Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump–Russia dossier 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 no consensus. We are at 16:7:7 with respect to keep/delete/merge opinions. This indicates that we have no consensus to delete absent a very compelling policy-based argument for deletion, which I can't see here. The discussion is basically about whether this is a POV fork, which we don't want, or a genuine spin-off subarticle, which are allowed. The distinction between the two is a matter of editorial judgment. But by the same token, we don't have a consensus to keep, given that about half of the participants consider this a fork that merits either merging or deleting, and we don't have a consensus to merge either. This leaves us at "no consensus, default to keep" for now, but editors are free to renominate the article after some time or to start a merger discussion on the talk page.  Sandstein  08:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump–Russia dossier allegations
Note: article was moved to List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations 22:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:POVFORK spinoff of Trump-Russia dossier. Noncompliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE as the unsubstantiated allegations are clearly defamatory against a BLP which subjects it to BLP policy. Atsme 📞📧 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Note to closer - Per this diff dated Jan 24th, the subject article was moved and the format changed to list. As a list, it should be deleted and this AfD snow closed as the changes make it noncompliant with several policies, including WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and in this case, cherrypicked unsubstantiated allegations in the highly controversial Trump-Russia dossier with POV commentary by editors which makes it unequivocally a POVFORK and a violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. Atsme 📞📧 10:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: - if this article is kept, then the main article, Trump-Russia dossier, should be deleted as it is only notable because of the allegations that comprise its context. This POVFORK is an exaggeration of the NPOV issues that have been challenged at the main article. Atsme 📞📧 13:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow! Atsme, those are all patently false allegations. You really need to calm down. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This list is noncompliant with WP:NOR because it involves a selected list of allegations - editors are making the selections and writing the commentary. That is OR whereas in article form it is a summary of the dossier and editors are simply writing what the sources say about the allegations. Big difference. Atsme 📞📧 18:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add - I don't see how you possibly say this is not an attack page. The dossier itself is opposition research which means it was commissioned for one purpose - to attack and denigrate the opposition candidate. Worse yet, in this one, the vast majority is unsubstantiated. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Atsme 📞📧 01:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are the only one calling it an attack page, and just because no one has responded to that ludicrous claim does not mean "you...say this is not an attack page". Sheesh! Learn what an attack page at Wikipedia means. An attack page in the real world (the dossier sorta qualifies) is something else, and we MUST document it if it has received notable coverage in RS. That's our job. Sure, such an article will have lots of content from one POV, but that's because it is an article documenting one POV. Such articles are allowed, but they must also include any significant countering POV, if they are from RS, and not just from fringe or crank sources.
 * Summary: An attack page at Wikipedia and an attack page in the real world are two different things. We don't write the first, but we do document the latter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: This was already formatted as a list page before the move. It was in a bulleted format already. The move just clarified this is a list article rather than a prose article, per agreement between several editors. also, this is not a selective list per editor's opinions. It is based on what has recieved coverage in multiples of reliable sources. This is how it has been decided what goes on the page. Saying "selected list of allegations" is either an oversimplification or inaccurate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme, Steve Quinn is correct. I tried different formats, even using a table, and the bulleted list framework, with prose content, served the purpose best.
 * Above you wrote: "indiscriminate collection of information, and in this case, cherrypicked". BS. It was not "indiscriminate" nor "cherrypicked". The choice of allegations was determined quite deliberately, not randomly, or by my wishes or POV. RS made that decision for me. I chose ONLY the allegations which numerous RS wrote about, and I have searched high and low. The dossier contains even more allegations, and if we find RS coverage of them, they will likely get added. You are welcome to help do this. If no secondary RS covers an allegation, then it would be OR to include it, because editors are not allowed to cherry pick from primary sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Atsme, this is not a policy-based way to push your mission at Wikipedia to squash anything negative about Trump, regardless of how well sourced it is. It's odd that you mention WP:PUBLICFIGURE, when the article actually is protected by exactly that section of BLP. Have you even read it? Public figures have less protection than normal people:
 * "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." (Emphasis added.)
 * Before mentioning BLP, you need to read it. BLP forbids "contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced", and this is extremely well sourced, every single day, in pretty much every major RS. It's the "road map" for the FBI and the Special Counsel investigation. That's pretty notable. Stop trying to squash it. This is a frivolous AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a POVFORK that breaches BLP policy and should be speedy deleted. The material is not just contentious, it is highly defamatory based on unsubstantiated allegations in memos by anonymous sources that have spawned conspiracy theories. WP does not spread gossip to defame or discredit a BLP, and it does not promote political advocacies or conspiracy theories to defame a political opponent. You need to read the policy again, BullRangifer - "contentious", not defamatory, material belongs in the article" not deserves its own article. We already have the main article which is based entirely on the same unsubstantiated allegations. Atsme 📞📧 08:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge clear POV fork. Billhpike (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear - you think the content of this article should be included in the other article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the content does not belong, but there might be a few sentences worth keeping. Billhpike (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So that's really a delete vote masquerading as a merge vote, because, given the extensive coverage in sources, "merge" sounds more reasonable? Why is it that "most of the content does not belong"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral Is it a POVFORK, or is it a case of WP:Summary style? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * SarekOfVulcan, it's a WP:SPINOFF because its size may create an undue weight situation. Deletion is not the solution, but putting it into the main article might be, but then we'd have to spin it off fairly soon anyway. What we have had is an article about a document which did not describe the contents of the document. That's absurd. This resolves that problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge obvious fork is obvious Darkness Shines (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is all well sourced, notable, and perfectly compliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We can not really judge if the allegations were "the truth" or very strongly substantiated. We can only judge if the allegations were published in multiple secondary RS and belong to the subject of the page.  Hence this page should not be deleted. Should it be kept as a separate page or merged to Trump–Russia_dossier? I think it should be kept separately simply because Trump–Russia dossier page is already large and and this page is also large and expected to grow because every individual allegation needs to be described as "disputed/admitted/denied/whatever" - as described in numerous RS on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A question: is this page actually a "WP:List"? Probably it should be. If so, this is an additional argument against merging. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The main framework is definitely a bulleted list, and the choice is based on the MoS advice for this type of subject matter. It's the only way to do justice to each allegation, and it's much easier to work with as an editor and understand as a reader. Prose works fine under each bulleted item. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. But then it should be probably renamed to the List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations? It should also provide criteria for inclusion, which is trivial in this case (simply all allegations noted in the dossier). You are probably using more strict criteria (an allegation should be also discussed in secondary RS), which is probably a good thing. My very best wishes (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * An interesting proposition. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keerge (keep the content but in the main article) - The article easily meets WP:GNG and given the international coverage of the subject does not appear to violate WP:NOT. On the other hand, I think it may serve our readers better if it were in the main article in collapsible sections. I know thats a bit of a deviation from convention, but let's let WP:IAR rule the day.- MrX 🖋 23:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * SMirC-chuckle.svg - a first MrX. Atsme 📞📧 03:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork, poorly sourced, and several BLP issues. PackMecEng (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you point out the BLP violations you see here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)
 * As discussed on the talk for Trump-Russia Dossier the golden shower accusations, especially in Wikipedia's voice. In fact since every allegation is in Wiki's voice that is a problem. Also going into the poor sources litter throughout for some of these crazy claims. PackMecEng (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Before you criticize it, you should read the dossier. We must document its allegations, and the "salacious" one seems crazy, but that's what it is. NPOV requires that we not censor or alter it. We must present it as it is. The majority of the allegations are not salacious, and it's not in Wikipedia's voice. Attribution is used for the small amount of commentary, and the rest, which is straight presentation of what the allegations actually are, is very well sourced to very RS.
