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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in the United States[edit]

Corruption in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is truly awful. Un-encyclopedic. Title is perhaps okay, but the "article" needs more text than lists. This is a sheer junkpile right now. Sandbox until someone can come up with an article that can be taken seriously by readers, to say nothing of the Wikipedia editors. Student7 (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is a whole series of corruption by country articles. The article needs fixing rather than deleting. In its current form it at least serves as a disambiguation page until an expert writes an actual article. It is interesting to note that there is a systemic bias towards the US on Wikipedia but not for the corruption articles! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but the template that lists the series consists almost entirely of redlinks. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 23:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a fault of this article. The template can be deleted until all the other linked articles in the template are created. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Alan Liefting and per WP:N. All these are prooven corruption cases and deserve a spot on here. This is a great service of the project, articles such as this one. Turqoise127 00:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand corruption in x country articles are valid articles, references can be easily found. --Reference Desker (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Right now, this list is nothing other than a duplication of parts of the lists found at List of federal political scandals in the United States and List of state and local political scandals in the United States--if the article were new, it could be deleted under CSD A10 . Since there is no actual content in the article other than the links, it should be deleted as a duplication. If someone wants to start over again and write a prose article about corruption in the US, they're welcome to do so (either before deletion, in which case I would change my !vote, or after). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have since added one salient point(!!!). The article should be about all corruption in the US and not just that which is politically motivated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a spoon — that is, a pointless fork. Carrite (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A fork of which article? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my thinking a lot on the "Corruption Of" thing over the last couple days. This is a list, therefore it's not a fork of anything. Carrite (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing but a linkfarm. As far as "keep per Alan Liefting" goes, Mr. Liefting doesn't advocate a single legitimate ground to keep. That there might be other Corruption in X country articles is but a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument - if the "other stuff" actually existed, which in fact it doesn't - that there is an alleged pro-US systemic bias on Wikipedia forms no part of inclusion criteria, and disambiguation pages commonly, well, I dunno ... disambiguate between choices, as this doesn't remotely attempt to do. As Qwyrxian correctly states, there are list articles which do exactly this, more clearly and adeptly. The article Mr. Liefting proposes to write, come to that, sounds like a heap of original research and synthesis.  Ravenswing  10:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a bunch of selective comment nonsense. If the "keep per Alan Liefting" comment was for me, then I believe I also added "and per WP:N". We mustn't only choose to ignore what does not suit us. Also, Mr. lefting does advocate a legitimate ground to keep: "article needs fixing rather than deleting". Is that not a WP:BEFORE? Let us also please not ignore the other "keep" vote, that very correctly states "references can be easily found". It is unfair to ignore a clearly notable article and to suggest unwarranted deletion just because a small patriotic bone's feelings were hurt with the "US bias" comment. Turqoise127 17:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did add "per WP:N," which you then failed to support with any shred of argument whatsoever. What criterion of WP:N are you claiming it satisfies, and with what evidence? Beyond that, "references can be easily found" is an invalid argument at AfD. Deletion policy clearly holds that it is not acceptable to assert that there are references, but the positive duty of a Keep proponent to provide reliable sources when challenged. Finally, I recommend a dose of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; strange though it might appear to you, it is quite possible for an editor to oppose such an article on the grounds stated for such opposition, and quite possible for an editor to wish to uphold Wikipedia guidelines and policy without having sinister ulterior motives for doing so.  Ravenswing  17:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. As far as your comment regarding conduct; I was not being uncivil, nor did I personally attack you. As far as content; take a looksee at the two "keep" votes below. Happy editing.Turqoise127 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is just a stub currently and our editing policy is to keep such in mainspace for further work. The topic has great notability. See, for example, Corruption and American Politics. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Oh come on, are you seriously telling me that you've looked for reliable sources discussing the subject of corruption in the USA and not found any? ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 17:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Right now, just a lame list and has been that way for some time. If someone wants to work it into an article, free free, but this is pretty much WP:COATRACK. The problem with having no text whatever, is anyone can add anything; there are no parameters, no limits. Just a junkpile of entries for multiple editors with WP:POV. This would be fine in a regular article, but how to exclude a link on this lengthy list? No one is really looking to do so. It is not professional IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Right now, just a lame list... I agree. ...and has been that way for some time. Absolutely. If someone wants to work it into an article, free free – you've just hit the nail on the head. There is no deadline for articles to reach a particular standard. So long as the topic is notable (which this one undoubtedly is: there are people who do degree-level courses about corruption in the United States) we do not delete the article merely on the basis of its not quite being up to scratch. Have you actually read the first numbered point at WP:BEFORE? It says, "Some pages should be improved rather than deleted."
  Wikipedia's deletion policy provides a helpful list of valid reasons to delete a page. Please could you quote me the line from that list which you think applies here? Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 20:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Right now, no one knows what the "article", it is somewhat of a pretense to call this an article, is about. "Political corruption?" "Police corruption?" "Corruption of Youth?" Just a catchall title for anyone to insert anything per WP:COATRACK.

  And note, below, editor Alan Liefting has suggested a (vague) category for redirect. But this is okay for categories! You expect a certain amount of vagueness and catchall as you travel up the line. But not at the article level!

  BTW, I appreciate your courtesy in notifying me that there is a new response, I really don't care to play verbal ping pong with other editors. Let other editors have their say and you may have the final word, for all I care. You may skip notifying me when you reply. I will catch up in a couple of days, maybe. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  You're not listening. Right now, no one knows what the "article", it is somewhat of a pretense to call this an article – whatever. What you don't seem to understand is that the topic of corruption in the United States is notable – a tiny, tiny, tiny pico-sample of the available sources would include these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] – and therefore Wikipedia's article/page/information/cache/box-file about it clearly should not be deleted, as per WP:NOTE, WP:DEADLINE and WP:BEFORE (and incidentally, I'm still not clear why you chose not to follow WP:BEFORE, and since you're declining to engage with this process, I'm unlikely to hear the explanation). ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 20:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Student7 the article would follow the same format as all the other corruption by country articles. Topics would include police corruption, political corruption and corporate corruption. "Corruption of Youth" that you mention sounds like it may be an entirely different topic and may be something to do with morality? I am not sure why you say that Category:Corruption in the United States is "vague". "Corruption" and "United States" are both clearly defined terms and the juncture of the two is similarly well defined. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not sure about guidelines or policy on cross namespace redirects but since this is a bit of a contentious AfD we could simply redirect the article to Category:Corruption in the United States until an article is written. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Treasury Tag above. This is a list of in-links, not an article, so a renaming is perhaps in order. Carrite (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What name would you suggest? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable topic. Article needs to be written at some point. Anthem of joy (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It should be noted that the nominator Student7 (talk · contribs · count) have failed to provide any valid argument for deletion. "Awful", "un-encyclopedic" etc. are vague and unprofessional terminology. --Reference Desker (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Here's how a real article should look: Corruption. An genuine article is possible. Student7 (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, not that great, but at least it might be termed an "article." Student7 (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  An genuine article is possible. Right. So if an [sic] genuine article is possible, why the Hell have you nominated this topic for deletion? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 12:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. See also Talk:Corruption showing that editors there have demonstrated IMO, an understanding of the scope of the topic/article. Not just pursuing the retention of a bad collection of vague articles that might be related to a topic. Student7 (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It must be significantly extended, but corruption per country is definitely a notable subject. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Treasury Tag. If the amount of volunteer effort spent on this AfD were devoted to fixing the article, it would be at GA by now. Racepacket (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but possibly rename article to reflect the corruption index referenced in the lead? Definitely needs to be expanded. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.