Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Cruz extramarital affairs allegation


 * 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. Per SNOW. We're not the news, this is not Watergate, this isn't even a day old--having this as an article already is TOOSOON to put it mildly. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz extramarital affairs allegation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

notnews, recentism, blp.

Recreate later if this becomes a sustained issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is not a transient, minor incident but one that is likely - by objective evaluation - to develop over time. Citing the precedent of Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004, this should be kept for seven days and the AfD reopened at that time. BlueSalix (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Given the current level of coverage, this is adequately described already in a single paragraph at National Enquirer.  If the story gets bigger then maybe it could be mentioned in Cruz and Trump subarticles on their 2016  campaigns.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - I went to nominate this as well. Here's my original nomination: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Currently, this is just gossip about a presidential candidate with no evidence of lasting notability. From NOTNEWS, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.


 * Moreover, there's major concerns about WP:BLPGOSSIP which states "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."


 * WP:PUBLICFIGURE also address this issue by saying "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Toward this, I don't think we have a scandal. Just gossip. If, and only if, this develops into a scandal which long lasting impact on Cruz's political career, then there should be an article about it. Until then, it should not have an article.


 * Given the BLP concerns and what I see as policy violations, I recommend a speedy delete.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge Speedy delete is uncalled for. It technically satisfies notability an WP:BLP, but I'm not sure a standalone article is the best choice at this point. At this point it probably should be merged to the article about his presidential campaign, Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016 since there have been several recent smears and attacks involving him and Trump(small hands, liar, nude photo of one's wife, tweet implying other wife is not as pretty as opponent's wife, etc). That puts all the little attacks and counterattacks in one convenient article. It seems to satisfy WP:BLP at this point since he is a public figure, he has publicly denied the allegations, and there has been multiple coverages of the allegations and his denial in mainstream media, including the the BBC, Reuters, NBC,The Washington Post and USAToday. Edison (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The major facts have already been merged into National Enquirer. If it gets to be a bigger story about the spat between Cruz and Trump, then we could mention it in both of their campaign articles, not just the Cruz article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We've never had a policy of only covering news stories in the article about the newspaper. The mudslinging in the campaign does perhaps deserve its own article,, rather than repeating it in the individual campaign articles. Fox gave significant coverage to the unusual intensity and amount of mud slinging in what is also significant coverage of these allegations. Nothing in WP:BLP says it has to be "confirmed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Granted John Edwards extramarital affair exists, but that's a confirmed case, where the NE allegations against Cruz are so far thin on evidence. The rumors have been picked up by major pubs, so per BLP can be mentioned in the appropriate articles, but this does not need its own, not yet at least. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. The concern over WP:NOTNEWS #2 seems to me misplaced: WP:NOTNEWS allows explicitly that "including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate", it simply shouldn't be prioritised over other types of information. This boils down then to whether this story is qualitatively likely to become enduringly notable, and it's reasonable to think that it might be—see my last point below. The allegations certainly aren't routine. WP:RECENTISM is a valid concern but it's not a reason for deletion in itself—see the precedent of Jennifer Wilbanks, mentioned in the essay page. WP:BLP is not clear-cut; see below.


 * 's citation of WP:PUBLICFIGURE at the BLP policy page shows that the appropriateness of the page hangs on whether it can be held to be a "public scandal", and this seems to me quite a blurry issue at this stage. The page may or may not have been created too soon but at this point I think it's best to keep the info for now and reassess later, as suggests, since a time-dependent search on Google News suggests the momentum behind the story is gathering rather than receding.


 * The gossip point seems to be a key issue here as to whether we might think it will be enduringly notable. WP:BLPGOSSIP does not, I believe, apply, since the article is not simply repeating gossip but covering the allegations as a subject of interest in their own right, supported by reliable sources like the NYT, WP, etc. The wide breadth of coverage in reputable newspapers already suggests that this is probably more than just another gossip story in that respect: I think we need to focus on whether it's notable that the allegation has been made, not whether the content of the allegation itself should be held as a notable feature of Cruz's biography.