 * It's not a forbidden POVFORK, but a standard WP:SPINOFF because its size may create an undue weight situation. This is completely normal procedure. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I must say, all the statements appear to be well-sourced and attributed, so I don't see a BLP violation. The Dossier has attracted enormous attention and is of unquestioned significance, so an article that documents its contents is more likely to clarify the public discussion of it for our readers.  SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If by well-sourced you mean almost 1/3rd of them being opinion sources or not RS then yes it is well-sourced and attributed. PackMecEng (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We have no way of knowing which of the allegations may be true, but we do know what the Dossier says and we do know that the allegations are widely disseminated in mainstream press. By all means we can remove anything for which we don't have secondary discussion to establish noteworthiness, but the question here is whether there is substantial secondary coverage per GNG. "Keep" is rather a low bar, right?  SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a low bar, which is why we already have an article on the dossier. A second article, at this point, seems unnecessary. But we will see how this turns out, I could even be wrong. I think that has happened before. PackMecEng (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Telling about the existence of the dossier is the basic "duh" we have to do, but the public needs to know "what's in it". That's the part of interest to everyone. That's the part that has played a role in indictments and arrests. Having an article about a book's cover is somewhat pointless without describing the book's contents. That's the most important part. Due to the nature of the contents, Trump and some editors don't want Wikipedia to document those contents, even though myriad very RS write about the contents every single day. Even Fox News does it! Well, they are not going to stop us from doing what policy demands of us. "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Per my comment immediately above. Gives our readers a good detailed summary. The main Dossier article gives larger context, history, and related events.  SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, most of the claims in the dossier (particularly the Rosneft bribe) are obviously false on their face, and the "golden showers" allegation in particular has been convincingly debunked by Trump's longtime bodyguard Keith Schiller (cf. this very compelling explanation of how it ended up in the dossier), but it's still better to keep this stuff off the main page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources that debunk specific allegations should be included on the page, and it should be clearly stated which allegations have been debunked. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, I agree. That will be coming. The confirmation status of each allegation will be added as soon as RS reveal it. The ongoing Special Counsel investigation takes these allegations seriously, treating them as a national security threat which risks impeaching Trump. There is already enough evidence to have resulted in the convictions and indictments of several of his closest advisors. Trump supporters attempt to treat these as frivolous allegations but they aren't. This isn't gossip from the National Enquirer. It's intelligence from top experts in these areas and is treated seriously by American and foreign intelligence agencies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "debunked" is incorrect word. "Disputed" or "denied" would be more appropriate. For example, I do not think that sources by TTAAC actually prove, disprove or debunk anything. But the controversial and frequently opposite views from these sources should be included per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What in the article is worth keeping? For example if this ended with merge, what material would be worth merging? PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork with little, if any, redeeming value. Lepricavark (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lepricavark, your !vote will be discounted because you lack the competence to don't seem to understand the difference between a forbidden POV fork and a totally normal WP:SPINOFF. Deletion is not a solution, but merging might be. If you used legitimate arguments you'd have a chance of getting your !vote counted. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your bludgeoning and personal attacks notwithstanding, I'll let the closing admin decide how to view my !vote. Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Lepricavark, my sincerest apologies. You didn't deserve that. Stricken. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies accepted, and I have accordingly struck the relevant portion of my response. Lepricavark (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm so sorry. I got a bit carried away there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Happens to all of us from time to time. Lepricavark (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies NOTABLE and RS coverage every single day. The article is still growing as there are at least two types of content which will be added: (1) Commentary, which of course must be attributed, and (2) Confirmation status, since each allegation has its own status. The subject is extremely notable, receiving coverage in major RS literally every day for a year now, and the Special Counsel investigation is literally using this dossier as their "road map". Those are the words they use. This isn't going away. Our job is to document it, and the allegations are very important in that regard. That's what the dossier contains, and RS are constantly discussing them. We must document that.
 * Deletion is NOT the solution, but putting it into the main article might be, but then we'd have to spin it off fairly soon (again) anyway. What we have had is an article about a document which did not describe the contents of the document. That's absurd. This resolves that problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC) -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge A fork, and just how many article do we need related to this subject?Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge This article looks like a section from another. In fact it should be a section of the Trump-Russia dossier.Ravenanation (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ravenanation, that's exactly what it is, and it was indeed originally intended to be in that article. Now it's a legitimate WP:SPINOFF due to size constraints, and, per the proper SPINOFF method, has a section there pointing to the sub-article.
