Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States journalism scandals (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Problems (cleanup, possible rename, ...) can be adressed at article talk page. Fram (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

United States journalism scandals
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: Pointless article. The notable incidents, for which there are separate articles, should be categorized. The other incidents are present in the respective articles on the newspapers or media outlet. Particular any scandal involving any particular media outlet should be mentioned in the article on that media.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep:(USA) The point of this article is that (as a part of the "Journalism project"), this is the only place where a journalism perspective can be represented and a broad historical and demographical overview can exist. That said, the article DOES need to be stripped of non-notable scandals. Also, subsequent commenters, as this is an article on United States journalism scandals, please state here whether you reside in the United States or elsewhere. All POV's from all over the world are important and welcome, but too many international perspectives I have encountered here are uninformed as to the weight of US journalism perspectives. WNDL42 (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete: This is a fork for POV worriors imo - articles like this should be discouraged, especially as they get linked-to on the main articles, and are often a bug-blanket of POV extensions! It's easier for people to force through arguments that can't cut it on the main articles, as only a relatively small amount of people watch these pages. They then become "See also" links on other articles, even when locked. The Insight section alone should be reason enough to delete this - I've wasted hours here now trying to (unsuccessfully) maintain what I feel is simply standard Wikipedia practice.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Excellent summary article, I have referred to it twice to remember that guy at that paper, you know the one... the scandal thing. Its an excellent way to find the exact story if you only have inexact information. The rpoblem with having ONLY a category and no list is that you have already know what your looking for to find an article that has been categorized, then you can follow the category into other articles. Here you can follow the link to this article from the "see also" section of the article on journalism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But was it "excellent" yesterday or today? It's seen a few changes lately! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Conditional keep (probably as list) - I created this article as part of the cleanup of the main "journalistic scandals" article, which at that time was a list of scandals rather than an article on journalistic scandalism per se. The cleanup and continuation was left in the hands of those who had asked for the help. I see in fact little or nothing was done; even the main article still contains the untouched place-holders where sourced encyclopedic content was needed. This article might be better in a different format - for example refactored into a list with brief notes (and links if any), or in some other format. List of United States journalism scandals is probably viable. A sprawling mess of an article is not. I would have to say "subject matter encyclopedic but needs a concerted cleanup and perhaps a move to list format". FT2 (Talk 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But the problem with a simple list is when the section title itself is contentious!! (like with the Insight story). And how will only the one Talk page cope if the article gets popular?? the Insight row is surely the tip of the iceberg given how broad the title is. It could easily fill with subjective controversial stuff - and it's always harder to 'summarise' something controversial, anyway. At the moment hardly anyone knows about the article - if you look at the Talk page it doesn't even have any archives - and what is there is 90% to do with one story (the Insight story) - which is surely the tip of the iceberg in terms of potential problems. HOW CAN IT BE SO GREAT WHEN THERE HAS BEEN NO TALK??--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The title can be discussed if needed. A problematic title (if it is) does not render a topic as a deletion.
 * Talk pages cope at George Bush, Global warming, and hundreds of other articles more popular.
 * It could have poor quality material added by some users, but the issue here is notability not cleanup. We don't delete for cleanup issues. We do cleanup for that problem.
 * Size of talk page comes from editorial work done, when editorial work is done then there will be discussion as needed.
