- Political scandals of the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I just closed this as delete based on giving less value to ILIKEIT keep votes vs well founded concerns about scope and propensity for BLP vios but the page had more then 5000 revisions which gives me pause as it needs a dev to delete this and would not be easy for an admin to undelete it should the deletion be challenged at a later date. I would appreciate review of my close prior to seeking deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 11:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Not at all casting aspersions on this editor, some ppl just have this style, but the bulk of that is due to the micro-edits of Richrakh (talk · contribs), who according to the wikichecker accounts for 1,958 of them. So, a heavily-edited page, yes, technically-speaking. But that doesn't mean the same thing as other pages in the 5k edit range. Apart from that, the close is fine, weak "its notable/interesting" keeps as usual. What exactly is a "scandal" anyways is highly subjective, and no ideal for a list criteria. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I see no consensus in the debate. Numerically, it's 7:5:X (where X is a random comment on oral sex or similar). I think the BLP complaints are without merit. The article is not inherently a BLP violation. If there are entries that are, the answer is to fix these particular entries, not to delete the whole article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn or Relist There was not consensus to delete. The citing of the article was the main problem;It was however fully cited during the discussion--and essentially every one of the Delete opinions came before that was done. When an article is improved to the extent that it answers the main stated objection, the earlier opinion have no validity. I think the admin did realize that, for he quite correctly did not give this as a reason for his decision. Rather, his reasons were , "propensity for BLP" --but that is a criterion that could apply to half on Wikipedia, and "concerns about scope" -- the article very carefully defines the scope, and the application to any particular case is a question for the talk p. It seems obvious that almost all the entries fall very clearly within any reasonable view of the scope--there are one or two that I think do not fall within the scope, such as Joe Wilson, but that is no reason to condemn the entire article. I point out, as I pointed out at the AfD, that public political figures are a partial exception to many BLP concerns, as any criminal or even disreputable matter is relevant to their political role and this article is limited to such people. (Other BLP concerns, such as sourcing are of course relevant to them also) I would not support an article on "Scandals in the United States", regardless of excellent sourcing, because for most of the instances, it would not be relevant material. . With respect to the actual article, everything there is sourced, and the few entries that do not have a Wikipedia article are obvious qualified for them. Most of the ones that were not convicted or resigned under fire, are instances where the notability of the charges is so great (e.g. Preston Brooks) that they should be included. I recognize that the question of how to handle scandals where the people were truly exonerated and not just acquitted on technicalities is a bit of a problem--the inclusion of a few here among a great majority of the truly guilty gives erroneous implications; we might want to cover these is a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, (this applies to both of the above) "I think...", "I see...", etc...are not valid reasons to overturn an AfD. A difference of opinion is just that; you don't get to substitute your own judgment call over another's. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. If you want me to reformulate, I could: There was no consensus to delete.[...] The BLP concerns are without merit. [...]. I prefer, however, not to assume my or anybodies judgement is absolutely correct and final, hence I tend to use more nuanced phrasing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn There was no consensus to delete. The article is completely cited, which means that the deletion arguments now have no merit. Complaints about BLP here are a canard: the same cited information in the underlying biographical articles do not receive BLP attention. Now we have the odd situation in which policial scandals regularly occur in the the US (as proven by the citations), but WP is not allowed to list them together for easy reference look up. By their definition, WP lists are the ideal place for such information collections-- explanatory notes can be added as well as citations. Hmains (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - Per Tarc. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus with detailed analysis.—S Marshall T/C 21:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Delete !vote #1: — Extremely low weight to this !vote. Contributor is concerned with the current state of the article, when he should be concerned with its potential state. "Way too long" is fixable. "Probably uncompleteable" is fixable by giving better criteria for inclusion.
- Delete !vote #2: — Disregard entirely, contributor is directly contradicting WP:CLN which he apparently hasn't read.
- Delete !vote #3: — Disregard entirely, exactly per delete !vote 2.
- Keep !vote #1: — Explicitly refutes delete !votes 1, 2 and 3.
