Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations


 * 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 merge to Matt Lauer. Consensus is for the article to be merged. North America1000 04:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is unclear why we need a separate article on this topic. Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH and WP:FORK, separate articles aren't necessary where the parent article isn't so long as to demand splitting. There's nothing that can be said in this article that isn't already in the article Matt Lauer. As a simple matter of organization, I see no compelling reason to have a separate article. The information is fine, and I may have proposed a merge, but there's nothing here which was not already there before. If the information has a home already, and this article has no reason to exist, I don't see why it does. Jayron 32 11:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge with Matt Lauer. That article isn't so long to demand a subsidiary article. Rhadow (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Matt Lauer. Agree with Rhadow. -- Alexf(talk) 19:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Matt Lauer. This is not an incident but a culmination of actions through out his career and should be in context. Fettlemap (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge - Unfortunately, I surmise some editors will say there is "precedent" to keep these content forks. They have fallen into the WP:RECENTISM trap but there is nothing beyond a basic news cycle or any significiant impact. And, in all seriousness guys, we don't need a new article for every new set of allegations because we aren't the news.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP SPEEDY KEEP - the article was just created and is in the process of being expanded. You don't delete an article that's barely 24 hours old crying merge. Looks to me like some editors need to read WP:BEFORE. Atsme 📞📧 21:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * comment - there is no POVFORK here, it is routine for sections of articles to spin-out into a standalone so they can be expanded - that is not forking. See Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations for all the same arguments that apply here to keep.Atsme 📞📧 00:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * adding reasons to keep - the topic is highly notable, well sourced and should not be censored or trimmed to "fit" into Matt Lauer. This article is a WP:SPINOFF to prevent the expanding volume of the section already in the article from creating an undue weight problem. Atsme 📞📧 02:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Atsme speedy keep actually means something and this nomination meets none of the criteria. I can't speak for, , or but I believe those experienced editors know and understand WP:BEFORE. The fact that you are expanding this content fork doesn't change its lack of independent notability unfortunately.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * TGS - simple enough change to strong. I totally disagree with your assessment as the article clearly does have independent notability...even more so considering he admitted to what he did, and more information has come forward. The article has already expanded beyond what needs to be jammed into his biography. Atsme 📞📧 00:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge Seems like a fork. Significant issue but merge with Matt Lauer. WP:NOTNEWS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Merge. No cause for a content/POV fork; NOTNEWS. Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I invoke the same keep arguments that were used to on the AfD of Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations that resulted in an inappropriate snow keep after only 4 days of open discussion. Ha! Atsme 📞📧 04:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe you can invoke the keep arguments -- just the keep arguments -- of a completely seperate AFD? They are not like some master key for any other nomination, even if the contents are similar. I know, other rubbish exists on the encyclopedia but using that as a rationale is a poor way of thinking.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because there is no convincing argument to merge - the article is notable as a standalone, and the main BLP should be focused on biographical material and not be overly weighted with the allegations and what develops from there, including lawsuits and legal issues. Keep brief mention in the main article with appropriate Wikilinks to & from the main page which is consistent with other articles of this nature...Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations, Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations, Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, and so on. I’m surprised we don’t already have stand alone articles on the same topic for Roger Ailes, John Conyers and Al_Franken. I think keeping it in the BLP becomes an UNDUE distraction that should be more focused more on a living person’s life and career, and let the spin-offs handle the allegations and legal issues relevant to those allegations. Atsme 📞📧 14:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering why you think this should be kept and won't become an BLP attack page (this article already looks a little too detailed to me) while you !voted delete on roy moore's article on that basis. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the arguments in the AfD for Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations, one keep iVote of which was your own: Keep Per Irn. Agree w/ him that that's what an encylopaedia is for. There are so many allegations, similar to that of harvey weinstein. Considering how much coverage there has been of it, it doesn't make sense to only have ~4 paragraphs at-most that can be exist in Roy Moore. Even if a lot of the content is removed as being too detailed - some of which I see has already happened - there still is enough for a separate article. Not sure why people think if the person isn't U.S. President level fame they can't have a separate article on allegations. Galobtter (talkó tuó mió) 10:12 am, 17 November 2017, Friday (19 days ago) (UTC−6) Hope that answers your question. Atsme 📞📧 23:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying this should be deleted. I'm leaning keep as the details can be trimmed. I'm just wondering why you think this should be kept while you !voted delete in the other AfD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Trim and merge. Unwarranted content fork per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Not all of these details are needed here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Matt Lauer. I think the contents can be summarized and merged to his main article. Agreed with Muboshgu about WP:RECENTISM and Fettlemap about context. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 21:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per User:Atsme's reasons above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. An scandal that brought down one of the most bankable names at NBC News is worthy of an individual article. