Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Weiner sexting scandal

Anthony Weiner photo scandal

Anthony Weiner photo scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

PRODded on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS. PROD was heavily contested. This nomination should not be taken as a vote on my part for deletion; I am listing as an AFD because the PROD was heavily contested. —Lowellian (reply) 10:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment The PROD was "heavily contested", but if you read the talk page where IP's stated their reason... well, you can see they aren't exactly using the soundest arguments. My favorites are to keep "because subject is news" and "This page should not be speedy deleted because it's about a penis, which is fucking hilarious!" Those are direct quotes. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The page has evolved into an amplification of base facts in the main article rather than just a reiteration of those facts. As such, it serves two useful purposes: to keep the main article concise and to provide specific details fundamental to the base facts.--WriterIN (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is getting more than minimal traction, and because it is a unique case, is very likely to have a lasting effect. The event has gotten bigger than being just news at this point. As for the PROD, if you don't think it should be deleted, then you shouldn't be listing it at AFD. PRODs are for uncontested deletions. If it is contested, let someone who really wants it to go to AFD to send it. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect This page should redirect to Anthony Weiner because it does not expand upon, detail or improve information within the biography of the congressman. Have a look at John_Edwards_extramarital_affair and tell me that this scandal passes WP:NOTSCANDAL. John Edwards was just indicted by a federal grand jury. His name yields about 10,000 hits in Google news.[1]. Anthony Weiner's name yields about 5,000 hits in Google news.[2] The term "Weinergate" yields about 500 hits in Google news.[3] Let's please have some sense of proportion regarding notability. So far there is nothing that can be said in this article that can't in the main article. Furthermore, there hasn't been enough time to see how it will affect his career, whether there will be lasting effects how political leaders use the internet and social media. All the things people are clamoring for is in the context of Wikipedia, either original research or looking into a crystal ball. I also think the article would be use by editors pushing a certain point of view, whether this is people giving a coatrack to his critics or trying to downplay the scandal. It's just too soon to see how it all plays out, and we can't see the future. Wikipedia isn't a current events newswire. There are plenty of places to go for up to the minute news, punditry, and editorializing, but Wikipedia isn't it. Have some patience. Given time, the implications of this scandal will be made clear. If they are far-reaching beyond his marriage and career, then a separate article will be appropriate. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTSCANDAL deals with rumormongering and hearsay. But no one denies the central facts of the case, the nature of the published photos, or that Weiner himself held a press conference to admit his actions. Hardly rumors and hearsay. μηδείς (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

NOTSCANDAL also reads, "Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." It is clear, particularly with the expansion at the Weiner bio to include a section about "responses" that the intention is to pile punditry. Noting Minority Leader Pelosi's pledge to seek an investigation is appropriate, and there may be some other notable response or there may not be. The point is that we are condoning the creation of articles and sections in advance of the things actually justifying those things. So people will start filling them in with all the inanity they can cite, because there's a section for it, or a whole article page and they want to remove the "stub" tag, rather than because this is actually materially relevant to concise encyclopedic coverage of what happened and the result. At the moment, this is simply a scandal about sending photos and other communication between people who had never met. We make it more after it becomes more, not before. Abrazame (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Political commentators in various news organizations seem to be of the collective opinion that this event has already changed the landscape of the New York City mayoral election, 2013 (see below). That makes it notable. The content you're complaining about can be fixed by editing. We're only debating here whether the article stays, or not. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

Yeah, but they had all those political commentators in ostensibly to talk about Romney entering the race yet with all this recentism what the hell else at various news organizations did they get asked this week? I'd like to hear their collective opinion about a 2013 mayoral election some time in 2012; in mid 2011, it's idle speculation and not even remotely a serious argument for encyclopedic notability. As others have said, if it becomes that, then we can deal with it that way at that point down the road. Abrazame (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's flippant to call the analysis of multiple political commentators in the mainstream media "idle speculation". The standard you're setting here is to effectively "prove a negative". Say he doesn't run. Short of him saying that he didn't run because of this scandal (which he would be highly unlikely to do), one couldn't prove that was the reason. Say he does run and looses. Again, would be hard-pressed to proove it was because of this. I think what we're saying here is that there are many WP:RS from professionals that now agree that this event has changed the landscape of the New York City mayoral election, 2013, and that is notable. Agricola44 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