- Delete !vote #4: — Plays the "OMG WTF BLP nightmare!" card (henceforth to be known as deletionist debating tactic #1). Unfortunately, there's some justice to it so this has to be given full weight.
- Keep !vote #2: — Asserts that the material is notable. So what? Nobody's saying it's not. Disregard entirely.
- Keep !vote #3: — Asserts that the material is notable and encyclopaedic. So what? Nobody's saying it's not, disregard entirely.
- Keep !vote #4: — Shows a genuine commitment to address the concerns that led to the nomination. Give full weight.
- Keep !vote #5: — I see some passing editor has taken it upon himself to strike this out and replace it with an insulting note (diff). That was unfortunate, but the argument didn't add anything to the debate, so whichever way, disregard entirely.
- Delete !vote # 5: — Lots of things wrong with this. First sentence is wrongly focused on the article's current content, not its potential state, so fixable. Second sentence is later refuted (Collect says "much is unsourced" but by the end of the AfD everything in the article was sourced). Third sentence is fixable. ("POV" doesn't mean "delete". It means "rewrite to NPOV".) Also plays the "BLP violations" card which is reasonable but had already been mentioned and given weight under delete !vote 4.
- Keep !vote #6: — A patient and nuanced explanation of the policy-based reasons to keep this article. Give full weight, and also note that it explicitly refutes the original nomination.
- Delete !vote #6: — Duplicates the mistake in delete !vote #1. Extremely low weight to this !vote accordingly.
- Delete !vote #7: — Duplicates the mistakes in delete !votes #1 and #6, and also those of #2 and #3. Extremely low weight.
- Commentary: None of this adds any weight to the arguments already presented.
Overall outcome was correctly to be read as "no consensus".
|
- PS: Kudos to Spartaz for starting the DRV at this stage instead of later. Good call.—S Marshall T/C 21:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There were seven delete !votes, and your (otherwise strong) summary lists only six. One seems to have been left out. Was it mine by any chance? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, actually according to the statistics listed on the AfD there 8 delete votes versus 5 keeps. And several comments added that were answers to points brought up, both for and con. And no one that I have seen has yet to answer, why do we need a seperate list when this "scandals" belong with the peole commiting, unless they are large enough in scope to merit their own article? Wolfstorm000 (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the eighth was the nomination itself, which also doesn't appear in the analysis. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does: I note under keep !vote 6 that the nomination was explicitly refuted. The delete !vote I missed was Collect's. I've now amended my summary to include it.—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn due to the reasoning provided by S. Marshall above. While we are on the topic, what about doing a deletion review in all AFD before closing, just like this one. Mwywy (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn The discussion was generally of poor quality with little reference to relevant policies such as WP:CLN or the abundant sourcing which is both out there and within the article. The discussion should either be closed as no consensus or relisted for further discussion. And frankly, it seems absurd that we shouldn't have an article which lists well known historical scandals like Teapot Dome and Watergate. These are standard history now and all the recentism should not get in the way of this. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus- based on my reading of the afd, I find it extremely hard to argue with S Marshall's arguments. I just really do not see anything remotely resembling a consensus in that afd. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus as there was none reached by the participants of the AfD under discussion. Alansohn (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse As way stated earlier, how do we define a "scandal"? One persons notoriety may be anothers normal life. An article such as this would be way to hard to keep WP:NPOV when the very definition would change from person to person. If there are significant issues with a person of politics, who is a major player, then they would have an article already and the "scandal" could be attached to that persons article. Like I said with the Monica Lewinsky case, there are so many rivers running through that forest you could devote an article just to that one scandal. There were multiple true scandals over the course of history and all had a major player involved whos article should show that. IMO it should be attached to the person, not listed somewhere. If someone is going to look up the scandal, then they would be looking for key players and should be directed to that persons article. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can someone explain how a 8 delete to 5 keep vote equals no consensus? Even if you follow S Marshall detailed analysis, half of the delete votes were automatically thrown out the door. However, half of the keep votes were also, so that would still leave a clear consensus of 4 to 2.5. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How can 4:2.5 possibly be a consensus? Even a WP:CONSENSUS? It's barely a majority. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont know if I would consider 62% as barely a majority. 75% might be better, but it would still be a majority vote. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't count votes. Closers aren't supposed to, so vote counting doesn't properly form part of the DRV process. Counting votes (a) is an incentive to sockpuppetry and (b) disregards the strength of the arguments. What you're looking for is the arguments made during the debate and the extent to which they were refuted by subsequent posts.—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was merely extending exactly what you and others did by itemizing the votes, not the discussions.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We're now degenerating into headcounting? Anyway, S Marshall's analysis - which does go examining the debate itself which is what should be done - doesn't really hold for me. One important delete !vote has been missed, but in any case, I don't think a one-by-one vote weight analysis is a particularly helpful approach for a closing admin, it leads to mistaking the forest for the trees. The closing admin should look at the debate as a whole, consider the main arguments raised and the extent to which they have policy and consensus support (try the vote-by-vote analysis on a TLDR AfD and you'll see what I mean). Also, Alzarian and Collect's arguments about scope looked sound to me. The concerns they raised cannot be dismissed as being "fixable". Of course, the BLP problems are fixable. I really don't know what to do about this one. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problems with scope are the same with any Wikipedia article, and can be solved the same way - use WP:RS to determine candidate and talk page discussion to find which facts to include and which not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious, Mkativerata: how do you parse how much weight to give each !vote without analysing each in turn?—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, actually from what Ive read, I agree sourcing could be a fixable issue. Ive stated from the beginning that it could be possible, just very hard to keep up on. My opinion is and has been, why would this benefit anyone trying to research a person involved in a scandal? How do we neutrally define "scandal" and how would you keep it from violating WP:TLDR? Where would a list be justified when the players involved in the scandal should have their own page and, if notable enough, the scandal itself may have its own page. Seems a waste of time and resources to continually update something like this instead of just keeping up on the articles. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You read each !vote of course, but you don't engage in a vote-by-vote parsing. After reading each !vote, you'll have a good idea of each of the core arguments and the extent of their support. And on that basis you can judge consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I wouldn't expect it done at every single AfD, but at some DRVs a !vote-by!-vote analysis strikes me as a potentially useful approach. Certainly other DRV contributors have appreciated it, and it seems inadequate just to say, "I think a lot of the !votes can be set aside for various reasons"; I felt the need to say which of the arguments deserved what weight, and why. But maybe a less process-based approach would appeal more to you. Do you think it's right that Political scandals of the United States should be a redlink?—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have an opinion on that - I saw this AfD while it was still running and didn't have any views either way. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't have any particular opinion on whether this should be kept or deleted; however, I felt I should add a clarification note here. In its current form as a blanked article whose only content is the deletion review notice, the page was getting listed as an uncategorized article. Every page in articlespace must be either categorized or tagged as an ((uncat)), so if a page shows up on that list the categorization project has an absolute, non-negotiable requirement to get it off the list by any means necessary — there can never, ever, ever, be any type of "this page is a special case that gets to stay on the list with no action taken to clear it off" exception for any reason whatsoever. Accordingly, I've temporarily moved the page to User:Spartaz/Political scandals of the United States, so that it's outside of article space and doesn't require categorization. If this discussion overturns the deletion, then the page can be moved back into article space and reinstated in its old form — but it cannot be left in article space in its current uncategorizable form. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Main Page isn't an article, and doesn't get counted as such by the uncategorized articles list. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Curious: Where does this absolute requirement come from? And why does WP:IAR not apply? It's been uncategorized for days, and the Wiki still works... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IAR is not a license to just do any old thing without regard for the overall structure of the encyclopedia; it's strictly an acknowledgement that there will occasionally be situations where you need to do something that hasn't already been accounted for by pre-existing rules. This isn't one of those situations, as the existing rules already provide solutions (like keeping intentionally uncategorized and/or uncategorizable pages out of articlespace, or creating project categories for them). And categorization of all pages in articlespace is both (a) basic categorization policy, and (b) necessary to ensure that the categorization project's tools aren't getting cluttered up by pages we're not allowed to deal with. While it's true that the list doesn't actually get dealt with promptly each and every day, in principle the rule is that the list has to be cleared to absolute zero each and every day. While sometimes it ends up taking three or four days for someone to actually run through it, when it does get dealt with it has to be absolutely 100% cleared with no pages left behind, if only because that's the project's job. