Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Moore 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 keep. Clear consensus to not delete. Some suggestions to merge, but not enough to sway consensus. A merger discussion can be had independently of this deletion discussion on the talk page.  Sandstein  22:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Previously on ER: Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations.
 * Previously on ER: Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations.

I do not think it was possible to have a dispassionate discussion of this article during the election itself. Now it is over, I think we should revisit the appropriateness of having astandalone article on allegations which, as far as I can see, can never be tested in court due to the statute of limitations. Clearly it is valid to include these allegations in the biography of Moore, but it seems to me that we are over-covering this, given that it's included in his biography (in the context of his overall life and career) and in the article on the special election (in the context of its impact on the outcome). So I call WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - But I saw it on the news, so it must be important! This can't possibly be described in any other article in an encyclopedic way; we need every painstaking detail about these living people because a ton of newspapers wrote about the exact same thing and we need to be "journalists" like them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per consensus at prior AFD. Not undue or news given the significant and lasting coverage of the subject. James (talk/contribs) 12:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It wasn't consensus, it was basically a no consensus default keep right in the middle of the election. That was pretty much the point I was making, in fact. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * From the close: "[T]he consensus reached is to keep the article[...]the consensus here is to keep it." That was pretty much the point I was making, in fact. James (talk/contribs) 14:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By definition, it wasn't a consensus. As an admin of mroe than ten years' experience, I have closed enough AfDs to know the difference. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 12:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 12:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 12:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 12:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 12:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 12:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - this should be procedurally closed. The Last AfD closed Keep a month a half ago. While I agree with the nomination - it should have been made half a year from now. I suggest that the nom withdraw the nomination.Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no policy supporting that claim. There has been a significant and material event: the election. If he had won, this would probably run and run, but he didn't. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:DPAFD Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.. This essay Renominating for deletion, parses reasonable to be approx. six months for pure keep and two months for no consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a recommendation, if someone feels there is a legit reason to bring a new discussion, they still can do so.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep- since this was covered extensively for an entire month, I think it goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS. There is just too much content to merge into the Roy Moore article.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was national and international news for months. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – As a content fork, this makes a lot of sense, just like with Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, etc. There is simply too much information here for it to be contained in the main article; it was taking up an inordinate amount of space, and splitting is how we deal with that.
 * Beyond that, the information in this article is relevant to Roy Moore, and I think everyone agrees that these allegations are notable and belong in the encyclopedia. (I will concede that others think this article goes into too much detail.) The question is whether it needs to be a stand-alone article. As such, NOTNEWS doesn't apply. And for a stand-alone article, I think this clearly meets the basic requirement of WP:EVENT: it has received significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time.
 * Finally, I think this is exactly what an encyclopedia is for: a thorough and neutral accounting of what has been reported in reliable sources. If someone wants to know what's going on with all these accusations against Roy Moore, they shouldn't need to read through dozens of reports from different newspapers but rather should be able to turn to one source for an in-depth and neutral accounting, and that is exactly what an encyclopedia ought to do. -- irn (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per previous AfD obviously, not entirely sure what nominative is hoping to achieve with this. Artw (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge into Roy Moore: excessive news-level detail that no one will think is interesting or important in 5 years. The important points can be covered in one or two paragraphs in the biographical article.  --JBL (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets WP:N.Casprings (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having a separate sub-page on this subject is completely appropriate given the amount of coverage and publicity given to the allegations. This is an important page because it is not only about Roy Moore, but related to US politics in general, including elections and a wave of other similar allegations with respect to other famous people. Section Reactions is not really "Reactions", but "Significance". In addition, nothing really changed since the previous AfD two months ago.My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to general article on Moore. Wikipedia is not news, and nothing about these allegations requires a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge Perhaps it wouldn't have hurt to wait to renominate later on down the road but I don't see this as a useful fork. It was clearly a major story but everything useful is in Roy Moore and United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017.LM2000 (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2018 (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.