There's no question that this particular matter of Weiner's life and career is a wp:standalone subject and is definitely "wp:notable". And appealing to "WP:SCANDAL" is silly, as the policy on that clearly says "scandal mongering from stuff heard through the grapevine" and should not be "libelous" etc. This is not libelous at all, but simply factual summation of what's happened, and what's involved. This situation is overwhelmingly sourced (reliably), and is definitely a separate and stand-alone topic. Not just regular "news", but an actual topic now. Deserving its own separate WP article. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Promulgating the musing that this may affect his chances in a future election he has not yet declared himself to be running in is WP:CRYSTAL based on recentist speculation the very day of his admission. They're allowed to go on TV and fill a 20-minute segment (and another, and another, and...) with it, but we're supposed to consider only what is encyclopedic, and only after it has happened. In a WP:BLP it is an attack to the person's reputation to say that some episode may or has been said could possibly or think likely to damage his prospects for some future election. I find it absurd to say we would have to "prove a negative", because the point here is that, should he run and lose, or should he not run, at that point in time there will be someone who will opine that the reason for this was, to whatever degree, this scandal, and then we might well include that. Because we will not be promoting a prediction, we will be attributing notably sourced opinions on causality to an historical event. There would likely be polls by then, for example, or at least exit polling, where we could learn X% expressed this as having changed their opinion of his fitness for service, while X% said they were happy with his service and thought this no reason to vote for the other guy. So their opinion wouldn't be idle speculation, but based in what the electorate of Weiner's district actually did, and what they said about why they did it. Yesterday morning, C-SPAN had an hour or so of Democrat and Independent NY callers (those already not inclined against him in the abstract), where only three callers expressed that they would not now vote for him. Then they opened the calls up to the whole country and there were plenty of Southern Republicans who found this grounds for impeachment. I don't think the jury is in on Weiner's electability, and I don't think it's encyclopedically responsible for us to present one, or even both, sides of that question until there is some historical perspective, like not being two years ahead of the thing. Abrazame (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't say that this will necessarily "damage his prospects". Even if others have said that, that's not my point. But that just as the situation stands NOW, it's a stand-alone topic, and copiously sourced. Something that is arguably bigger and more separate than just Anthony Weiner or his life. It's a separate situation, and quite notable. As it stands now. Regardless of what may happen in the future regarding it. Hashem sfarim (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect, has no wider significance outside of his own career. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect - The original article Anthony Weiner is still short enough to absorb the everything there is to say about the subject without giving undue weight. In my searches of the subject I have not been able to find enough additional information that comes from reliable sources that would expand the current subject much beyond what it says at this point. At such time that the article is reaching 100k of readable prose then the article should be split into subsections. We gain nothing from splitting this off now. GB fan (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WP:SNOW. Fulfills all criteria. The article has so much room for expansion and shouldn't be judged by how it compares to what's on Anthony Weiner's biographical page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • When there are two redirects and two keeps (including your vote), the AfD is far below criteria for a SNOW close. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. This is a blurb in Weiner's biography, but there is no indication this needs a separate page. In fact, it should be noted that there was clear consensus not to create a fork for this on Talk:Anthony Weiner, but someone went ahead and did it anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect this page It is simply copying what is already on Weiner's page.--Politicsislife (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep though the article title leaves something to be desired. I'm something of an eventualist ... it's eventually going to have an article, so why bother deleting it? See Mark Foley congressional page incident, Larry Craig scandal. --B (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • So through your crystal ball, you're sure this will reach those same levels? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The Mark Foley article was created the day after the story broke. [4] --B (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
