POV). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely sourced, though the non-politician items like the Jeff Gannon scandal and the Homeland Security secretary should be removed as not meeting the threshold of the article title.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, nominator's rationale is flawed. The fact that more Republican sex scandals exist is a problem either with Republicans or the media, not with Wikipedia, and unsourced ones can be removed without deleting the whole (quite encyclopedic and relevant) article. Roscelese (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What do Republicans have to do with anything? I didn't say anything about them. Are you sure you're commenting on this AFD? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep, sourced article that has spawned a category (or vice versa). No valid reason to nix this article.--MrRadioGuy P T C E 07:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not sourced, it's partially sourced and contains a number of totally unsourced entries that violate BLP. The article is little more than a coatrack. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Much is unsourced or insufficiently sourced where BLP must be followed. Of extraordinarily marginal value, using vague criteria at best. Note also that while virtually all Republicans are identified by party (even where no "scanal" existed), that is not true of all Democrats.  Collect (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Really. Why do I see so many 'D's then? Feel free to correct the article. Hmains (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep  This is an example where there are no BLP problems.   For people whose notability is positions of public trust, such as politicians, such material is always relevant content if there are reliable sources. If they are not included in the list, its just a matter of copying them over from the main article.  Anyone who thinks this is a bLP problem should propose a different standard of BLP than the one we are using. This is one area where we should have stable policy, for inclusion as well as exclusion. Are there any listed for which there are not RSs to be found? then remove them, but I doubt there are.    DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * comment This article now has 92 citations, regardless of what the nominator says. Hmains (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; I think the subject is notable and there's no shortage of sources. I think there's a lot of potential for problems with POV and BLPs, but I don't think these problems are now at a level where deletion is the best response. I would recommend, though, trying to make it more accessible for readers unfamiliar with American political terminology & abbreviations. For instance with "John Ensign Senator (R-NV)" there's no wikilink to explain what a senator is, nor what the R stands for, nor where NV is. bobrayner (talk) 03:33, 3 December 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.