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 23:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for the reasons above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4600:7B43:B0DC:875B:E8AA:8101 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * — 2601:18D:4600:7B43:B0DC:875B:E8AA:8101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Merge Having a seperate article for these allegations from the article on the individual accused is an example of extreme presentism. There is absolutely no reason that this material cannot be covered in the article on Lauer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's already in the article John, but to expand it there creates UNDUE. It's also notable enough to be a spinoff, and there's more that will be added. Atsme 📞📧 03:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Matt Lauer per WP:TOOSOON as the contents of this article fit comfortably into the Lauer article. It may be that the situation will blow up like the Weinstein situation did but we aren't a WP:CRYSTALBALL and can't know that for sure. If and when the topic becomes too big for the main article, spin it off then. Ca2james (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Checking What links here for this page, it looks like notifications about this AfD placed on the Talk pages of the Women in Red and Women projects. These notifications both read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations - women coming forward. which appears to me to be indirectly soliciting Keep !votes (ie not coming out and saying "!vote keep" but saying "this article involves women coming forward about sexual harassment and misconduct, and this is a project about increasing content about women so... You know what to do"). I apologize if I've misinterpreted things; and I understand that my interpretation might be not at all what the poster intended but I thought it best to bring up. Ca2james (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me - you should have added it as a note, not as an allegation that I did anything wrong. Now that you've added it, there's no need for me to add it. Atsme 📞📧 05:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Canvassing states Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC).


 * NOTE: This debate has been included at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality Atsme 📞📧 06:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTE: This debate has been included at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography Atsme 📞📧 06:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep there's a WP:NOTNEWS argument to delete this, but apparently nobody believes that is policy. Ignoring that, this should clearly be kept; there's enough coverage, references, and volume of material to justify a separate article.  Separately, from a purely procedural POV, a merge proposal should be at the article page, not AfD. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 06:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS can only stay policy if editors like you have the heart to apply it. Also, you are mistaken; merge proposals are regularly discussed and agreed upon at AFD if participants believe it is the best course of action. I can provide dozens of such outcomes but you probably should have seen a few by now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've given up the fight for WP:NOTNEWS in the first two weeks after a news story breaks. If there's an appearance of a consensus to the contrary, the closing admin should discount my !vote. Barring that unlikely occurrence, this is still a clear keep. power~enwiki ( π,  ν )
 * I agree with P-e. AfDs usually start out as delete for good reason. This AfD has no justifiable basis to delete beyond IDONTLIKEIT. Merging it into the main article creates UNDUE so that's really not an option. This should be a snow close to keep. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 06:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A surprising comment by the article's creator (is there a button for sarcasm?). Don't recall anyone claiming they don't like the subject or why a merge means copy-and-pasting this news story to the main article. Selectively merging useful material happens on the regular. I saw not news, lasting, BLP, content fork, and recentism-based arguments but still no "I don't like it" ones.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No surprise, just fact...like the content fork argument - well, yeah it's a content fork that's being expanded which is what content forks are for, or maybe the TOOSOON argument - as in he was fired over it too soon or did he apologize too soon? That is factual information so it has no time stamp, and neither does the fact that he had a lock button under his desk. To me, those arguments are as weak as IDONTLIKEIT. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 07:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge at least for now. There’s room in the main article. NOTNEWS. O3000 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Matt Lauer, this case does not stand out much from other sexual harassment/assault cases that have been sweeping the world, so per NOTNEWS, merge. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 04:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Matt Lauer, and keep a lid on excessive detail, bloated prose, and/or laundry lists of reactions that violate WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROPORTION. Not everything written needs to be incorporated into a tertiary source encyclopedia, which Wikipedia claims to be. The plethora of articles in daily news sources (largely repetitive, derivative, and churnalism) do not necessarily mean the subject needs greater coverage in relation to Lauer's career as a whole. Writing in depth about the current event is simply WP:Recentism. If this article remains separate, one could argue an article is due for any controversy involving Lauer. Note that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. For comparison, see how Lauer's firing is proportionally covered in tertiary sources like Biography.com and Encyclopaedia Britannica.  Per policy (WP:TERTIARY), tertiary sources can be useful for evaluating due weight, as they help distill the most significant elements from the inherent myopia of day-to-day reporting. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking purely based on fractions, a quarter of the britannica article is on it - which does seem quite significant. But then again this can be condensed and merged. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Merging all this content to main article about the person will create an undue weight for these allegations in main article. I think this page stands as a legitimate sub-page based on significant coverage. My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Or, we can write concisely, skillfully, and take a broad view, not mindlessly repeat everything in today's news. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia is not a News aggregator. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC).