      • True, but your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument doesn't work. That was Foley messing around with underage congressional pages, this is Weiner sexting some randoms. Foley's situation contributed to the 2006 election results, including the loss of Foley's seat. There is no indication this event is anything more than a blip in Weiner's career. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
        • And you were able to predict the day after the scandal broke that Foleygate would contribute to the 2006 election results? --B (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
          • The Foley scandal may or may not be a good model for this, but the distinction is that the allegation about Foley was that he invited an under-age subordinate to his home in exchange for oral sex, among a pattern of other such incidents including asking teens to send him a picture of their erect penis. Beyond the obvious illegality and abuse of power there that is not present in the Weiner scandal is the fact that, as it says in that article which I've just for the first time clicked on now, "Foley was chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, which introduced legislation targeting sexual predators". Abrazame (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This can affect a popular and potential New York City Mayoral candidate's political career's future. Why this is even on the deletion policy is beyond me, but then again, Wikipedia took weeks to rename the Libya War article to Libyan Civil War, so I've come to expect this. This is a newsworthy story, and there will be an ethics committeee investigation. This is big. --24.192.70.167 (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep There is going to be an investigation, and will decide the future of Anthony Weiner. We all know this. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:CRYSTAL, and tell David Vitter that a sex scandal will decide his future. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Have you read WP:CRYSTAL? It says that we don't include speculative content in articles, nor do we include articles about purely speculative topics. It does NOT by any remote stretch of the imagination state that Wikipedians cannot use speculation in formulating their own opinions about what articles we should retain. Rather, attempting to weigh the historical significance of a topic is exactly what we should be doing. --B (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Pelosi has confirmed that there WILL be an investigation. [5] --RaptorHunter (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Where WP:CRYSTAL comes in, as I'm disappointed in editors for ignoring, is not in whether there will be an investigation, but in User:Muboshgu's personal conclusion not only that it "will decide the future of Anthony Weiner," but his projection of this personal speculation on everyone else with "We all know this". What we all ought to know is that there was an investigation about Charlie Rangel that ran for a couple of years, he received an unusually stiff sentence, and that sentence was largely limited to being reprimanded on the House floor. Rangel won re-election with 80% of the vote. Rangel's district is a stone's throw from Weiner's. Yesterday morning Democrat and Independent callers to C-SPAN overwhelmingly supported Weiner. Maybe we didn't all know this, and that's why so many of us are so insistent upon inserting negative speculation about the future? Or maybe we did, and some of us are POV-ing this into these articles in the hopes of turning the tide against him. Abrazame (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Basing a vote you call "strong keep" on the phrase "...an investigation...will decide the future of Anthony Weiner. We all know this" is not at all a strong justification, and that is what is WP:CRYSTAL. We might all have assumed the long-married, family values Republican Vitter going to prostitutes would have ended his career too; we'd have been wrong. And that's the point. Say what it was that happened, and leave the soothsaying and the punditry for the talk shows. Abrazame (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep pending a merge discussion on the talk page. Yes this is a news story, and for me, it falls somewhere on the edge between the tabloidy stuff that WP:NOTNEWS suggests be deleted, and a legitimate encyclopedic topic. For now, I just don't think there's enough for any sort of distinct article, and would be best covered under Wiener's own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge without prejudice The only real question is, is there too much info for the main article. IMHO it's right on the borderline at the moment. If we merge it back it should be with the understanding that it's likely (although not a certainty) that further developments will require the article to be re-broken out to allow for expansion.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Those who continue to cite WP:NOTNEWS should understand that blurb is meant to cover "breaking news", or one time coverage. In this case, this story has been enduring and there is way more then breaking news coverage to sufficiently create an article. According to WP:NEWSEVENT this article fits into inclusion criteria number 2: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" -Marcusmax(speak) 14:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect - Far from notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia page. Does it have consequences beyond what might happen to Rep. Weiner in the future? If no, then the incident should be covered on Weiner's page. Educatedseacucumber (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - This article will continue to expand with the ongoing fallout from Weiner's wiener.--RaptorHunter (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:NEWSEVENT. This has even been heavily covered internationally not just in the US due to all the trouble Twitter is involved with. IJA (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - per WP:SNOW.