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that seems to indicate that either your processes or your tools need to become more flexible, not that everything in article space has to be categorised. I agree that that good categorisation is a worthy goal, but it's not an absolute necessity, and it should not interfere with other, similarly important processes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then find a way to ensure that pages of this type which are left in articlespace don't get counted as uncategorized articles in the first place. Neither the categorization project's processes nor its tools need to change, because there isn't a problem with them; if they're in conflict with your needs here, then find a solution at this end that keeps the pages in question from showing up in our tools and processes at all. After all, this solution merely required a minor adjustment that in no way interfered with delrev processes, and won't require any complicated solution to fix if and when the discussion is over — so it's hardly worth fighting about. But if you'd prefer another solution instead, then by all means do whatever you want as long as it doesn't result in the page showing up on the uncat list again tomorrow morning — because then I'll have to do whatever I have to do to clear it off that list again. And not because one project takes precedence over the other, but because all of our projects and processes need to work in tandem and find solutions that work for everyone. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there was more blowback over this than I was expecting, I've moved the page back to its original articlespace title and added it to Category:Candidates for undeletion instead. I hope that's more acceptable to people here. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Rich Farmbrough has tagged the MP as uncat with AWB before, accidentally. There was a plan before to add the MP to its own category, to avoid this again, but it never really amounted to anything. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was briefly a coding error in the uncat bot which caused Main Page to sometimes show up in the AWB-formatted version of the uncat list even though it never appeared on the main Toolserver versions of the list (and didn't always appear in the text file, either). That's since been repaired, because it was never intended to be counted as an uncategorized article. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist/overturn to no consensus I think a relist would have been a better idea than just going ahead and closing it. Closing it as "keep" would have been wrong as the I found the keep arguments to be quite weak, but the delete arguments were centered around "should be a category instead", "BLP problems" (which I didn't find to be a major issue here actually), and "poorly organized/defined". I don't think that these necessarily warrant deletion, but I would definitely lean more toward delete if someone had brought up WP:BLPCAT/WP:LISTPEOPLE, which I would have found to be applicable here if the BLP problem was more serious for this list. All in all, there isn't really solid consensus to delete this article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to No consensus. The BLP issues were addressed appropriately. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn, possibly refocus to just federal-level scandals. I am probably generally considered one of those Crazy Deletionist BLP Fanatics™, but even I don't see consensus or overriding reason to delete here. NW (Talk) 18:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus There was no consensus to delete. S Marshall's above analysis shows that there were some well thought out keep positions and I don't think a close should have been blinded to those valued views by the glare of the I LIKE IT positions. The article may have problems, but they are not so great as to have to reset years of work. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn All of the reasons originally listed for deletion have been met. There are no unreferenced citations and the article has been split to make it more manageable. It's a big subject.
- Yes, over the years, I have made a lot of edits. Almost all of them references. Yes, my typing sucks. My research is much better.
- Tarc and Burpelson AFB ask what IS a scandal? May I point out there is also no definition of gravity. And yet scandals and gravity are certainly both notable.
- Wolfstorm000's comment about "too many rivers run through the trees" (Clinton and Lewinsky) only shows he hasn't tried to reference them all. I have. www.snopes.com has a good article on it.
- Wolfstorm's000's comment that scandals are mentioned within an individual's article is only partially correct. The articles of many politicians are kept sanitized by the individual's supporters. Further, his position precludes the use of this article for the general study of history, by era, by decade, by administration, by war, etc. Richrakh (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|