 * I don't object to keeping or merging with no prejudice to recreating the article when more content is available, but I think outright deletion is unnecessary—speedy deletion definitely is, IMO. (Apologies for the hedging: like I said, I don't think the issue is clear-cut and mainly just want to flag up some points against rushing to delete the article.) — Nizolan  (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A fair interpretation and opinion, though I don't wholly agree. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON applies as well then?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what's kept me from actually !voting, and in fact I'm going to strike my comment in relation to that. I definitely agree, for example, that there doesn't seem to be enough material to cover just yet to make it merit a full article rather than a section in another article, though that seems a matter of editorial judgement. — Nizolan  (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The story has now developed to include Marco Rubio-linked persons circulating information about Cruz's sexual history since late 2015. All !votes that this should be deleted on the basis it's a Trump-Cruz spat are now nullified. Please use the strikethrough feature if this describes you. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't merge. Wikipedia is not a scandal sheet. Jonathunder (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we also delete Watergate Scandal? BlueSalix (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an established, notable historical event. This is a current event with no confirmation yet.  If it hits that threshold, then it gets an article. JamesG5 (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely confirmed. The article is "Ted Cruz Extramarital Affairs Allegations" and it is confirmed there have been allegations. The article is NOT "Ted Cruz Extramarital Affairs" which have not been confirmed. This is an article on media history, not a politician's sex life. BlueSalix (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can't see a difference between Watergate and whatever made the most recent issue of a gossip magazine, please find a different topic to edit than biographies of living persons. Jonathunder (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which of the sources in the article do you consider "gossip magazines"? The Washington Post? Newsweek? Salon? BlueSalix (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are asserting that the article is about the media coverage and not the politician's sex life, then I suggest you rename it to Media coverage of the Ted Cruz extramarital affairs allegation. But again, there's no evidence that the media coverage is notable either. The current article is about the allegation itself, and we must determine if the allegation is notable. Decisions to cover certain topics is not just about coverage by media, it's about enduring notability. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS (a policy).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith, please. I'm not saying it shouldn't be talked about, just questioning if the DAY it breaks it gets its own article.  Watergate was a historic game changer that rocked America's political & media climate.  Candidates being derailed by sex scandals (see John Edwards & Gary Hart) don't rank that high.  Watergate had so much impact that if this story gets legs someone will probably call it "Mistress-gate."  If this ends up having legs & being more than a blip in the cycle, sure, it gets its own article, but there's no rush & immediate response to news isn't what Wikipedia is for. JamesG5 (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the discussion at Ted Cruz I agree this doesn't warrant its own article at this time, too early to see if it will stay notable enough. Mean tine it's mentioned on the National Enquirer page, and it's been suggested on the Cruz talk page that a mention be made on the page about his 2016 campaign, which seems sensible at this time. JamesG5 (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a blip on today's news cycle; too soon to assert that it's a notable event (seems unlikely, but regardless, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). - Iago Qnsi (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Along the same lines as Muboshgu. If these allegations are confirmed then a Ted Cruz Extramarital Affair article might be appropriate. Until such a time, the brief descriptions about this incident in related articles are sufficient.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizike (talk • contribs) 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tom29739 [ talk ] 21:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tom29739 [ talk ] 21:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as unlikely solid as its own article. SwisterTwister   talk  21:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per all the other delete !votes above mine as well as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. This is not an encyclopedia article, it's a hit piece and tabloid fodder. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  21:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a non-notable event, it may become a notable event in the future, if the allegations are confirmed. It can be mentioned in related articles, like the one about his presidential campaign. Tom29739 [ talk ] 21:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
 * So is that delete or merge, Tom29739? BlueSalix (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - It is WP:TOOSOON to consider having an independent article about this emerging scandal. If the story grows and receives sustained coverage, then an article may be warranted. - MrX 21:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Closing admin, since the AfD was opened, new reporting has occurred and additional information added to the article. As most delete !votes allowed for conditional recreation in the event the story grows, please disregard everything above this line. We should now re-!vote beginning below. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - For reasons previously stated above in the old !vote. BlueSalix (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * New info in the past 1 hour 10 minutes? this as has been open?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, definitely seems like there are a lot of moving parts here. BlueSalix (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Only 1 !vote per person please. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Struck second vote by User:BlueSalix. Edison (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As did I. That's three times it's been struck.