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect - Anthony Weiner photo scandal doesn't have enough useful information to merit its own article. I say it should be redirected to Anthony Weiner#Twitter photo scandal. The same should be done for Weinergate, which is how I found Anthony Weiner photo scandal in the first place. Macai (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per NOTNEWS, and due to BLP concerns. This is an event which may merit mention in the subjects biography, but there is no indication (yet) that this will be notable in its own right. In the meanwhile, BLP trumps eventualism. Martinp (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. This event is currently receiving too much news coverage to justify deleting it at this time. I decided to check and see how much coverage it is receiving on Google News. I found that the current lead story there is "Will constitutents forgive Weiner?" (from CNN International), and below that it says "See all 2,507 sources". If the coverage dies down and Weiner experiences no long-term repercussions from this event, then we can consider merging this article back into Anthony Weiner later on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So what? The question is, does this have any significance beyond his own career. Thus far, no evidence of that at all. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If not, then as a second choice, merge the entire article into Anthony Weiner. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. Just another minor incident relating to a Representative. Deserves a paragraph on his own article. —Diiscool (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I was neutral, the only argument that made any sense was merge, but the verifiable information is now too much to justify cramming into the weiner article. μηδείς (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This has become pretty huge, I think. Perhaps a merge, later, but for right now I think it should be kept. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong KEEP - per SNOW. How silly that this is even being considered for deletion. Come now ... really? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC))
• Keep. This is way past WP:NOTNEWS already and is now affecting the political landscape. For example, The Washington Post ran an article today in which Jason Horowitz says that the event "is a devastating blow to Weiner’s mayoral ambitions in New York, which seemed highly realistic only a few days ago". I think it's nonsense to claim that an event that affects the leadership of NYC in a fundamental way is not notable on its own – uncontroversial "keep". Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

• In another article at CBS news, Chris Smith, a columnist at New York magazine said "I think his chances of running for Mayor are zero. It's pretty simple. He was the frontrunner until two weeks ago". Seems pretty conclusive that political commentators collectively believe that the NYC political landscape has already been changed by this specific event, nevermind that Weiner may ultimately be forced to resign his current post, as well. Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

• Keep This is a historically significant scandal in that it is one of the first where Twitter is central, and it also illustrates the perils of the "I've been hacked" defense. We also have a US Congressman lying repeatedly, and a pending investigation by the US House. There are multiple people involved now, and is just too large to include in his biography. By any reasonable standard this article should be kept, and the improvements over the last few hours suggest there is plenty of verifiable info to include. Tbear1234 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. This will occupy the attention of the US political media and blogosphere for maybe two weeks. Come the dawn, it will be as forgotten as Earl Butz's joke, or Wilbur Mills making like Anita Ekberg in a Washington fountain. Probably merits coverage in Anthony Wiener, but not a standalone article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. There's precedent. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong keep Fully notable, but requires expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efcmagnew (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect Not everything that happens in the world is a universe unto itself, despite how many media outlets depend upon their audience to be inclined or lured to that impression by hourly updates every day of the week. If what we know now is basically all there is, a handful of lewd extramarital flirtations, then editors should not be allowed to breathlessly anticipate it becoming more than that. And if what we know now is not the whole story, it won't be for lack of a Wikipedia article devoted to the subject that we'd learn this. We're not here to break tabloid news, we're here to write a brief encyclopedic coverage of notables. Material already tells us "ABC News also reported the identity of another of Weiner's social media contacts..." This is the sort of unnecessary, unencyclopedic, tabloidesque elaboration that its own article begs us to include. Shame on ABC News for either violating the woman's privacy or giving her a platform to instant smarmy infamy, whichever the case may be, but that isn't the point about how an encyclopedia ought to present the information. When all is said and done, if one of these women becomes Jessica Hahn, posing in Penthouse, then we can present that. When all is said and done if one of these women is driven to suicide because of the attention, then God help us we wouldn't be party to that ahead of the fact. But while the basic facts are clearly relevant