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. Keep per WP:SNOW. The difference between the dossier and this article on the dossier is that this is well-referenced and verified. Delete arguments about "left-wing populism" miss the mark, and "all the sources is founded by one researcher or speculative" [sic] is belied by the facts of the article. If you disagree with an early close that's fine, I understand; I suggest you talk to another admin, or post at AN, about undoing it or whatever the next step might be. In the meantime, and in the absence of strong policy-based reasons to delete, I see no reason to keep this running. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump Russia dossier[edit]

Donald Trump Russia dossier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I think this article should be speedy-deleted as a BLP violation. It quotes extensively from an unverified document which makes numerous unproven derogatory claims about a living person. It even includes a PDF of the entire unverified, scandalous document. In other articles about this subject we have been careful to report only the existence of the document and reactions to it; we have carefully avoided repeating any of its unproven claims. I could not tag this for G10 because it does have sources, and in any case it would need broader community input to delete it. But I feel it qualifies for deletion as a violation of Wikipedia's BLP policies, and I would hate to see it stay in Wikipedia for a week. Can we apply IAR, perhaps? MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. After deletion (to get rid of the BLP violations) it could become a redirect to 2016 United States election interference by Russia#Briefing on alleged Trump dossier, where it is extensively discussed. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I may have been too conservative in saying that it didn't qualify for G10. I see that a similar article, Donald Trump "compromised" claims, was G10ed a couple of days ago even though it did have sources. --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG with more than enough reliable sources discussing the dossier in depth. Any BLP concerns can be resolved on the talk page. If we can manage to adhere to BLP when we're writing about a child sex ring run by Clinton and Podesta at Pizzagate conspiracy theory, then we can manage it on this article as well. gobonobo ^{+ c} 19:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete or Redirect to 2016 United States election interference by Russia - Wikipedia is not a place for tabloid gossip or salacious, unverified tabloid materials. While the existence of this document can be verified, the document is from anonymous sources and its content cannot be validated as factual. Inferences drawn from this document constitute WP:OR and does not meet WP:RS and constitutes violations of WP:BLP. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After this AfD was listed, a good deal of the BLP violating material was removed from the article. What is left could possibly be acceptable but would be a constant magnet for BLP violations. And it is pretty much duplicated at 2016 United States election interference by Russia#Briefing on alleged Trump dossier. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it would be a magnet for vandalism doesn't mean we should delete the article. We do have page protection if we need it. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:EASYTARGET. ^Falling_Gravity 06:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A wide array of reliable sources have reported on its existence and debated the veracity of its claims; no less a news organization than the BBC has extensively discussed it. While this article should absolutely be written to conform with BLP (leaving out unconfirmed salacious details, not linking directly to the document in question, being scrupulously sourced to only the highest-quality publications), I don't think it's tenable to say the article can't exist, particularly when we have plenty of articles including claims about the Podesta emails and Pizzagate conspiracy theory that are also, at best, weakly sourced or have been outright disproven. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article has now been greatly improved and expanded with neutral information. Kudos to User:Octoberwoodland for making this into an acceptable Wikipedia article (though it will have to be watched closely). I withdraw my nomination for deletion. I also request, if it is kept, that it be placed under Discretionary Sanctions (U.S. politics). --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to appropriate section of 2016 United States election interference by Russia. Not every controversy is encyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 21:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. nominator and WP:administrator MelanieN has withdrawn her nomination for deletion and she now supports its existence and publication within the outlines set out in WP:policy and guidelines. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that I am functioning at this article as a regular editor, not an administrator, per WP:INVOLVED. Also please note that this discussion can't simply be closed as "nomination withdrawn," because other people have supported "delete" or "redirect". --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:Administrator has a high understanding of wp:policy and guidelines - I respect your retraction of your deletion request and your acceptance of the article now within those policies and guidelines, thanks for your guidance. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per arguments by Govindaharihari and MelanieN. In addition, events around the dossier are making news on their own. The article may need improvement in terms of respectable news outlets confirming and corroborating the details in the dossier. Events around the dossier - that it exists, and that it was requested, written, passed around, and extensively discussed - are still facts. -Mardus /talk 21:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*""speedy keep, and vote that whover nominated this for deletion be permanently banished from Wikipedia for such a poor excercise of partisan judgment. The idea that this is not an encylopedic topic is so laughable that it does not even a merit a response other than ridicule and public shaming,Sockhunter (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• Note: I am the original creator of this beautiful work. You're welcome, everyone. Keep up the good work,Sockhunter (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Kingshowman. GAB^gab 22:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Reincorporate into 2016 United States election interference by Russia — Crucial details regarding the dossier have been adequately elucidated in the aforementioned article. A lot of this article feeds into present public anxiety on Russian interference and is nothing more than posturing that does not represent Wikipedia. I move for a speedy deletion. Frevangelion (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think at this point it's sort of obvious this is notable as every source and their dog has reported on the dossier. "2016 United States election interference by Russia" should of course provide a brief summary of the dossier and the controversy, but this is the article where the actual in depth info (who wrote it, under what circumstances, how was it "leaked", who's seen it, etc. - all issues covered in multiple reliable sources) can be presented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We can go into much more detail with this article than at 2016 United States election interference by Russia#Briefing on alleged Trump dossier, where too much detail creates a weight problem. I also happen to support MelanieN's reasoning. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is a distinction to be made here between the provability of the allegations, and the provability of the existence of the allegations, which some appear not to grasp. Whether or not the fact that whether or not the claims are unproven, it is demonstrably proven that the claims and allegations have been made, and were considered credible enough to be presented to the president and the top of American intelligence. Please consider that on the deletionist's tortured logic, we would be unable to publish an article on any criminal trial, if the defendant was found not guilty. Allegations of guilt, whether presented in dossier form or at trial, can manifestly be notable whether or not the defendant is cleared of the charges. Even if the charges are entirely a hoax, we have plenty of hoax articles that drew on far less evidence than this. I don't see any of you deletionists screaming for the deletion of Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories or Pizzagate, both of which were just fabricated by non-intelligence sources and both of which had far less of a claim to encylopedic interest. It therefore appears outrageously shocking how conservatively biased this encylopedia is. How is it even possible that Wikipedia has so many conservative editors, when the vast majority of educated, highly literate persons are liberal, as a matter of irrefutable fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B403:2668:89A8:360D:D4D1:F4BC (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP - This is a major scandal that easily passes WP:GNG and if this is a BLP vio then Pizzagate is a STRONG BLP vio that has even less substance behind it than this does. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — The comparison between Pizzagate and this document is a mostly a false equivalence outside of BLP concerns. One is a conspiracy theory that became notable for its media coverage involving the Turkish press, a banned subreddit, and a pizzeria shooting. This is a document that might be notable because of its extensive news coverage and the backlash it received. While they both discuss allegations that may or may not be true, BLP can be enforced in both articles by pointing out all false or unsubstantiated claims. ^Falling_Gravity 06:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The current article is far more acceptable than the BLP-violating mess that was its first incarnation. If anyone has concerns about parts of the article violating BLP policy, the article has a Talk page doesn't it? Exemplo347 (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• very very weak Keep Not sure if this is notable in it's own right or not. But it has received a lot of coverage (and I agree that this has far more evidence then a lot of other equally libelous accusations we do have pages on).Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with BullRangifer and others. Very well-sourced and highly significant. Questions about how the article should be written and what it should include can be raised on the talk page. Neutrality^talk 15:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or possibly merge). This seems well-sourced and notable. We obviously should not (and do not) have an article that confirms the alleged dossier as legitimate, but this has been very widely reported on. It has already been noted that the bar for conspiracy theories (e.g., Pizzagate and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories) is somewhat lower, but then again I also feel that WP:OTHERCRAP applies. I'm somewhat neutral on merger with 2016 United States election interference by Russia#Briefing on alleged Trump dossier. I think that would be an acceptable outcome, but I believe that to properly cover every response to the allegations in an appropriately neutral encyclopedic manner is best achieved in a separate article, at least for the moment. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a closer parallel might be the Podesta emails, which are again about allegedly "leaked" documents coming from intelligence sources, in that case Russian intelligence (via Wikileaks), and in this case MI6. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable Drsmoo (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a notable topic. A WP:SPLIT from 2016 United States election interference by Russia is justified because this dossier is not just about Russian interference in the elections. It alleges ways Trump may be blackmailed, and this is different from election interference. It is also a source of a lot of tabloid and comedy commentary. The commentary is notable because it is about the President Elect and highly pervasive. A size WP:SPLIT may be needed when the article is > than 50 kB of readable prose. 2016 United States election interference by Russia is currently at 47 KB and growing. Download the prose size script here. User:Dr pda/prosesize Waters.Justin (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Nominator withdrew in this diff, but we have outstanding !votes. Would editors (Octoberwoodland—JFG—Frevangelion) reconsider their position? — Sam Sailor 03:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sam, but this discussion is still being strongly debated. I think it should run its full course. There's no emergency now that the BLP violations have been removed. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my !vote. Whatever meat this article eventually retains, it should not be forked from the whole 2016 United States election interference by Russia affair, which provides appropriate context (and could use some trimming too). — JFG ^talk 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I—like JFG—stand by my !vote for speedy deletion and/or reincorporation into the 2016 United States election interference by Russia article as a subsection. I cannot stand by this kind of posturing and gossip-mongering that my fellow users seem so keen on deeming encyclopedic. Frevangelion (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Notable article that is extensively and reliably sourced. Keiiri (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article having extensive references is not an automatic metric of its quality. The origin of the dossier and the information provided on said dossier are still unsubstantiated and are not worthy of validation on an encyclopedic medium. I'm not sure what kind of precedent we're trying to set here as Wikipedia editors. Frevangelion (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's not "automatic" but it certainly does help to establish the undeniable notability of the topic. The origins and the info in the dossier are neither here nor there as far as notability is concerned. Again, we have articles on Pizzagate (if you want to talk precedent).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BLP (public figures). The policy provides the following example: this example: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." It is exactly what this page does. Of course this should be described merely as "allegations", not "the truth". Perhaps this page has some deficiencies, such as linking to an inappropriate primary source. If so, this must be fixed, but this is nothing special. Not a reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The articles deal about different topics, so it makes sense to me to retain them separately. The Dossier is the outcome of an output of a Attack PAC of Jeb Bush, so it predates so-called "Russian Interference" in US elections. Also there is no evidence so far that Trump has succumbed to Russian blackmail in any of his business/political dealings, but there is lot of smoke on the Dossier, so I vote that these two topics should be in separate articles.J mareeswaran (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Second Thoughts There is a strong overlap between this article, Donald Trump Russia dossier, and Christopher Steele. Seems to me that contents of the dossier are off limits for obvious purposes & Steele's sole claim to fame is the authorship of this dossier, so it suggests perfect case for merging both these articles (after following due process by opening a new merge request, of course).J mareeswaran (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's indeed the case, BLP1E would apply to the Christopher Steele article, in which case the subject of this discussion would be the more policy-compliant target for a merger. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If so, page Christopher Steele should be nominated for deletion, but the deletion will not succeed because he is not a person notable for only one event. Hence I do not think anyone should bother about it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept. The Christopher Steele article should be deleted/merged into this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to 2016 United States election interference by Russia this is pure left populism, all the sources is founded by one researcher or speculative, if this articles stays we can copy all articles which exits on WikiLeaks from Afghanistan until Libya BerendWorst (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonproductive screed by sock of banned user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment Admins: I suggest that the above user should be blocked on grounds of WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED. First of all, it is patently obvious that has far too shaky a grasp of English grammar to be editing articles. I count at least 9 grammatical errors in the above sentence. 1) The sentence lacks capitalization at its beginning. 2) There is an improper use of a comma after "populism" to separate two complete clauses, giving us a comma splice. 3) He writes "all the sources is", a phrase which shows an obvious lack of subject/verb agreement. 4) He continues, even more puzzlingly, "all the sources is founded by", which is an entirely inappropriate use of the phrase "founded by"; I suppose he means "are derived from" or "are traceable to"; sources are not "founded by" their researchers in the fashion in which a city or a movement is "founded by" its creator. (Let's hope this wasn't a malapropism for "found", which would be an even more grievous and elementary error; I am being charitable.) 5) He writes "or speculative" when he obviously means "or are speculative." (I won't count the fact that this makes no logical sense anyway. If there is only one source, we can't complain that all our information is either from the same source, or is speculative, but rather ought to complain that there is only one source, which is speculative. I charitably again assume this is what this foreign author means.) 6) There is a second comma splice (!) after "speculative", creating a disastrously unreadable run-on sentence. The author clearly has no idea how punctuation works in English, and appears to believe sentences can just continue as long as you like so long as you throw in a comma every few words or so. 7) He writes "if this articles stays", which, yet again, shows lack of agreement in number. 8) I don't even have the slightest idea of how to make sense of anything that comes after this point. What can "we can copy all articles which exits on WikiLeaks from Afghanistan until Libya" possibly even mean? 9) He omits the period, since he obviously has no idea what sentences in English are, and what one does when they start and end. Even worse than the total absence of knowledge of English grammar, however, is the fact that he lacks a basic understanding of the meanings of words. Beyond the errors I already pointed out, this has nothing even remotely to do with Left-wing populism, which is roughly the movement behind the Bernie Sanders campaign, or Occupy Wall Street, which demands redress be made for income inequality, and for other grievances. If I hadn't figured out this was a non-English editor, who doesn't understand what the words he is mouthing actually mean, I would have assumed this person is psychotic, since the connection to Left-wing populism (not to mention the non-sequitor about WikiLeaks, Libya, and Afghanistan) is so tangential. Please send this user back to Norwegian Wikipedia, admins, until he demonstrates a mastery of our lovely tongue which would allow him to contribute here. Everyone else: please revert any of this editors' tendentious, nonsensical edits on sight, for he knows not the meaning of the words which he speaks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.140.32.55 (talk • contribs)

If by "left populism" you mean this will be a POV magnet, then consider that for every argument a counterargument can be added, so I think this article can be balanced and even used for discrediting the dossier. The dossier is speculative, but the article is not citing the dossier; it is citing notable sources that discuss the dossier. Reliability would come into consideration if the dossier was used as a source on the article Donald Trump. I'm not sure what you mean by the Wikileaks comment. Waters.Justin (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Ethanbas (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It meets GNG and has multiple reliable sources now, especially in the news. Only now, there are sources on this topic to adequately vouch for its notability. This article must be heavily monitored for POV/vandalism though. epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject easily meets WP:GNG as evidenced by the sustained international coverage.- MrX 14:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it. Calls to suppress not only insult thinking readers, but aim to cut off a historical trail leading to whatever conclusion(s) becomes relevant and able to be validated. All of this should be in the record with resourced vetting--that vetting now has not fully happened, and is under way. Until resourced vetting -- i.e., vetting that takes great governmental and monied power -- happens, calls to delete amount to trying to put a genie back into a bottle we may or may not wish to have around. We can decide that down the road. In the realm of public opinion, the key is to not be stupid through averting our eyes to the kinds of claims that circulate these days. Engage the claims instead of doing the authoritarian thing: hide information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.106.179 (talk • contribs)

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.