Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state and local political 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   delete. While I found some arguments on both sides lacking in terms of policy (Note that deletion policy generally argues that deletion is not an alternative for cleanup, and there's no sense here that cleanup has been attempted, similarly, note that an article is useful or needed is an "argument to avoid" within our policy), there are stronger arguments here made regarding scope and LISTN. j⚛e deckertalk 14:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

List of state and local political scandals in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States was already deleted through an AfD process. Similar reasons apply here:


 * Per WP:BLP, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Many of these entries are supported by only one reliable source.


 * Per WP:BLP, “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." This list not only omits denials, but also omits acquittals, which is really unacceptable.


 * Per WP:BLP, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law….Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association…. " Here, accused and acquitted people are mixed in with convicted criminals, which is guilt by association.


 * Per WP:LISTN, I don’t see that “state and local political scandals in the United States” are notable as a group.


 * The list is prone to being outdated, and thus an unintentional BLP violation simply by the passage of time.


 * The main aim here is apparently to connect persons with crimes, or imply that they are guilty of crimes, for which they were not convicted.


 * WP:NPF applies to some of these named people who are not public figures.


 * WP:Recentism is violated (scandals from this millennium are given undue weight)

Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Unencylopedic.


 * keep nomination does not understand and/or accept the section of the article named 'Scope and organization of political scandals' and is otherwise confusing scandals with crimes (convictions) and then saying that because an event is not a conviction it is not a scandal. Nothing could be further from the truth--as anyone with a knowledge of history will now. Other assertions above could be applied to nearly every article in WP--which is obviously not being done.  The assertions for deletion are just a grab bag of anything and everything the nominator could find to say bad about articles and have little to do with this particular article. Hmains (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why all the names of people who have not been convicted of anything? If those are all deleted, then there wouldn't be much left of this article, unfortunately. That distinguishes this article from a list of federal scandals (i.e. there would be plenty left of the federal list after names of non-convicted people are removed).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The point of a scandal is that it may or may not involve a crime and the people may or may not be charged or convicted as criminals. You are completely not understanding what a scandal is.  It is a notorious event.  Period.  Hmains (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is more like a list of scandalous people than a list of scandals, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't involve a crime, it's trivial unless it's received heavy news coverage, and most of these are crimes. We're not a tabloid magazine. Most of those didn't even result in convictions so they shouldn't be on wikipedia in the first place. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  02:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - The list is based on original research. A single editor decided on a set of loosely related criteria to assemble this list. It flatly fails WP:LISTN which states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources,". The article has no sources that collectively discuss "state and local political scandals in the United States". There are sources available that discuss major political scandals in historical contexts, but none that I can find and that include state and local political scandals (but not national) in the US. A list such as this is far worse in my opinion than the recently deleted List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush. The article also has WP:WEIGHT issues and likely runs afoul of WP:BLPCRIME.- MrX 02:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is badly structured – the indenting of the Table of Contents makes no sense – I think the states should be a level below the date ranges ... or is it the other way around? But aside from that, this is an inherently bad subject to try to make lists out of, with BLP violations likely due to the vague criteria for inclusion. And there is nothing useful for the reader to learn. Do some states have more scandals than others? Hard to tell from here. Are the number of scandals increasing over time? Yes, drastically ... unless this is just recentism in the inclusions, which is quite likely. Lists of this nature are okay if they are clearly defined, limited in scope, and not susceptible to recentism; see List of United States Representatives expelled, censured, or reprimanded for a good example. But this, no. I under that Hmains and some other editors have put a lot of work into this over the years and will be dismayed if it ends up not being visible anymore (been there, had that done to me). But I think this is an inherently flawed topic, badly implemented. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * actually, other than some copyedits from time to time and reorgs, I did add any content to this article. I will not be dismayed about anything; I wrote above what I thought and that is all. Hmains (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia prohibits some but not all original research. The compilation of lists and the application of categories is a sort of original research which is commonly encouraged, so I am not concerned that the compilation of this list is original research.
 * I expect that the items in lists come with references, and the items in this list do. I expect that the categorization of entries into a list will be mostly noncontroversial, and I think that the categorization of the events here as "state and local political scandals in the United States" is noncontroversial, even if it is controversial to give prominence to these events.
 * Some might say that the individual events listed within this Wikipedia article do not pass Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and would not pass WP:AFD. That might be so, but not every item in every list needs to be considered in the context of passing WP:AFD, and multiple concepts which are not individually notable might be combined into an article like this list and collectively pass notability criteria.