to Weiner biographically, this sort of excess, dripping with prurience and laden with attack, is the sort of things guidelines should be helping us responsibly minimize, not spin off into its own ever-expanding universe. Abrazame (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Where's the attack? What makes it less notable than the John Edwards scandal, where no laws were broken in either incident?Efcmagnew (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, John Edwards faces thirty years in prison. Liberal Classic (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Just to correct this line of debate. The Edwards indictment came only a few days ago and could hardly be more recent. The Edwards scandal article was created here on WP in August 2008 – the same time Edwards "came clean" to the public and almost 3 years before indictment. The corresponding timing of these WP articles to their respective events are remarkably similar. Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
        • But it has taken this long for all the ramifications of Edwards' scandal to emerge and be covered by secondary sources. His scandal page has a single paragraph documenting the grand jury indictment. As far as the Weiner scandal on the other hand, Wikipedia has become a part of the media circus. Instead of documenting the event dispassionately, editors have gotten wrapped up in the frenzy and as a result the article has lost objectivity. This is has been the sum of my argument on the talk page for Weiner's bio, the talk page for the article, and this AfD. I'd be willing to change my vote to keep, except the Weinergate article is too tabloidesque. I call it a POV fork because the scandal section in the main bio article was much better regulated. Liberal Classic (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but no. There were numerous sources in the original version of the Edwards article, which was quite lengthy, just as there are numerous ones for this article. Edwards' newfound indictment has been totally irrelevant to the existence of that article for its almost 3-year history. Again, the histories of these two articles in relation to the events they actually document are remarkably similar, which further supports the argument that this one should be kept. Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
            • With all due respect, the allegations were first published by the Enquirer the year before that article was created, and the news broke in the mainstream press the previous week. This fork was started within hours of Weiner's admission. The point about the grand jury indictment is that it takes years for everything to play out. The felony charges are the result of a long investigation and are themselves important news, yet they only rate a paragraph in the scandal article. All I am saying in all most posts on this topic is to be cautious, pay careful attention to BLP (both for Weiner and his online paramours), NPOV, etc. Things that editors are not doing, IMO. The scandal section in the main bio article was well-regulated, but once the POV fork started it got way out of control. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
              • Thanks for clarification, but it sounds distinctly to me that your concerns are more with the content of the article, rather than its existence. In my mind, it doesn't make a whole bunch of difference how soon beforehand the story broke. That is, we don't have any policy-based waiting period, as far as I'm aware. It only matters whether there are sources, and there are indeed many here. Would you agree? I think it's critically important that the WP article be accurate and not written so as to feed reader prurience, but the fact that there are so many sources in mainstream media make it very difficult to explain away the claim this article makes for existence. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
  • You seem to be making essentially a moral argument for deletion rather than one based on the notability of the subject. Agricola44 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC).
    • If that's the way it seems to you, then I invite you to re-read my comments immediately above and throughout this discussion. The argument against giving this its own article is to prevent excessive tabloid detail from making us get out in front of the encyclopedic aspect of this story. Throughout these comments, people are expressing their mistaken and unencyclopedic opinions that because this is major news for a couple of weeks, then it deserves its own article, contrary to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Throughout these comments, people express their mistaken impression that it is encyclopedically notable or appropriate to print speculation about Weiner's future electability, contrary to WP:BLP and WP:CRYSTAL — as well as WP:RECENTISM, because the very day he admits to sending a lewd photo this opinion is dispensed, with absolutely no regard to the opinion of Weiner's electorate and two years in advance of the election in question. This is getting out ahead of a story, and the only possible benefit to presenting such a prediction now seems itself to be a moral argument against electability. Why else would someone say such a thing when there are two years for somewhat liberal NYC voters to digest this? What else but the sexual morality aspect would cause someone say such a thing when Charlie Rangel, after a major two-year investigation that resulted in the very strong (for the House) punishment of public censure, won reelection with 80% of the vote in a district a stone's throw from Weiner's? Indeed, your comment about morality judgments seems to say more about the arguments for this page than the argument against. The notable aspects of this at this time before such