 * "Delete - no talk page comments" is a novel idea. FT2 (Talk 18:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No one has suggested that the article title, or the lack of Talk, are reasons for deletion in themselves!!! Reasons are: POV forking, it being a non-Wikipedia type "article" (we just can't maintain a Wikipedia with these type of hybird forks along with all the main articles too), it being far too-broad a list (and so will become far far too big), and that only one Talk page has to cover all the guaranteed debate about what is and isn't scandalous!!! (both as suitable stories, and within the contentious details too). One Talk page needs to cover each "scandal" - it's ridiculous! This list/article is simply not a 'standard' WP article - probably for all the solid reasons popping up here. The lack of Talk-page discussion in the last 6 months needed pointing out as it shows that SO FAR this is not a popular article. The argument that editors are simple "there at hand" when needed is a lazy one, and simply untrue imo. And I have to stress that Notability is NOT the main issue here! (though it is for many AfD's, it's just a secondary argument for this one).--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per above, although I agree that the "scandals" title should be moved to something else. Like any other profession, journalism has departures from the acceptable.  Well-sourced, detailed, and an excellent topic.  Mandsford (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you mean it needs to be made just a simple list? --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep but needs major cleanup The article seems good and is well sourced. But last time I looked, it contains too much non notable incidents involving journalism in general and looks very messy. A major cleanup is needed. Chris!  c t 03:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It could be useful for someone wanting to know the history of journalism mistakes and misdeeds. However it might be just as well if each item was only a sentence or so to explain what it was about with a link to the main article.Redddogg (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. We just did this two weeks ago. I'm finding little beyond disruption in the nominator's string of AFDs. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The list of "scandals" seems kind of spotty. One was an incident at a college newspaper. There are also some more important incidents that have been left out. How can we decide if something is a "scandal" or not? Steve Dufour (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * .....all good reasons to hit the button labelled edit this page. As others have pointed out, "scandals" is a ridiculous name, and there's a button labelled move.  People who aren't sure about whether a change is appropriate can click on discuss; those who are concerned about maintaining--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC) the page can click on watch; those who want to investigate a questionable change and the who and when can click history.  In my opinion, even incidents at a college newspaper (in this case, the reporter was the victim of a hoax) are instructive to persons who are making journalism their career, but other editors might disagree.  It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not quite the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. What about those who get banned? We have all been given policies to adhere to. It's my opinion that this article will become a bug-blanket for the type of people who are potentially bannees, the often-suspended, sockpuppets, extreme-POV-pushers and general consensus/policy/admin-ignorers. Can one single Talk page deal with all of those people, over an ever-increasing amount of often-controversial scandals (50...100...200?). A whole shed-load of problems will be avoided by acting now, imo. A simple list linking to worthy articles - surely is the very max here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * KeepJournalists love to write about the failings of other journalists, so there will be no shortage of reliable sources. I strongly disagree with Matt Lewis's view that we should delete an article because it might attract vandals, loons, crackpots, and editors who will violate policies and require blocking or banning. That is what the little button is for on the editing screens of admins. Edison (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You have misreported me - I didn't say "imo, might become" - I said "imo, WILL become"! (a big difference there, even as an opinion). I think some people give AfD's all of 2 seconds to make a judgement on. What about my 'single Talk page' argument - no-one has addressed it? And shouldn't these stories at least have their own articles for this page to be policy/guideline-friendly? I just don't see it as a fitting Wikipedia page at all. Aside from the content, it's far too broad as a list - and concise summaries of contentious subjects are fraught with danger. Wikipedia is essentially about ARTICLES!!! Forks and lists must be carefully looked at, not casually accepted. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment You have a healthy concern for Wikipedia, which is good. I think that some of the things you worry about can happen to any article.   A lot of us are of the opinion that the "free market" takes care of a lot of problems, such that if an article is popular enough to attract troublemakers, it's also popular enough to attract people who police it for additions that don't belong.  I think most of us agree with you that the title of the article is "contentious".  I find it kind of ironic that we're defending journalists from being associated with that sell-papers word, "scandal", but there's nothing lurid or subversive that I see in these lapses of good judgment.  Assuming that this is not going to be deleted, would you be willing to suggest a better title that we can move this to?   Further rebuttal is cool too, but any suggestions for improvement would be welcome.  