 * This is growing and will quickly create an undue weight situation. Deletion is not a legitimate option, but merging might be. We can then deal with size issues later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, these articles have to be merged and the allegations could be simplified. Ravenanation (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer, these articles have to be merged and the allegations could be simplified. Ravenanation (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Reluctant keep It seems like it should go into the main article about the dossier, but then that article would be huge with all the content from this one added. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 20:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Trump–Russia dossier & merge anything useful. An unneeded content fork and indiscriminate collection of information. If someone wants to read about the allegations in this detail, they might as well read the dossier which is available online. The main article is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Undecided. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep exceeds requirements for meeting GNG, WP:NRV, and WP:N due to the significant amount of attention this topic has received in reliable sources. It seems appropriate to have a standalone article along with the main article so both can be of a readable size per WP:SPINOFF. This article "...creates the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible" (per WP:SPINOFF) and solves the undue weight situation that would occur (per WP:SPINOFF). Also, the availability of so much reliable sourcing indicates NPOV, NOR, and BLP criteria are satisfied (including WP:Public figure) . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – A lot of the allegations have become notable in and of themselves, independently of their appearance in the Steele dossier. POVFORKy aspects can be solved by the normal editing process, taking care to document denials and notable commentary on each item. — JFG talk 12:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This AfD is not about meeting notability requirements. It is about POVFORK, NOR and WP:NPOV as it all relates to BLP policy. When we are performing original research in that editors are making their own selections of allegations and adding commentary about their selection, that is OR. When in article form, we are simply summarizing what the sources say about the dossier using inline citations and in-text attribution for the unsubstantiated salacious allegations. <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 📞📧 18:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The commentaries are fine if they properly summarize what the sources say about specific allegation. The list maybe needs to be expanded, but this is not a reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy violations are there - say what you will about the commentaries. We are dealing with an entire article based on partisan opposition research which is and of itself an WP:ATTACK on the opponent - the purpose of opposition research is to dig up dirt on the candidate. I hope editors are grasping why this is not commpliant, regardless of the sources, because the dossier was bought and paid for to include only dirt, unsubstantiated or not. Including a sentence or two with inline citations or in-text attribution is one thing, but an entire article of nothing but dirt? No. Just no. <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 📞📧 01:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Edit conflict, and I'm on my phone so I lost it. Atsme, I do think your points have been made, most of them multiple times, and it would be nice you would let others speak. MelanieN alt (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit tally: BullRangifer - 16 +3 fixes, My very best wishes - 17, Atsme - 11 +2 fixes +created AfD. Yep, Melanie - *sigh* I'm the one you single out. +1 more now. <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 📞📧 01:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It took me a while to decide how I feel about this article. At first I thought it should be in the main article, possibly under a show-hide button. The article is mostly about the dossier but does a very inadequate job of saying what's in it. But now that this has been identified and structured as a list, it makes sense. It's actually not unusual for us to supplement a regular article with a list article.  MelanieN alt (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC) (Yes, it's really me. --MelanieN)
 * Do you have an example of such a list article? I was looking though the MOS on lists and did not find anything that fit this kind of article. I was hoping you could point me in the right direction if I am missing something. PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just do a random search for "List of"; the vast majority of these articles have a related main article, which they supplement by adding detail which would be TMI for the main article. Just offhand and at random: List of English monarchs and Kingdom of England. List of Star Wars characters and Star Wars.List of Crayola crayon colors and Crayola crayons. List of Doctor Who episodes and Doctor Who. List of Lucchese crime family mobsters and Lucchese crime family. Etc. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SPINOFF has several examples. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * None of those are list articles. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not an issue of relating to the main article, it certainly is related to the main article. It is the list format we are using does not meet the MOS standard for lists, which is the point I was making. Even the examples of lists you gave do not meet what we have or even a format we would want to use for such content. The closest was perhaps the crime family list, but even then does not allow for the info needed for NPOV on this subject. With all the changes switching around on formats and what the article is. It comes across as trying to change the article around to anyway that might survive AFD. Which is not a good basis for creating an article. PackMecEng (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I share PackMecEng's concerns above. I have never seen a list like this, and I'm sure the list format is suboptimal format for complex allegations that have BLP implications. For example a reliable source may have commented some allegations in general level without going into details. If your argument is that changing the article into list format made the article worth keeping, the argument is not very strong. Politrukki (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * To summarize one last time why this article is not only a POVFORK, but an ATTACKPAGE:
 * - the dossier itself is a unverified document that was published by one unreliable source that is now involved in litigation over its publication.
 * - subsequent publications (court records) would make it a primary source that we are not supposed to use.
 * - we already have Trump-Russia dossier which desperately needs trimming because it does not even focus on what makes it notable, specifically the allegations.
 * - this perceived "list article" is unambiguously a POVFORK and ATTACKPAGE. No other president or public figure has an article devoted to unsubstantiated allegations.
 * - purposefully separating unsubstantiated allegations from the dossier article which should not/cannot exist without the allegations created an attack page, regardless of the spin used to justify keeping it.
 * - based on BLP policy, ATTACKPAGES should be speedy deleted. <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 📞📧 15:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - (almost forgot) there is also non-compliance with WP:SYNTH and WP:INDISCRIMINATE 16:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So you still haven't figured out what an attack page is at Wikipedia? It's a page that's "entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced" (emphasis added). I already explained it to you, but if you're not even going to read and respond, then your failure or refusal to get the point applies and your comments will be discounted. In fact, they amply demonstrate your lack of competence here and how frivilous this AfD really is. You're just repeatedly, here and everywhere else, a POV warrior who wikilawyers against what you don't like.
