Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molly Hagerty


 * 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW consensus that this is a WP:BLP1E case. How and whether to cover this matter in the Al Gore article is being discussed at Talk:Al Gore. I suggest that a redirect be created only if (and when) there is a stable consensus that the incident should be covered there.  Sandstein  22:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Molly Hagerty

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This person isn't notable. This article should be:
 * A redirect to Al Gore, likely to the appropriate section of his page (probably with a merge of this text)
 * A redirect to an article about Al Gore and this incident (if said article exists, again, very likely to contain much of this text)
 * Deleted outright.

In any case, I'm certain that this should not be a standalone article. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge referenced content to Al Gore per WP:BLP1E. Empty Buffer (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again, another bad faith deletion nomination. Yes, Timneu,I'm SURE you believe it should be redirected to the main Al Gore article, and I'm SURE that "if said article exists, again, very likely to contain much of this text." But as you KNOW, Mr. Bad-Faith-Timneu, any mention of the incident -- which has been reported by the New York Times, Washington Post, etc. etc. -- has been BANNED at the main Al Gore article, which is patrolled by a liberal cadre of editors which no doubt includes you as a sock-puppet.

So instead of wasting time, let's take this "discussion" in another, more proper direction. Answer YES or NO, Timneu, were you truly UNAWARE that mention of the incident has been prohibited at the Al Gore article and elsewhere on Wikipedia? And if you (falsely) answer "no," do you sincerely expect us to believe that someone who was obviously scouring Wikipedia second by second looking for mentions of Hagerty to delete -- and found the article within minutes of its creation -- wasn't aware of the censorship efforts? Are you claiming you didn't bother to look at the Al Gore article to see if it "in fact contained much of this text?" Stop wasting our time with this NONSENSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, I've never been to the Al Gore article. I'm not a sock-puppet. I just patrol new articles. This is a clear WP:BLP1E, so a redirect is warranted, not an article. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete From brief research this appears to be an attack piece born out of the disagreement on the Al Gore page. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * actually  Speedy Strong Delete - this diff from the editor who started this article pretty much confirms it as an attack piece --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm the nominator of the AFD, but I'm not sure that is right. I guess I wonder: why isn't there mention of this topic at Al Gore? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is a separate question (one I'm not going to get involved in :D) - the content *is* only applicable in the Al Gore article, whether it goes in or not is another discussion/issue. From the look of the talk page this article looks like a "shot fired" in the argument over whether to include this content or not :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - that it's WP:BLP1E is made clear by there being only one sentence about the nominal subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. There is essentially nothing about Hagerty in the article, and at least some of the sources about Gore are dubious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete  Speedy Strong Delete - per nom. Meets or exceeds WP:BLP1E and WP:ONEEVENT as this is an unproven allegation. moreno oso (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to Al Gore unwanted sexual contact allegations or something similar. The woman should obviously not have a separate article about her, but I think the controversy is notable enough to have an article. --B (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep-- after thorough research on this subject, unlike the admitted "brief" research by Tmorton and the "didn't look at the article" research by Timneu, I determined that this is a national news story that has been covered by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, etc. etc. etc. No, it is not an "attack article", is is simply an article that contains facts that you consider to be "an inconvenient truth."  Your attempt at suppressing this news is "attack."  Why not delete the Monica Lewinsky article -- how was she any more notable as a twenty-something intern?  Or are you all misogynists who think all women lie about sexual assault?  SHAME ON YOU!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 Jul 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would I need to look at Al Gore to nominate this article for deletion? Again, I still think a redirect may be useful here, depending on the validity of the story, which seems uncertain at this point. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By brief I was implying it didn't take much to find out :) This is not the place to discuss it but from the looks of things the reason it is not included in Al Gore is because of the fairly strict BLP rules. Allegations are generally not added in unless they are substantial. You won't get very far suggesting this is the result of misogynism; keep raising the issue sensibly on the article talk page and eventually consensus will be fully established. Creating articles such as this are *not* the way to go about this :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please rememberWP:NPA when considering comments such as these. We're supposed to be looking at the article under consideration, not others which are somewhat related. --Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, consider a speedy per serious BLP concerns. WP:ONEEVENT is cut and dried here, as this woman is not  notable for anything else but this allegation, and coverage is not even remotely up to the threshold of, say, Paula Jones.  We're more in Articles for deletion/Vera Baker territory here...a nattering attempt to fork attack content that isn't even suitable for the Al Gore article.  I just realized that this article's creator is also the same one that pushed the Vera Baker idiocy a few months back as well.  This is a serious single-purpose account that should be reigned in quickly. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, per WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK andWP:ONEEVENT BrendanFrye (talk)
 * None of those are mentioned in Criteria for speedy deletion. --B (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My major concern here is WP:BLP1E, which is why the nomination suggested redirects/merges. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why you didn't just turn it straight into a redirect then, rather than listing it for an AfD? -- Lear's Fool (talk &#124; contribs) 15:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I didn't know where to redirect it. Didn't know if there was a separate article for it, or how much of this to merge to the destination. I just saw this and recognized the one-event aspect of it. I figured someone more involved with the particulars would know where to send it and what to merge. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - People notable for only one event rarely qualify for their own article, and this is a good example of that. Furthermore, if there is a consensus against the inclusion of this event on the Al Gore bio, this should probably not be a redirect either.  As an aside, this article does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion, and so should not be speedily deleted.  -- Lear's Fool (talk &#124; contribs) 15:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the story is valid, we can redirect the title to the appropriate location. Agree that speedy isn't right here. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Lear's Fool rational above.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the reasons are listed above, but my own thinking is that this person isn't notable enough on their own, it might be good to move the information to another page such as Al Gore's page or to one on the controversy itself but Molly Hagerty doesn't need her own page. I Feel Tired (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * delete at this time per the reference the someone added above This looks to be going from a "One Event" to a "One Event that is an unproven allegation" and BLP would say that we dont give any space to that sort of thing. Should the prediction in the article prove inaccurate and the legal case does move forward, perhaps some type of article in the future, but not now.Active Banana (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Disturbing that one's reward for being an alleged crime victim is to have her life defined by Wikipedia based on that one event. Townlake (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with Al Gore. This person clearly is not notable outside of this one event, which barely rises to the level of an event.  The page could always be recreated later if she become notable for other things, though I doubt that will ever happen. —Torchiest talk/contribs 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lear's Fool. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.  —  C M B J   19:12, 2 July 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.