Mandsford (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing is coming to mind - and I think it's because of the flaws. As Steve Dufour and yourself point out, we have current problems on deciding what is a "scandal" - as it is so often a subjective POV (and therefore intrinsically un-WP). So what do we change it to? Honestly, nothing comes to mind - obviously we can't make it potentially even bigger! It's a broad enough list as it is! Do you have any ideas yourself? I'm still worried about the single Talk-page issue if it ever gets popular - and how big can an article be anyway? This one is theoretically enormous, surely? Regarding the surely over-simplistic argument that editors are always here to police it - well, where have they been? I must say I actually resent the time I've spent on this, because I've already spent the same time on four other articles now on the Insight story (including one that lost an AfD). This article was by far the toughest to work on properly: ultimately I feel because it lacks weight, respect and, frankly, editors. Is it fair to make people have to Watch so many articles about the same story? Other articles have suffered regarding my own Wiki-time (imho). And as I said at the other AfD, Wikipedia would become completely unmanageable if these type of forks became commonly accepted. How could we all focus? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The talk page of this article shows intense debate about a few scandals. I have not seen intense debate over all the entries. It really seems pretty tame. I have seen a general consensus in the media that many of the things listed are notable cases of journalistsc wrongdoing. Most of the discussion page battles will get settled, there will be a consensus, otr it will go through some dispute resolution, then life will go on.  The article should be expanded to include scandals of Pulitzer, Hearst, and other predecessors of today's journalists. Yellow journalism, coverups, plaigarism, fraud, and other reportorial misconduct did not start in the 1930's. Edison (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But where does it end? Since this version of the article was created in August 2007 there has only ever been 2 debates in Talk! (CBS News and Insight - not much in over 6 months). The preceding article was called "Journalistiic scandals", but no-one moved the original Talk over. I notice the first major editor on this article is now fully banned! (User:Bmedley Sutler, a sock of User:Fairness And Accuracy For All!!) A suitably sleazy start methinks!!--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but significantly revamp. Yes, the subject is notable, but as is often the case on Wikipedia, the article suffers from blatant recentism. 37 scandals in the 2000s, 7 in the 1990s, and just three from previous decades. Nothing on John Peter Zenger, the Alien and Sedition Acts, Hearst and the Maine, etc, etc. Really, journalism was a lot more vitriolic and contentious in the late 18th and 19th centuries, so including every plagiarist from the past couple of years but saying nothing about the more distant past indicates big-time sloppiness. So I would suggest dramatic pruning from the top and generous additions at the bottom. Biruitorul (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not actually the main argument for deletion, in this case. (although which "scandals" are notable will always be a debatable issue if it the article stays and actually becomes popular). Who will do the pruning? You can put the 18C and 19C scandals in - put who takes the other stuff out to make it manageable? And how can a single Talk page deal with any resultant discussion? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article survives, which seems likely, let's take the matter to the talk page and, well, talk about it. Biruitorul (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you have to say, though? Maybe it will survive - but this isn't supposed to be a simple head-count: somebody ultimately reads the list/article, and this AfD, and then makes a decision (hopefully leaving a reason). I just want to put the case across - and show all readers that this isn't just the basic-level "Notability" AfD (as some people quickly dropping by could easily think) - it's about article-acceptability and manageability on a number of other levels. I feel certain there would be a lot more 'deletes' left here if the article was better known! I don't see any reason why a judging admin couldn't take that possibility into account too, though the simple facts (and arguments) are supposed to mean more than the count.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know, how about we limit it to scandals at major national newspapers/magazines/television outlets that have had a lasting impact? That would cut a lot out, and make the list easier to manage. Biruitorul (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It will cut it down - but "lasting impact" is so subjective. If someone has an agenda to get a story in, they will find endless blogs etc to prove their story's Notability. The maintenance of this article is potentially higher than any other "article" I've seen - you can multiply Notability (and Weight and POV issues) times each non-obvious scandal. Each new "scandal" added (or attempted to be removed) could cause problems. And this is neither a standard article, nor a standard list - it's clearly a "List of forked mini-articles"! Perhaps we should set up a new Wikipedia Category if this lives on?--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Two quick points. First: yes it's subjective and maintenance will be a headache, but the reality is this will be kept, for better or worse. Second: we might make a new category, but for now we have Category:Journalistic hoaxes, Category:Journalism ethics and Category:Media bias controversies - maybe one of these works too. Biruitorul (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and a speedy keep, for this was just kept by a strong consensus at AfD on Feb 28. Re-nominating it this soon is in my opinion disruptive. DGG (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The first AfD only had 9 responses - and at least 3 of them were editing it. It wasn't long ago, granted, but what is this AfD disrupting? (apart from clearly all of 2 whole seconds of some peoples time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for the same reasons as I mentioned a couple weeks ago. This is a valuable article.  