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. At the risk of getting accused of nose-counting, I'll observe that the !vote tally is running about 2:1 in favor of keep. But, this isn't nose counting, so I also took a deeper look at the arguments.

The basic point of contention between the two camps is what defines a scandal?. Most of the delete arguments are variations on There's no objective inclusion criteria. Looking at WP:LISTCRITERIA and WP:LISTN, I can't convince myself that the level of ambiguity inherent in defining a scandal is sufficient to raise this concern from one of needs editorial cleanup to needs to be deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of federal political scandals in the United States[edit]

List of federal political scandals in the United States (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)

This entire article is OR based on some editors choice of what is a scandel, it is in itself a BLP violation Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of replacing this article’s lead-in paragraphs which describe the inclusion criteria used, which was removed by 2606:a000:6444:4700:59d0:5215:432b:c56 on the 16th, replaced by both Hmains and Favonia, when the information was removed once again by DarknessShines, 6 minutes (co-incidence?) before Nomination for Deletion. I think it is unfair that editors and administrators alike do not have easy access to the very information which is being discussed.

I also note that the lead in articles for both Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion are entirely OR with no citations or reliable sources listed. I also note they are both locked.Johnsagent (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have removed again per WP:V It's a BLP and addition of any uncited commentary violates a fair few policies Darkness Shines (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article mixes together situations where people were convicted and sent to prison as well as situations where no charges were filed at all, which is a WP:BLP problem. Furthermore, it is organized by presidential administration, then organized within each administration by the executive branch, legislative branch, and judicial branch. However, most of the legislative and judicial branch scandals cited had nothing to do with the presidential administration under which they are listed, other than chronology. For example, Barack Obama should not be associated with the crimes of federal judges whom he didn't appoint (federal judges have life tenure during good behavior, so at any given time much of the federal judiciary will have been appointed by past presidents), nor of members of Congress who were not of his party and who were never allied with him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article has been around since 2004. In November 2010 it was an AfD nom with a delete decision that was overturned at DRV. I'm not sure what provoked this particular nom, (I'd encourage creation of a POV task force focused on political arguments if I thought it stood a chance) but trying to make BLP vios go away when politics are involved is wishful thinking. If the allegations are cited to RS there are far too many variables and ambiguities in our PAGs that work against making an article compliant. Regarding the mixing of situations, my position is that we shouldn't even have one "standalone" article based on unsupported allegations, but then take a look at all the Trump et al POVFORKs that have materialized, and the AfDs that were shot down. There was one article that was finally deleted after 2 attempts - Donald Trump's handshake - and it required some serious arguments to reach consensus. If this article ends up being deleted, it will provide a precedent that can be used in future AfD arguments, and that would probably be a good thing. In the interim, my suggestion is to tag the specific BLP violations and bring them to the attention of BLPN (which is what I just had to do for a different article that involved a BLP vio).^{on 2nd thought, BLP/N needs more volunteers to be a truly productive noticeboard. 14:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Atsme📞📧} 20:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The prior AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political scandals of the United States and its deletion review was at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 4#Political scandals of the United States. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is fourteen years old, is well defined and well documented. It should not be deleted on a whim just before a major holiday. The objections given seem to be about nuances of definition and format which have not yet been discussed on the relevant talk page. I suggest that today’s anger over current events, whichever they are, should not lead to impetuous action. Johnsagent (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though this list may need to be updated, it will well sourced, it is still very relevant to issues of the day. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 'Wikipedia:Deletion policy: Alternatives to deletion' says;

“Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.” This is NOT a severe case, Metropolitan90 mentions only two minor issues, neither fatal. Keep unchanged. Valleyjc (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have two major concerns. First, this list lacks a clear selection criteria. Why does the resignation of Dr. William Bradford constitute a scandal, but Alternative Facts (which has its own encyclopedia article) doesn't? What criteria is used to decide if something is scandalous? Second, the article has fundamental structural problems that are impossible to remedy -- it is organized by presidential (executive) administration, but additionally talks about judicial and legislative scandals within those headings. At the very most this article should be converted into a category, although I think that would be unwise as well (see old arguments about a similar issue). cnzx (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no clear definition of what is and what is not a scandal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OR with unclear criteria for inclusion. The list would be more viable if most entries had stand-alone articles, which is not currently the case. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep'. This needs to be well sourced and clear guidelines on what counts are necessary, but these aren't issues that require deletion. Natureium (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium: could you articulate a workable set of criteria for inclusion and exclusion? cnzx (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely a list of political scandals that involve officials from the government of the United States. Sounds like an obvious and simple criterion for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very problematic article with no clear criteria about what actually constitutes a "federal political scandal". For one thing, Richard Nixon's "Checkers speech" shouldn't count as a political scandal because he was campaigning as Eisenhower's vice president at the time he was making the speech; he was just accused by the press of supposed illegal campaign funds and his speech on TV was just him emotionally appealing to the American TV audience that he didn't do anything wrong (as well as keeping Checkers as a pet). 98.209.191.37 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Need a definition of scandal? How about this one? "SCANDAL- an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage." I also suggest looking at Scandal, Political Scandal or Scandal (disambiguation). In comparison, this article is a bastion of consistency, and reliable sources.Caltropdefense (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political scandals of the United States who have been active in the last year: Hairhorn (talk · contribs), The Bushranger (talk · contribs), Hmains (talk · contribs), Monterey Bay (talk · contribs), Jengod (talk · contribs), Collect (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), and Wasted Time R (talk · contribs).