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete as per WP:BLP. For those arguing Other stuff exists, the John Edwards extramarital affair is an excellent example of why this article should not exist at this time.  When the Edwards affair was only being reported by the National Enquirer, with the mainstream press reporting the rumor but not confirming the underlying accusations, the accusations were being actively removed from Wikipedia.  The arguments against inclusion back then still apply today. --Allen3 talk 22:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is only one source that is alleging this, and it the National Enquirer is unreliable. Every other story is simply bored reporters rehashing the gossip (no doubt purely for clickbait), but beyond the hype, there is nothing meriting an article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and crap like this has no place in an encyclopedia, unless/until there is multiple, significant, independent coverage. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a classic of WP:NOTNEWS. This is already mentioned in Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016, and there is simply no justification for this as a standalone article. Not every political scandal will meet the expectations outlined in WP:EVENT, and this one surely does not. The original source is notoriously unreliable and the rest of the coverage stems from there, and even if proven true this does not need a separate article to salaciously repeat every claim and counter claim. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC).
 * Speedy Delete. This is a classic of WP:NOTNEWS. This is already mentioned in Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016, and there is simply no justification for this as a standalone article. And I repeat all of the other very good reasons to delete this BS article immediately.--ML (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing Admin - please review all of these delete !votes before closing to note how many are, like this one, originating from recently registered Cruz-specific SPA's. Note also how many of these use copy/paste (literally, word for word) of prior SPA argument. BlueSalix (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak delete over WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPGOSSIP concerns; in the alternative, merge into Ted Cruz as this doesn't (at this time) merit its own article. Rebb  ing  23:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Procedural question: I don't believe the arguments raised so far can support speedy deletion under the speedy-deletion policy. Is a deletion discussion permitted to close as speedy delete for a reason not given in the policy? Rebb  ing  23:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Allegations he had 5 different affairs allcome up at once? Pure National Enquirer stuff and turns out that is the source.  Total BLP violation.  Legacypac (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The consensus is overwhelmingly delete.  Could someone please close this and do whatever it takes to delete the article already?  It is quickly becoming a BLP violation and libel nightmare fast.  It's nothing but a magnet for POV agenda pushers.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  23:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It takes more than a few hours to properly gauge consensus. Let's let this run its proper course. There's no BLP emergency here that can't be addressed with calm editing.- MrX 00:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think it's very obvious that delete is the consensus. You have editors from various standpoints on politics who are all calling for this article's deletion. That is a very clear consensus. Further, because this article is now under discretionary sanctions, an editor may only revert once in a 24 hour period. With the amount of unsourced allegations and egregious BLP violations there currently, it seems a no brainer to me that an article where there's already a huge consensus for deletion (such as this one) should be deleted as soon as possible. Besides, it's truly doubtful  that we will see anything but delete votes in this AFD filing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Comment I strongly object to a speedy deletion of an article when the event it is based on (The published allegation and its denial, with counteraccusations against Trump) has just occurred today, and Google news already shows over 3 MILLION stories published about it.That smacks of censorship. It seems to be a notable incident in the 2016 presidential campaign. The AFD has just started and more than one editor calls for keeping it.(Merge amounts to "keep"). Let it run the usual seven days. If coverage of it peters out and there are no new revelations, it will die a natural death. To speedy it invites more digital ink spilled at deletion review. Many commentors here do not seem to understand that the article is NOT a statement that Cruz had affair. It is about the allegation, his highly publicized and lengthy denial of the allegation, with accusations that Trump conspired with the newspaper, and these things have been extensively covered by mainstream media, satisfying WP:BLP and WP:N. Many of the delete arguments smack of "IDONTLIKEIT." Edison (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:NOTNEWS, et al. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTNEWS. Should the story continue into the distant future then we can consider and article.  Until then anything relevant can be merged to Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016 and National Enquirer.LM2000 (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete This may end up being a thing, but at the moment it isn't. BLP issues, NOTNEWS, TOOSOON etc. are all good reasons to delete at this point.    Hobit (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into Cruz's main article or campaign article. Deserves to be mentioned, just not standalone. Buggie111 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is already mentioned in Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016 article, as well as in the National Enquirer article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's already got a sentence or two in Cruz's campaign article.  That's about all that's warranted at present.  If this becomes a major scandal that goes into history books, like Watergate, then we can recreate this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly Keep - these development are likely to have objective impact on the ongoing polls and related debates. Considering the level of allegations againist a prominent person from a source that has a history of exposing such acts, i sincerely believe the article shall be preserved.--    ~ Irrigator   talk  04:56, 26 March 2016 (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.