 * BTW, is this an "attack page"... Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations? Nearly all are unsubstantiated allegations, described in embarrassingly clear detail. So why is it allowed here? Because it's properly sourced! -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * sigh* BR, your persistent WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT is frustrating. Your responses contradict your own position.
 * Cosby was charged with a crime and tried in a court of law - you've been so intent on accusing me of not understanding that you've made it quite clear that it's you who doesn't.
 * There is a big difference between derogatory unsubstianted allegations in a politically motivated dossier vs allegations that led to felony charges.
 * Politically motivated research is partisan and occurs for the sole purpose of digging-up as much dirt on an opponent as possible - verified or not - rumors included. This article is not about allegations against Trump that resulted in actual felony charges, an arrest, and/or a trial.
 * See the AfD for Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations - it's closer to being an apples to apples comparison, and it resulted in a #REDIRECT to a section in the main article for many of the same reasons this article should except for the fact this article violates policy. Please, it's best to let a neutral admin weigh the arguments, and make a determination. <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 📞📧 17:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These examples are completely irrelevant because the significance of sexual misconduct allegations in these cases is nothing compare to significance of the allegations in the Dossier. The latter is something important for the entire country, possibly for the entire world. My very best wishes (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per MelanieN. A separate article in this form seems like a good way to cover the specific allegations in the dossier.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per MelanieN and just the general fact that the other article is already very long and is missing most of this information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The readable prose of Trump–Russia dossier, is currently 31 kb with 50 kb generally being considered the limit. Well below the limit. The article is not very long. The list in it's current form looks to be about 10 kb with the redundancies from the info the two share. PackMecEng (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is long. Not sure where you get the 50kb but that is at best an upper bound. Do you really think that stuffing this info into the parent article would be useful? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The 50 kb is from WP:SIZE, which yes is the upper limit they suggest before splitting. So currently the main article is at 31 kb, if we add all the non redundant parts of the list it would maybe be up to 36ish kb. Well short of the 50 kb suggested maximum. PackMecEng (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I find any arguments based on content size unconvincing because in the new article chunks of new material which has never seen daylight in the main article. On the talk page BullRangifer made several proposals about adding allegations, but the proposals never really gained traction (and I told them they should make proposals in smaller batches). If there's not even some kind of preliminary consensus to add dozens of allegations to the article, the size issue is artificially created non-issue. Politrukki (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether your description of the process is accurate or not, this actually cuts both ways - for those who argue the original article is too long and those who argue it's not. There's nothing anywhere that says that we must first exhaust the 50kb of one article before creating a sub-article. Indeed, good practice is to create a sub-article before we get there as it makes the organization of both original and spin off article easier.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, you have nailed exactly why I did a reverse spinoff. I have enough experience with article creation and spinoffs to see where this was going and just did it. Why waste all the time and effort, when we'd end up with a spinoff anyway? This allows both articles to develop and expand without constantly "looking over one's shoulder". Then the amount of coverage in RS dictates the content, not some often artificial size constraints. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per Atsme. WP:POVFORK which violates WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. FallingGravity 01:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per MelanieN. The article itself is very long. Good way to cover what is actually in the document.Casprings (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork. Where is the mention that the allegations are largely/mostly (depends on the source) unsubstantiated/unverified?
 * An edit which deleted the old Contents section in the main article actually made the main article worse because the edit removed content that partially corroborates Michael Cohen was not in Prague. Yet Cohen and the allegations are still mentioned in the main article. Moreover, after the content had been moved to the new article, this edit added editorialising "revealed" to the content. Cited source (RFE/RL) says "pointed out" (and Respekt – the original source – just says it's theoretically possible).


 * The main article is under "consensus required" provision, which means that any challenged edit cannot be reinstated without talk page consensus. Some of the content added to the new article has been challenged in the main article. For example Rosneft allegations (technically a different edits, but similar content) have been challenged at least twice in the main article. In that light creating a new article could be seen as gaming the system.

A quick follow-up question: in the main article I supported including some allegations related to Rosneft, with certain conditions. In November, I provided sources that say these allegations remain unverified. Why did you (a) omit well-sourced information that the allegations remain unverified but (b) included vague allegations of treason? Yes, I could easily fix (a) myself, but I won't per explanation in my !vote. Politrukki (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article was moved to a list article, but it's unclear what kind of selection criteria should be used. Currently the list consists of 25 allegations, 15 of them are without commentary or denial. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE we should not list allegations without providing context. The dossier is a catalyst for many things, but individual allegations are not important unless they have been widely discussed in reliable sources. Politrukki (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Politrukki, thanks for your concerns. I'm going to check those details you mention and try to resolve them. Improvement is always desired, and your concerns will be taken seriously. The weekend is nearly here, and your concerns are my top priority.
 * There was obviously no attempt to game the system. The existing content in the old "Contents" section was woefully lacking, so I developed what was intended as its replacement to be used there. This was done without looking at the rest of the article. As I worked, it became apparent that there was far more than enough to already create an undue weight problem. Seeing that it would quickly grow to the point of needing to be spun off anyway, per WP:SPINOFF, I did a reverse spinoff. This happens all the time. That's why this isn't a forbidden POV fork (no one has presented any evidence that it is), but a legitimate SPINOFF subarticle. I have seen attempts by POV warriors to hide or sideline uncomfortable content which they don't want in a main article. This is not such an attempt. I'd love to have it all there, but it's much easier to develop content without an "article size" axe over one's head.
 * As far as the choice of which allegations to mention (there are several which are not mentioned), my hands were tied on that one. The only ones included are those which "have been widely discussed in reliable sources". That is the inclusion criteria required by our policies. Inclusion of allegations which have not been so discussed would be OR. That would be a newbie mistake, and I'm no newbie here. If any of the other allegations receive more coverage, they may get added, and if anyone discovers such coverage, they are welcome to add them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Politrukki, I have done my best to improve the denial content. Take a look here. I hope that meets your concerns. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Politrukki, I have now added content about the confirmation status. We're moving in the right direction. As we get information on each allegation, we'll also add it where it belongs. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * While you moved the article into right direction, your diff shows that you reinstated challenged edit(s), which might be a problem.