 * Merge (selectively) with Matt Lauer. Needless content fork; this material can be quite easily condensed (the important info can be given in 3-4 paragraphs at most) and included in the main article. Neutralitytalk 04:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Matt_Lauer. The target section already covers the material in sufficient detail, so I don't see a reason for a merge. However, a redirect would preserve the article's history, so anything that may be worth considering for inclusion in the main article could be picked up from there. Overall, as I said, the main article is already sufficiently detailed for the topic, so any additions should be minimal. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge, any additional information as needed with Matt_Lauer and Redirect this article name, accordingly. WP:Content fork. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - if NOTNEWS was a valid argument, why were following articles created when the news broke? Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations, Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_allegations, Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations, Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, and so on? The titles that include "allegations" for those BLP's found guilty are wrongly named, but it tells us they were created when they were still allegations. Others can never be proven because the evidence doesn't exist. Do we now make them #redirects or #merge or simply delete them? This is exactly why consistency is necessary. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Likely for several reasons (WP:Othercrapexists): but one is that those issues have received much greater media scrutiny and publicity over a longer period of time, and/or involved many more people, while Lauer's peccadilloes appear to have already been largely relegated to gossip rags and churnalism. (e.g. "He just wants to play golf" and "Did you hear what he said at his roast!?"). Another is that allegations of exposure and lewd talk between adults is not equivalent to allegations of rape and pedophilia. Lastly, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and it is unlikely that this sub article can be significantly expanded content-wise (I mean, sure, more block quotes and verbose sentences could be shoehorned in, maybe some more soundbites from talking heads, Family Guy references, and Perez Hilton's reaction, but such drivel drags down Wikipedia's reputation). The "consistency is necessary" argument assumes we are robots acting on an "if X, then Y" command, without the possibility for nuance and case-by-case decisions. Given time, some of the articles above may be deemed not noteworthy enough to remain separate. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He apologized, the allegations have been corroborated and that is as close as one gets prior to a trial and why we refer to them as allegations - innocent until proven guilty. But it still warrants a stand alone article considering the substantial coverage in RS, the UNDUE it creates to keep it in the BLP Matt Lauer, and the fact that we're discussing workplace sexual harassment which involves one's livelihood. Just saying. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge all of the "(whatever celebrity/politician) sexual misconduct allegations" articles to the main article on each person. The allegations are only notable because the person is notable, they don't have notability independent of the accused. If this is the most significant thing about Matt Lauer, then it can't be WP:UNDUE in the main article. If it's not the most significant thing, then why a separate article? It's a "Catch 22." Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect. For one thing, the sizes of these articles are usually a good indicator that a new article is needed per WP:SUBARTICLE, and that doesn't seem to be the case here. There's also a lot of overlap with the Matt Lauer biographical article and the allegations article, so it shouldn't be that hard to merge the most notable bits (most of the "Reaction" section seems to be just re-reviewing his past behavior, so most of that could be left out). Beyond that, this doesn't seem to have independent notability or even a short-term impact beyond "Matt Lauer was fired". FallingGravity 17:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * merge. Mooe andWeinstein are special cases.* Moore becvause of the political significance, Weinstein because of the importance as the exemplar.  DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 8 December 2017 (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.