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 delete. I am discarding many of the keep votes as they were not policy based. So being kept 3 years ago when our attitude to inclusion was very different is not policy based. Neither is pointing to other articles as having OR problems based on policy (see WP:WAX) and also keeping on the basis that some of the delete votes address cleanup is also not a policy based reason to keep and also fails to address the fundamental issue here. I'm reading a clear consensus that the sourcing here relates to the individual stories and that there is no overall overarching source. From a policy point of view that makes the article Original Research by Synthesis of unrelated sources and, since no-one has produced sources that discuss United States Journalism scandals, my view is that the policy based arguments are the delete ones referring to OR. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States journalism scandals[edit]

United States journalism scandals (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 article seems to violate WP:No original research. At the top it says that it is for incidents that have been widely reported as scandals. I checked out some of the sources and in most cases they don't even use the word "scandal." So it seems like editors have added incidents based on their own opinions. BigJim707 (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I contributed to the article. I agree with the nominator's logic, however the last two AfD's decided to keep the article based mainly on "it's interesting and useful." I agree with that too. An encyclopedia is supposed to be educational and a person reading this will learn a lot about the history of journalism in the USA. I don't see any special harm being done by the article to individuals or otherwise. It ends up being somewhat balanced since both liberal and conservative leaning scandals (as well as others) are included. Borock (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Indeed most cases are not scandals but refer to hoaxes, lies, blunders or just unwanted stories. A namechange and/or split can solve this. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see the OR issue. Journalistic scandal has an accurate definition and this list is easily composed from reliable sources which cover the various incidents which meet the definition; the use of the word scandal here is actually secondary. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I could point to lots of articles that are put together with OR. (One of my favorites is Flag desecration.) This one is better than most. I also contributed to it. I have to add that most of the incidents seem like about what I expect from the media, not all that scandalous. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a 100% obvious 'delete' for me, for all the reasons I've given in the past. I've tried to both straight delete it and make it a simple list (ie an honest list) - but to no avail. My list work was deleted, and over the years I've wasted hours here keeping basic NPOV. Whenever I look away from it fills with POV. IT's a never-ending war of attrition, and always will be with a ultimately limitless 'article' like this. It's pretty-much only a serious article for people with their own 'scandals' to protect, and will never be deleted unless people start to actually read it - ie when serious people know it is here. At the moment, it's just here for Google - hence why the scandals must be portrayed in certain ways. The very word "scandal" is hardly a realistically encyclopedic term. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reasoning of Arsenikk. If there are OR or miscategorisation (blunders, hoaxes, etc.) issues, we should just strip them out and keep the rest. tomasz. 01:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What troubles me is that this article consists of scandals as defined by Wikipedia editors. It needs to be winnowed down to include only articles were a clear consensus of reliable sources indicates that a scandal indeed took place. It is not for us to say if a particular journalistic misdeed is a "scandal" or something of lesser magnitude. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Inclusion criteria is overly subjective. List of annoying people would have the same problem — according to whom? The result is an arbitrarily selected amalgam of pigs, goats, and elephants, presented as a Universal Menagerie of Animals. Carrite (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Request Please read the comments in light of policy, don't just count the votes, thanks. BigJim707 (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. I for one am appalled that this article has survived repeat deletion attempts. It is so clearly OR as to be a "scandal," pardon the expression. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and at least two of the votes just about say: "It's against policy but keep it anyway." BigJim707 (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also can be stubbified to include only instances in which reliable sources clearly indicate that a scandal has taken place. Jayson Blair is one. Most of the rest are questionable. I would add that since living people are involved in some of these entires, WP:BLP also applies. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Besides WP:Original research there is also WP:Living persons to consider, as was just mentioned. Right now lots of living people are named in the article as being involved in scandals without that being well-sourced in many cases. Wolfview (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I agree with comments that this suffers from non-thorough inclusion criteria; on the other hand, I think this is not really Original Research. These are little blurbs about scandals, which are well cited. This is not new analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talk • contribs) 04:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, no new analysis, but we are calling each incident "scandals." That's not for us to say. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  Some delete Delete arguments are based on ways to improve the article and fretting implying that it won't get done.  There is no deadline at Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should follow up my vote, that I agree with Unscintillating, that the concept has potential. My initial response on seeing the article, especially with News of the World shut down, was that this is a good list of topics. After thinking about this more, I don't see a problem with this being an incomplete list of scandals. These are journalism scandals, many of which have a huge amount of press. This is not a secret or private set of scandals (e.g., scandals of local politicians). I change my vote/comment to keep. Wxidea (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating - that is a real misrepresentation. And I have personally spent hours of my life trying to keep pov out of here, so speak for yourself. The times I've tried to delete it people like yourself walk in, say "Improve! Improve!" then walk off never to be seen again - the scourge of Afd. This is nothing but a pov nest, and is not an article anyway - it's a list - and one that has no place on Wikipedia. The work in it you see form me is not genuine work as it is done under duress, and few people are willing to do such work. Why should they? The irony is that I always feel at Afd that I'd have been better off never touching it. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that "Waiting to Explode", Dateline NBC (1992) is a "United States journalism scandal"?  If not, then what words describe it?  My point is to see if you will agree that there is at least one entry on this list that is acceptable under some title.  It is an interesting point you make about drive-by inclusion !votes, because many AfD discussions are dominated by (IMO) drive-by deletion !votes and drive-by AfD nominations.  I agree that I overgeneralized and I have redacted some text.  ScottyBerg's point was, "It needs to be winnowed down to include only articles where a clear consensus of reliable sources indicates that a scandal indeed took place."  If this is an issue, can someone start marking such with some tags?  Or make a local one ^{[scandalous?]}  I've added that tag to Downplaying Nazism, New York Times (1930s and 1940s) which might be media bias, but doesn't sound to be scandalous.  I'd also consider changing the criteria that allows "alleged" scandals to be listed.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you how opposed I am to Wikipedia being a repository of 'everything'. It's totally against the principles I signed up to. You can make a case for including anything in this place no matter how untennable, and it happens every day. I loathe Afd because so often 'pieinthesky' decisions are made by people who generally have no intention of backing them up with actual work. The labour here will never end. If people thought of the sheer amount work involved maybe they could start to see some of my points here (see the old Afds). The various negative aspects will never stop creating problems - esp if the 'article' actually gets popular! This article saps and will sap people's time and strength (the few without a cause to champion) and is simply not a net benefit to Wikipedia. It's all problems with this one - and Wikipedia should NEVER EVER see itself as a having a 'duty' to rehash anything. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete' The article is educational, as Borock said. However WP has policies, in this case WP:OR, which some editors care deeply about. Out of respect for their feelings I will vote to delete this article since it depends on original research in violation of WP's policies. I followed Unscintillating's lead and used his tag on some of the other items. Some text on the history of journalistic scandals in the US would also help, if the text was based on reliable sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah if you're a Moonie. I wonder why the change of heart? As for "educational" - anything and everything can be called that. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Cuz the article is heading towards "keep" or "no consensus" regardless of my vote, or indeed of any WP policy (most of which are either not understood by the majority here or else willfully ignored -- I can't tell which.) I will change to delete out of respect for your efforts. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:50, 14 July 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.