 * I think an article with this title should exist. In the past I have also supported the development of a similar article, List of scandals in India.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Question. Does keeping this mean that the material from the already deleted List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States could be reinserted here? - Location (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems like added reason to delete this article. If it is deleted, there would still remain List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes which is a very valid Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the apparent inclusion criteria of this list (essentially anything that is widely covered in the news at some point and involves a politician), yeah I'd say everything in that list could validly be added to this article, and the same problems with that list are present here (with the addition of WP:UGLY). Though of course, it looks like this is clearly pointing to delete, so don't bother. List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes is the only one that I think should remain. Mere scandals are more appropriate in that person's article rather than a list. There's just not enough space per person in a list to provide objective information without violating WP:UNDUE. Granted, some unconvicted scandals are notable (i.e. Watergate, LewinskyGate (sorry, couldn't resist), maybe JFK's affairs), but these are notable enough to merit entire articles by themselves, where there is plenty of room to provide due weight and all sides of the incident(s). &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  18:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - The Wikipedia is not a compendium of tabloid scandals, especially as what is or is not a "scandal" has no clear or concrete definition. What is sourcable and relevant from this list should be noted in the BLPs of the people involved.  No reader, upon reading this mess that looks like a regurgitation by 1,000 howler monkeys onto their 1,000 typewriters, will come away with any deeper understanding or insight into political scandals in the US. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Howler monkeys? Takes one to know one. None of these entries are from tabloids, they all have reliable sources, multiple if necessary.Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Scandals can be covered either in their own article if they are deemed major enough or in the persons article if they are minor and play a notable part in their career. That way due wieght and context can be provided. What we have here is a laundry list of mainly minor politicians with mainly minor scandals. AIR corn (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Reeks of PoV fork to me. The low visibility of the page (given that few of the people connected link to it) preventing people from noticing it and checking to make sure edits are wikipedia-worthy and follow WP:BLP. Also, WTF is up with the Table of Contents? Each entry needs looking at. If not deleted outright for inadequate sources, they should be merged to the respective people articles or the related state/local government page. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  02:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I assumed you had looked at every entry, if not, how do you know it reeks of POV? I see none. Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete For the exact same reason we deleted the other one. These should not exist. They are POV magnets and eternally a BLP violation just waiting to happen. § FreeRangeFrog croak 07:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * POV magnet? Aren't all political articles POV magnets?  This one is well researched with minimal comment.  Again, I see no POV. Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - those stating Delete are simply wrong. This is a list that is needed, and is notable. That it might not be formatted correctly is a issue that needs to be brought up at the articles talk page. AfD should not be used for clean-up or formatting issues. There also seem to be different opinions concerning PoV, so I dont see a reason for deletion at this point.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mr. There are multiple concerns in the article concerning original research, undue weight and PoV. Perhaps this would be better as a category rather than a stand alone page. --Enos733 (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no POV violations in any entry, if you do, change it. Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What constitutes a scandal is inherently PoV. --Enos733 (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * KEEP It appears to me that most of the people here have been convicted or at least resigned their positions under fire. This includes entries who quit their jobs to avoid prosecution or make prosecution moot and/or those who are obviously working at the direction of others.  Official investigations, indictments and charges are never made lightly and should be noted. State and Local investigations, charges and convictions are just as important as federal ones if not more so and this list makes a valuable contribution.  Shadyglenns (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The huge problems with this list can be illustrated by considering the first three scandalous people on this list: Mike Hubbard, Terry Spicer, and Lowell Barron. The entry on Hubbard unfairly fails to mention his denial: “Mike Hubbard expressly and emphatically denies any wrongdoing”.  Spicer was convicted so he's on the list of convicted state or local politicians, so this entry is superfluous.  As for Barron, this list completely fails to mention that all charges were dismissed in August 2014.  This list is full of bogus and misleading information like that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Resigning under fire does not mean anything necessarily happened. Investigations, indictments, and charges are indeed made lightly, all the time. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  17:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete It is clear that this is redundant considering that there is a page that has a list politicians that have been found guilty of criminal charges, Would be slanted towards a negative PoV and may violate the biographies on living persons policy, Most of the entries seem to have just a single source and it would talk far more time then it is worth to solve all of the issues of the article. The GRVO fLigh tning  (talk)	 03:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Uncompletable and ill-defined list which is essentially a coatrack for politicized slagging... Let's just call this "unencyclopedic" and move on. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, basically synthesis and cherry picking, as noted by the many Delete !votes above. "Keep" opinions, like "this is a needed list" are utterly ungrounded in policy and should be ignored by the closing administrator.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)>
 * Delete per TheGRVOfLightning. Also, don't we have categorizes for such a long list? - Mailer Diablo 22:57, 11 April 2015 (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.