 * Very interesting, and definitely something I must deal with when I get home. I'm constantly interrupted where I'm at right now, but will deal with this later.
 * I really appreciate your collegial spirit. This type of team effort editing is described in my essay WP:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. There I have a statement which has been my mantra here for over 15 years:
 * "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." This is why the best content is developed through collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view. Everyone is biased, and it is natural for humans to be blind to their own biases; we tend to suffer from confirmation biases  and the Dunning–Kruger effect. Therefore other editors provide an important counterbalancing service when they spot and correct the consequences of our biased editing. When pointing out such editing errors, it is important to follow the Golden Rule and assume good faith in fellow editors. No one is perfect. (Emphasis added)
 * I will deal with this. Thanks again. "Stay tuned to this station for further updates!" -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as POV fork. We don't have lists of things that are completely covered by a single article. The only purpose for such an article is looser sourcing requirements.  That's not a valid reason for a list. Lists must span multiple articles. --DHeyward (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ??? The sourcing requirements are exactly as strict as for BLP content anywhere at Wikipedia. Fortunately, there is no policy which relaxes those demands. There are also many kinds of list articles. This is a subarticle. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Not a POVFORK but a valid spin-off of the regular article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per MelanieN and Casprings. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 00:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as it is a POV fork of Trump–Russia dossier and not much more than a list disguised as an article. We have too much of this as it is, and the fact that the references are larger than the prose (an ineffective defensive move) doesn't make it less of a POV issue.  Once merged, it can be trimmed down.  Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be summerizations of facts, not exhaustive lists of every possible detail and every possible source.  Keeping the gist of the content is important, keeping every detail in multiple articles is undue.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Right now there is very little content overlap between this sub-page and main page. One could argue that almost all this page should be copy-pasted and included to the corresponding section of main page. However, that would be bad solution because this page is essentially a list, and placing a list in the middle of a regular page contradicts our manual of style. "We have too much of this" is a frequent argument and usually an incorrect one. As long something has been described in a large number of RS, and someone is willing to create a page, this is never too much. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MVBW - the allegations are the dossier - the two are inseparable. We already have the Trump-Russia dossier which should focus entirely on the allegations that comprise the dossier instead of all the cruft, speculation and commentary that developed before or after the fact; none of it is directly relevant to the dossier or the memos it comprises. The Trump-Russia collusion investigation by Mueller is entirely separate, connected only by media claims that the FBI and Mueller used the dossier for leads. Anything more and we're dredging up unchartered territory. The sections in the main article including "Hints of existence", "Veracity", "Reputation in the US intelligence community" (?which are attempts to validate the dossier?), "Carter Page testimony", and half of the material in the "Reactions section" should be removed or trimmed substantially based on NPOV, UNDUE and IMBALANCE, and the focus changed to the Allegations section where parts of this "list" should be merged. <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 📞📧 20:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I simply think that having the allegations as a list (this page) is helpful for a reader to understand what the dossier actually claims. On the other hand, there were lots of publications about the dossier, and this requires having a standard wikipage. Hence having both the regular page and the list is simply helpful for a casual reader (like myself). This is the same as for many other WP subjects presented by a regular page and lists. The only difference here is political significance of the subject. But this is an argument to "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * First, you started this spurious and baseless AfD to delete this list, and have described in excruciating detail how it violated practically every policy and guideline, nearly always showing a failure to understand them.
 * Now you've performed a complete about face and admit that this is really the only part worth keeping and want to get rid of the main article, even though it's super notable and very well sourced.
 * Those two positions are in conflict with each other, and appear to reveal that your real goal is to totally eliminate the subject from Wikipedia. I don't see any other way to harmonize those conflicting ideas. Am I wrong?
 * Please review the article creation criteria here. You don't seem to keep them in mind when you attack content and articles which meet those criteria. When they meet those criteria, whether you like the subject or not, it would be more constructive if you used your energies on improving article content, rather than seeking to eliminate notable and well-sourced subjects. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are wrong. I've said all that I'm going to say about this topic. Have a good weekend. <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 📞📧 23:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comments: your nomination reflects your intentions. Even though I prefer noms to clearly include the intentions (as a !vote) it usually not. However, the above actually is a confusing double "!vote" --OR--- it should be noted you are apparently changing your nomination position. Otr500 (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sure the closer will be able to figure it out. But I do not see above where they appear to change their vote. Which part do you mean? PackMecEng (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My bad! This has become a two editor comment/counter comment war and I missed it was a reply to a !vote. Otr500 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You actually realized that Atsme expressed a total about face change of !vote above, without using the !vote format. I'll quote her own words below.
 * FACT: She originally started this AfD to delete the list, and her own words show that she now recognizes that this list is the content worth keeping: "the allegations are the dossier".
 * FACT: She wants to change the main article, eliminating most of its current content, so "the focus changed to the Allegations section where parts of this "list" should be merged." Note the word "parts". That signals her intentions, which are well-known from previous comments. If she gets her way, the allegations section would then be reduced to something like five or less items, with no elaboration or context, since she considers the dossier a fake document and the allegations all unsubstantiated and unworthy of mention at all, in spite of the notability and wide, daily, coverage of the topic and allegations in RS.
 * The indictments and arrests of Trump's closest advisors show these are serious matters. Intelligence agencies take the dossier, and especially the allegations, very seriously as a largely accurate document (their "road map"). Their are investigating all the allegations. Instead of taking this seriously, Atsme thinks this is all a "coverup". Yes, that's what she wrote.