  Pinging participants at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 4#Political scandals of the United States who have been active in the last year: Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs), S Marshall (talk · contribs), Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs), Mkativerata (talk · contribs), Bearcat (talk · contribs), JoshuaZ (talk · contribs), NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs), and Jclemens (talk · contribs).

  Cunard (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Scandals are part of American political history and not something to be hidden away. This article is well sourced and thus BLP does not apply here. Hmains (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nomination makes no sense whatsoever: newspapers are very ready to call something a "scandal" and that RS usage is what defines inclusion. That is, Wikipedia doesn't decide what a scandal is, we simply report what RS'es call scandals. I also don't get the fight over removing the inclusion criteria: it's not OR to cite a definition, nor to differentiate what is or is not included in a list. Three of the subsequent delete !votes cite a lack of clear definition, which renders them invalid, because the nominator removed the list inclusion criteria from the article! Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a legitimate list, and a very important one. What should be included is decided by sources, just as for any other list. This is not an "inherently POV" list because the political scandals (described as such in RS) are legitimate subjects and an important part of political life. We have a lot of such pages (see Category:Scandals), and rightly so. My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if the recentism and the improper organization continue. The article gives the impression that federal officials are much more corrupt and prone to scandal now than in past decades and centuries, which does not seem likely. And the organization is by presidential administration is a terrible idea, because the legislative and judicial member scandals generally have absolutely nothing to do with who was president. Even some of the executive branch scandals have little to do with who was in the White House (I'm pretty sure that no president ever encouraged an advisor to commit return fraud at Target). Just organize by spans of years (decades, scores, whatever). Wasted Time R (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment. For a similar article with the same miserable organization and recentism as this one, see List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. For articles with better organization but still ridiculous amounts of recentism, see List of federal political sex scandals in the United States and List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes. For two articles that are actually structured well – narrow selection criteria and complete back to the beginning – see List of United States Senators expelled or censured and List of United States Representatives expelled, censured, or reprimanded. And they show, not surprisingly, that humans were just as prone to human faults back then as they are now. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, sure, let's delete all pages that describe how officials of country X have been convicted of crime or became subjects of scandals or even controversies. That will probably satisfy someone's POV. However, doing so would be strongly against the purpose of encyclopedia, that is to provide important and reliable information, and of course that would be against WP:NPOV and WP:BLP (see public figures). The list is focusing on important public figures. This is right thing to do per our policy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep NOW this is just Silly! Is there a better way to list history other than chronologically? Watergate would be impossible to understand unless grouped by administration. Politicians should be listed politically. Yes, a few pickpockets and perverts maybe misplaced by a few years. So what?

SCANDALS is the name of the article. Conviction and Resignation are the general criteria though there others. Nixon, Anthony Weiner, Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales. Is there anyone who would not call them scandals? None were convicted of anything, yet their resignations just before investigation or trial (which might have proven their innocence) speak volumes.

RECENTISM? That’s a new one. Of course, there are more crooks now, thanks to population increase. Duh.

ADMINISTRATORS - My I ask you changes the rules somehow? To sneak in a Deletion on a holiday sucks.Newlenp (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An encyclopedic list, prepared objectively The emphasis on recent events is unavoidable -- even if we had WPedians interested in providing fuller coverage of the earlier period, there are many more federal officials not than there were 200 years, and consequently more scandals. Essentially everything is sourced; essentially everything is a conviction or forced resignation--and certainly there would be any number of sources call them scandals. There is very little BLP protection for public officials, because anything relevant to their suitability for their jobs is relevant content. All that is really necessary is accuracy and avoid overemphasis., and those are not problems here. The chronological order is appropriate--anything else would be relatively useless--history articles are written chronologically, not alphabetically. Division by presidential terms is the normal way for US history, and does not imply that the president had any necessary connection with what members of either party did during his tenure of office. . I'm really puzzled at wanting the deletion of something like this, unless it's an attempt to see how far the meaningand purpose of our rules can be stretched by quibbling. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an editorial decision, it might be worth excluding post-2000 content for BLP and recency-bias concerns, but the rest of the page is fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should only list 'scandals' that are at least 5yr old or older, so the dust around the scandal has time to settle and the accounting of it is most accurate? Just a thought, C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A time limit? Wikipedia works not only as an Encyclopedia, but a Newspaper as well. Rather than 5 years, death would be a better limit to satisfy BLP, that way no one could complain. But who wants to wait two or three decades to include Hillary or Donald? Keep unchanged.Orliepie (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All of the Delete opinions seem to be Wikilawyering to me and and seem pretty weak. And ask yourself, where else could this information be found? What Wiki Article covers it as completely? What Category is as easy to find? For that matter, what book, what website, what news outlet, covers so much, so well, with so little POV? For god‘s sake, Keep!Orliepie (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I see that there are a significant number of "keep" supporters, but I would like to know how many of the "keep" supporters would be willing to support the idea of reorganizing this list so that legislative and judicial scandals were not tied to the presidential administrations in which they happened to occur. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2017 (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.