There has been some edit-warring recently but most of its history this has not been the case.  Even the edit-warring is over small sections. Jmcnamera (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And what happens when people other than the select few actually realise this article is here?--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A useful summary of the range of events that constitute journalistic scandal. While there could be articles about each with a tag of some sort, this is a better idea. htom (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A better idea than Wikipedia's standard guideline on article creation?--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep but prune ruthlessly. I find it hard to believe that scandals are so much more prevalent now than they wer ein the 30s or the 50s, this is recentism extended to whatever story the bloggers happen to make most noise about. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting user page: RETIRED - "I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases." I wonder if anyone here clicked on your "help!"? This list is such POV bunker I help can't being totally cynical! I can't find any reason not to be - whatever people say about AGF. Who does the "ruthless pruning" (etc) anyway? Who are the "they" in this case? So much here reads like a kind of 'weekend service' social advice - it's got no bearing on reality, imo. All the evidence seen in the history of this article points far more to the opposite happening (ie the issued I've detailed above). It's like suggesting to a malcontent existing outside of legal-categorisation that he "behaves" himself - where's the back-up? And have we seen any evidence that he can change? --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now read for comprehension. It says RE TIRED of silly drama. Including people who fight tooth and nail to include the story that nails their pet hate in every single conceivable place where it might be even tangentially relevant.  This article should be for things which are widely identified by reliable sources as significant media scandals, otherwise it should be nuked. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "people who fight tooth and nail to include the story that nails their pet hate in every single conceivable place where it might be even tangentially relevant" - couldn't have put that better. This list is a free ride for them, imo - it's intrinsically a place for them to go. It's why so many are (or a least I thought they were) anti these kind of lists. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Valuable and relevant. Dance With The Devil (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There doesn't seem to be any logic to which "scandals" are chosen to include and which not. I will work on removing some of the minor ones. Borock (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a little spotty in places and probably needs a change of name, but that's why there's an edit button. Dookama (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Does every AfD get repeatedly hit with this cliche? --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Considering that we have articles about accounting scandals, major league baseball scandals, Christian evangelist scandals, etc., maybe we're making too much of a deal out of the word scandal. Besides, we might observe that the persons who happen to label these as scandals tend to work in a particular profession... However, would anyone support a renaming of the article to "Ethical controversies in American journalism"?  Or, for that matter, simply, "Controversies in American journalism".  Thoughts, anyone?  Mandsford (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't those make it an even broader list, though? --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. Not all of these involve an intent to commit a breach of ethics; some are simply carelessness.  In the sense that the act or omission of one person causes embarrassment for the innocent and guilty alike, I guess that scandal is an appropriate word.  Mandsford (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am now removing the less notable "scandals." A lot of them are about one reporter being fired. The article seems like a place to park this kind of thing when another article is deleted as non-notable. There are also some notable scandals however. Borock (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would point out to everyone that Borock is doing this in the right way, which is to "be bold" and to alert people (on the discussion page) about what was removed.  Ultimately, things that have been taken off by Borock might be put back; things that have been left by Borock might be taken off later.  I encourage everyone here to follow Borock's example, which is to let the "community" know what you've changed.  And folks, please, if you disagree with someone else's edit, stay civil about it.  Mandsford (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you put "community" in quotes, because I still find that ideal theoretical here as things have stood - and simply unmanageable in what things can/will be. Guidelines on article creation are more important here imo than championing the ideal of community spirit. Where there are no main articles, why not? (and yes, we can delete them). But - where there are main (or obvious "home") articles, clear content forking issues arise. If it's a simple list, the difficulties with title choice (which can be very difficult with often complicated contentious issues scandals) and of inclusiveness will still stand. I think all the issues need to be kept in focus here, rather than focusing selectively on individual ones (like simple item removal).--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that I did vote for deletion, as well as removed some of the problem items from the article. Borock (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as has real world significance and is verfiable. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:57, 17 March 2008 (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.