 * She doesn't think there was any Russian interference either. We're dealing with a fringe POV pusher who created a spurious AfD to rid Wikipedia of a very notable subject she doesn't like. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you have made your point about Atsme enough in this AFD and elsewhere that it is time to give it a rest. You are starting to go to far. PackMecEng (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BullRangifer has misrepresented everything I've said, even after I posted a warning on his TP to stop the aspersions and PAs. He refuses to stop and I've grown weary of his badgering other editors who oppose his position, and his fallacious claims against me. Perhaps a stern warning for him to stop will help so I'm pinging in an effort to keep the peace and allow this AfD to run its course without further disruption. Thank you. <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 📞📧 22:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong "Merge (back) and redirect: If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is surely a POVFORK duck. Did I miss something: '''Severe procedural violations per WP:SPINOUT (also referred to as WP:SUBARTICLE):
 * "To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which permit modification and reuse but require attribution of the content contributors, the new page should be created with an edit summary noting "split content from article name ". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to article name ", to protect against the article subsequently being deleted and the history of the new page eradicated. The Copied template can also be placed on the talk page of both articles.".
 * Extra comments: Read the opening paragraph of this article/then list/then disguised article, "The Trump-Russia dossier is a private intelligence dossier of 17 memos" so we would need a redundant "list" for what exact reason? At best this is an inproper spinoff. At worse it is a biased original research collection of synthesis. An article was created then changed to list class with content being removed from the parent article and used to create an article disguised as a "list class". I can not imagine an impartial closer seeing this as anything other than a form of subterfuge even if with intended good faith. This disguised fork should be deleted with extreme prejudice and per actual discretionary sanctions ordered to only proceed again with consensus on a user page if some "list" is deemed appropriate. It is being pushed that the "parent" article is too large but is only 31 kB (4952 words) "readable prose size". Per SIZE 40 kB: Length alone does not justify division and 50 kB would be a consideration. However, editorial junk cleaning (mentioned in comments above) could reduce the current size enough to include what is being attempted by creating a fork. Many of the "keep" !votes above mention this could be covered in Trump–Russia dossier where this content belongs. It keeps being offered as a "subpage" anyway. I am confused as to why there is a push to keep a redundant list of a list (17 memos), that are presented in prose, and how that could possibly "assist" a reader. Considering this it becomes clear a second "list" is a an indiscriminate collection of information as indicated above.   Otr500 (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you bolded all the crucial parts of your comment? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Otr500, I'm not going to try to debunk each of your points for a simple reason, and you even allude to it: You asked "Did I miss something?". Yes, you pretty much got it backwards, and in so doing assumed bad faith in my efforts, so the rest is quite misguided by that misunderstanding of what actually happened.
 * If you'll read MY explanations on the article/list talk page, you'll see I tried to explain my process. This isn't my first rodeo. SPINOFFs and reverse spinoffs are nothing new to me. This ended up a reverse spinoff because the job grew as I did it, and there is plenty of room for growth. Each allegation has been covered in myriad RS, and much more context will be added. It would have been spun off quickly anyway. Seeing that mountain ahead, I just cut to the chase. Others have seen the wisdom of this approach. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Many people voted "merge" during this discussion, but what exactly do they suggest? To copy-paste this entire page except the lead to the corresponding section of main page? One should have a separate discussion about merging, not an AfD. 2601:400:8000:EA18:ACCD:A3B0:BAB7:393A (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * IP393A - regarding "merge" some AfDs will end-up as MERGE. It is an issue I have intentions of researching to the point a proposal for change can be reached to eliminate the ambiguities as soon as I can get a break from other pressing issues. I am trying to collaborate with another editor regarding this topic. In the interim, we do what we can do until the delete-merge issues can be resolved. Regarding this AfD, our first priority is policy and the multiple policies I named above leave little to no room for indecision. <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 📞📧 23:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't Wikilawyer attacks against other editors. You in fact attempted to debunk my entire comments, throwing in that I attacked you, and then just typed a lot of bull that did not explain anything. I read the list and article, read down the comments observing that many "keeps" were weak and also suggesting merging, and saw improprieties with the separation of the articles. I have no hidden agenda, and am not a Trump fan, but this spin-off/out/down, or whatever you wish you call it, can be covered in the parent article. Wikipedia is not a chrystal ball to look at future expansion probablilities You stated, "This is growing and will quickly create an undue weight situation. Deletion is not a legitimate option, but merging might be. We can then deal with size issues later.". Size is not a legitimate reason to split, spin-off, or spin-out at this time but creates a very bad looking attack page and a redundant list falling under what Wikipedia is not. I am sorry you might be hurt that others disagree with you but please refrain from subtile attacks by making it appear you have been attacked first so intitled to retaliate. I would suggest you take a refreshing look at WP:5P4 concerning respect and civility. It also states there are reportedly 5,559,643 other articles to improve and discuss if you are getting too wrapped up in this one. I state this because I am informed that it is the job of the closer to "debunk" comments to arrive at consensus so you really don't need to fill the page with unnecessary comments on anyone that has a different opionion than yours. Otr500 (talk)


 * AFD outcome: "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.". All but the first is an indication that the subject does not warrant a stand-alone article. Otr500 (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have seen people cite links to numerous guidelines here, but in some cases I don’t think they have read the guidelines they are citing.
 * WP:POVFORK has been cited over and over here, by numerous people. But this is what that link says: "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies…. Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." This article is not the result of a content disagreement, and there is no discrepancy between the two articles in terms of their point of view. Whatever it is, it is not a POVFORK.
 * WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the examples given at that guideline have anything to do with this article. There is nothing indiscriminate about this list. The items listed all come from a single source; they are being summarized in list form to make them more readable and to put the commentary together with the allegation. No allegations have been added. No allegations that received significant coverage have been omitted. It is exactly what it says it is, no more, no less, and there is nothing indiscriminate about it.
 * WP:Original research, WP:Synthesis. The selection of items in the list had nothing to do with synthesis or original research. They are, item by item, taken from the dossier. And they are not redundant to the original article, which historically did not include this information. In fact, the draft was originally created with the intention that it would be a subsection of the article, since the article did not contain much information about the actual allegations in the dossier. As the draft developed and its size became apparent, the creator decided to launch it as a standalone article. But if it is deleted, we will put it into the article instead. It has to be somewhere. Our reporting on the dossier is incomplete without it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking in general terms: Using a fresh article to itemize list a group of material that would not otherwise be included in such detail in the main article may also be seen as a POV fork, ie: the only reason to start the new article is that consensus doesn't exist to put all that information in the main article. With a fresh fork that focuses only one aspect, there is less scrutiny for information that may be undue, as there are fewer eyes on it from the main article.  This is particularly common when someone wants to spread the Truth®.  How or if that applies here, I leave to others to determine, but my point is just that there are more ways to create a POV fork than you are listing.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, Dennis, there WAS discussion at the original article about creating a Contents section that would give details about what was actually in the dossier. (For some reason the article had focused mostly the history of the dossier and commentary about it, but had never included more than a bare-bones summary of the actual content.) The discussion was Talk:Trump–Russia dossier, and the initial understanding was that it would be a section of the article. BullRangifer decided to launch it as a separate article instead, to the surprise of several of us. Comments about adding it to the article: User:Atsme initially said “Good start, BullRangifer” but struck that when she found out it was a new article; she G10 tagged the new article, and when that was declined she AFDed it, and here we are. Next to comment was User:PackMecEng, who objected to the new article’s tone and sourcing. Next to comment was me; I supported adding detail about the contents to the article, possibly under a show/hide button. I initially thought creating a new article was “a little odd”; later I came to support the new article but would also support including the material in the article. Next was User:My very best wishes who supported the new article AND an expansion of the content section on the main page. The rest of the discussion was about whether to revdel any link to the dossier. So basically, the idea of including something in the article was not a subject of great controversy, and this material will probably be put into the main article if the sub-article is deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My comment in that section was one of shock that such a page would even be created. The tone and sourcing was just the first eyeball (more on the sources was discussed on this talk page under "In Wikipedia's voice"?), but I agreed with Atsme's G10 as an attack page. Also from Atsme's reply to my comment, it sounds like she misunderstood what BullRangifer had posted which was the strike. PackMecEng (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * MelanieN, to further clarify, you were correct regarding my not being aware of his intentions to create another article. I struck my words when I found out. I thought he decided to collaborate in response to my suggestions when I read the section title, All new contents section focused on allegations, and saw where he had agreed to only document the main allegations that were reported on by multiple secondary RS. This list actually fits the description of WP:ATTACKPAGE and contains far more than the 5 or 6 major allegations reported by RS. ATTACKPAGE states: If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person, and there is no neutral version in the history to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person. I have not yet seen an argument that convinces me this list of unsubstantiated allegations doesn't consist primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person. I thought the light was finally shining on NPOV at the main article, but I was mistaken. According to VOX, there were only 6 major allegations in the dossier that were about collusion, all of which remain unverified. The only allegations that have been verified are what we already knew without the dossier - Russian interference and Carter Page's trip to Russia. The sources I suggested for the updates included: VOX, The Atlantic, CNN and New Yorker, all updated late 2017, early 2018 with more realistic reporting of the facts, not conspiracy theories as before. <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 📞📧 04:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Neutral version" does not mean excluding "negative" information from a page. To the contrary, such info must be included. Per WP:NPOV, "Neutral version" means a version that "represents fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias," all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. . That is what main page on the subject suppose to do, and I think it actually does. But we are talking about this page, the list. Speaking about lists, the neutrality here is simply including all items that belong to the list per reliable sources. Yes, including explanations what every item means is fine. However, excluding items, even if they clearly belong to a list is not. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. the information does not duplicate--the main article is, as it should be, primarily about the discussion of the matter.The amount of such discussion is sufficiently lage that the separation helps clarity.  DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep based on above comments, also echoing concerns about article size I think it is a valid spinoff rather than a POVFORK. Seraphim System ( talk ) 01:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Your candor is appreciated, MelanieN - different perspectives are what contribute to the quality articles this encyclopedia strives to present - but as the nominator of this AfD, I disagree with what you've presented. because, quite frankly, it's reductio ad absurdum. I nominated this article - now a list - because it is an ATTACKPAGE that initially got its legs (tines?) as a POVFORK for all the reasons mentioned throughout this AfD. I'll add the fact that BuzzFeed is considered an unreliable source, and in this case, the only source that published the full dossier - is that the source being used for this list of allegations? According to BuzzFeed, they are now facing 2 litigations as a result. We should also keep in mind that other news orgs declined publishing the full dossier and criticized BuzzFeed for doing so. The New York Times confirmed in this artice that they chose to publish generalized descriptions instead. For WP to separate certain allegations from the main article and publish them as a list with commentary is well...fill in the blanks. Opposition research by its very nature is an attack on a political opponent, and attempts to justify its validity as encyclopedic for no other reason than news organizations published articles/opinions/analysis about it (noting that WP:NEWSORG is only reliable for statements of fact) is ludicrous at best. WP is not a political SOAPBOX from which to "resist" or spread rumors and conspiracy theories by anonymous sources. I stand by my decision as nominator. <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 📞📧 02:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Small side issue: you might want to read Reductio ad absurdum. It does not apply in any way here. It's all very well to mention your opponent's logical absurdities in your arguments, but they ought to be something the opponent actually did. --MelanieN (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooops - struck. RE: WP:CFORK - lede states: A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies. It doesn't necessarily have to arise from a disagreement but then I did challenge WEIGHT & BALANCE, and suggested that the whole thing be rewritten. The guideline also states: There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. This list is along those lines, only worse - it's a list of unsubstantiated allegations that were compiled into a dossier for a political candidate to defame their opponent. I believe it fits the description of an ATTACKPAGE. RE: indiscriminate collection, OR & SYNTH - the allegations were chosen from what source, the list was created based on what order, and who chose those particular allegations? Were the allegations and commentary cherry picked from multiple sources to form one list? <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 📞📧 05:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not an "attack page", please stop making stuff up. It's a very well sourced, encyclopedic article. "I just don't like it" =/ "attack page". And per WP:DELETE "I just don't like it" is not a valid argument for deletion.
 * And are you seriously questioning what the dossier says? Because *originally* it was published by Buzzfeed? I haven't seen a single source out there which claim that the dossier doesn't say what it actually says. This sounds like a lame excuse for, well, "I just don't like it".
 * And repeat after me - the criteria for deletion have nothing to do with POV. They have to do with notability. And it's pretty much impossible to argue that the contents of the dossier are non-notable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant whether or not the dossier is opposition research. All that matters is the coverage the dossier has received in multiples of reliable sources, which it has. Whether or not Buzzfeed was the only publication to publish the entire dossier doesn't matter. All that matters is the coverage the dossier has received in multiples of reliable sources, which it has. Litigation against Buzzfeed is also irrelevant. Also, there are no instances of persistent disruptive editing that led to creating this independent article - so POV fork has no standing in this AfD. The many references in this article and the corresponding prose (in this article), demonstrate this is no way an attack page, shows there is no SYNTH, and shows there is no WP:OR. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep because it's important information central to an important historical controversy. Merging it into the Trump–Russia dossier article is impractical because that article is already large. Mksword (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments: A list of a "list" to further attack anyone is always appropriate on Wikipedia? I don't think so. When we can find no other actual reason for this "extra explanatory" list we can push that "one day" the initial article might be too big so let's split it early as a proactive anticipation and cite future WP:SIZE as reasoning. If someone rebutts the size aregument (less than 40 kB) we can ignore that because there are ample WP:RS and no reason to trim the parent article so let's just create another. Wait! The ample reliable sources would be the same ones that would still be suitable in the parent article had the "extra explanatory" attack page not been created. We can also ignore that the sibling article was created without following normal procedures and push that it is now NPOV because in some instances we have inserted a denial area. Here is an example of an attack:
 * Allegation: That Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, had a secret meeting with Kremlin officials in Prague in August 2016,[11][46][47] where he arranged "deniable cash payments" to the hackers and sought "to cover up all traces of the hacking operation", as well as "cover up ties between Trump and Russia, including Manafort's involvement in Ukraine".
 * Denial: Trump and Cohen have denied the allegations. Cohen said that between August 23 and August 29 he was in Los Angeles and in New York for the entire month of September. According to a Czech intelligence source, there is no record of him entering Prague by plane, but Respekt magazine revealed that he could have entered by car or train from a neighboring country in the Schengen Zone.
 * A conspiracy to connect Trump and a denial but then the added Respekt magazine report Cohen "could have traveled by car or train" is thrown in. This is inflammatory because there is no re-rebuttal or evidence to contradict or support the claim but a "denial" of a claim and then thrown in editorial bias. Was Cohen in "any" other country but the US during the time-frame in question? If we are only attacking Trump (even through Cohen) we don't care that it is too easy to prove Cohen a liar by travel documents but can just state a possible senario of a car or train. None of this could happen "IF" Cohen was in fact only in the US so why document it on Wikipedia as a fact that Cohen (and Trump) "must be guilty" because he could have taken a bus, car, or train to Prague even "IF" Cohen possibly never left the US during the time in question. This is twisted biased writing to "PROVE" the allegations are true and not just cover the subject fairly. The entire EXTRA list of a list is full of these not so secret attacks and we are not suppose to stoop to this form of writing on Wikipedia and especially concerning a BLP. This "extra" list serves no purpose other than to continue inflammatory reportings that could still be covered fairly in the parent article. That is just a plain and simply fact. I did not check the reliability of the source but being inquisitive I looked and found Crucial error in Trump dirty dossier revealed: Man named as his ‘lawyer’ is not even American – and the real one denies he has ever been to city where he ‘met Kremlin agents’. The article even states that the "Cohen connected to Trump" even tweeted a picture of his passport and reportedly evidence Cohen "...did not leave or enter the United States during this time.". "IF" this is true then Wikipedia is only advancing a smear campaign that essentially makes this whole list of lists a BIASED political propoganda piece, and no doubt an indiscriminant collection of derogatory information, because there is no neutrality of sources.
 * Fact: The "ONLY" valid reasoning to have a separate list of lists would be the pushed article size and needed expansion. According to the above listed "size" criteria that has not been reached, the parent article can be trimmed, and editorial bias certinly appears evident by this list article content and needs to be addressed no matter where it is at. This was created as a redundant article then changed to list-class that seems to be a reason to avoid an AFD but it is still an unnecessary list of lists. Otr500 (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is just a list. Yes, it contains multiple well sourced allegations about a powerful person (some of the allegations were actually true), but this is not a valid reason for deletion. I would like to remind: this is a discussion about deletion, as Atsme emphasized many times during this discussion. If anyone wanted to merge this page they suppose to simply open a discussion about "merging". My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge - Clear and obvious fork. Carrite (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per MelanieN. Valid spinout of a long article, with sources that prima facie, look reliable. Documenting allegations which have been extensively reported on in reliable sources is an area that requires an abundance of caution, but is not ipso facto a reason to delete content. Merging and issues with sourcing does not have to be done at AFD, and should be done on the article talk page. Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Draft-ify a pox on both your houses. I find both the keep and the delete arguments here awful.  Merging this article back to Trump–Russia dossier will make that article worse.  With no other option, my !vote is to move this to draft space to see if it can be made to look like an encyclopedia article.  I feel the "Allegation / Denial" structure is bad, and the level of detail excessive; if a page with this much detail on the contents of Moby-Dick existed, it would surely be deleted. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 23:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete- as per nom. WP:POVFORK, an attack article, and WP:PUBLICFIGURE violation. Article is extremely biased with one-sided commentary. We have an article on the dossier, that's enough.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The (incorrect) arguments of povfork or attack page have already been sufficiently covered above, but how in the world does this article violate WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Really guys, AfD is not a place to just throw out random Wikipedia policies in the hope that one of them will stick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:28, 30 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.