findings as the investigation may result in, and before the next election, can be covered in two paragraphs at Weiner's bio. The rest, and I submit the article as it stands at the moment, even prior to what people pile on about other photos and the lives of the women in question, is encyclopedically extraneous and irresponsible, and seems to exist more to delve into unencyclopedic aspects of the story rather than to ensure a cogent and NPOV coverage of why this episode is an encyclopedically notable chapter of Weiner's public life. Abrazame (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Your comment is clear to anyone who reads it, professor. Statements like "Shame on ABC News for either violating the woman's privacy" and "if one of these women is driven to suicide because of the attention, then God help us" are moral imperatives to delete this article. Do you have any substantive, on topic argument regarding the subject's notability? That is the only issue for debate here. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
        • Violation of privacy and warning against linking to articles that give the name of people who did not choose to be public figures — much less boasting proudly in article text about such naming — are against the policies of Wikipedia and the editorial responsibilities at an encyclopedia, and your focus on the moral aspect of that rather than the legal and encyclopedic ones is either persistent myopia or purposeful obfuscation. As you go on to write "Do you have any substantive, on topic argument" despite the fact that I linked several other policies in the above comment and elsewhere is equally tone-deaf. Helpful to the discussion would be if you would respond to the substantive arguments and ignore what you perceive as the moralism, rather than responding to your perception of the moralism and feigning blindness to the substantive arguments. Abrazame (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
          • I feel the same about your (in)ability to hear and I'm trying to understand all those large words:) It's crucial that you understand that it is not we who are violating privacy. The "players" in this episode have all already been copiously documented by the mainstream media. That means there are sources, which is what is need and which demonstrate nobility. That is the crux. None of this is WP:OR, but rather WP:RS, as required by policy. Agricola44 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
            • It's crucial that you understand that we do not have to note that the woman's name has been reported, nor link to a source that does so, just because that source has done so. By doing so, we have become part of the problem, and we have become one of the players, not some time after the fact with some encyclopedic perspective, but breathlessly for no good or considered reason as soon as somebody throws it up the same day, adding to the tide of hits and directing traffic to that kind of aspect. Do you all really think that the crux, and the only threshold for us, and the arbiter of encyclopedic notability, is that some reliable source caught up in the thrall of the media circus has reported it? That is not at all so; no responsible editor is going to "hear" this your way in that regard. Abrazame (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
              • Back to arguing morals again, I see. If you don't like that part of the content, then be bold and remove it. You are still not making any sort of the convincing argument against the existence of the article itself. Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
• Comment - A couple days ago I could see the NOTNEWS argument. At a certain point these things gain critical mass as historical events. This one is getting close to that. There's not a good solution, if the info is integrated into his biography the latter will capsize. Grit teeth and keep, I suppose. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete/redirect. As the guidelines instructs us, "This article may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a recently created article with no relevant page history that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within the existing article(s) on the subject, Anthony Weiner." This is pretty much the poster child of an A10. A completely identical re-pasting of an existing article. After it failed to garner consensus support on the AW page, to boot. This page was created in the face of lack of support for it at the Anthony Weiner talk page. Very poor form on the part of the creator, as he was apparently aware of that -- having posted to that discussion. In addition to deletion (for the moment, at least), a TROUTING is in order. wp:consensus is a core principle of the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Seems to have no problem with support here. Running about 2 to 1 at the moment for "keep". I don't think we're debating the creator's motivation or form here either. Agricola44 (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

• Strong Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:NEWSEVENT. The event is now much bigger than just Weiner. it is involving Yfrog and Twitter spokesmen weighing in on their security. There is also the involvement of Breitbart, and of ABC news obtaining the story weeks earlier and obtaining a "license" (and possibly paying a fee) for information and images from at least one of the women involved. Coupled with an ethics probe and possible misuse of government property, this is now beyond of the scope of a generic Anthony Weiner article. Dwcarless (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This AfD is less about WP:SNOW and more about WP:STEAM. Liberal Classic (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Only eleven listings for it? That doesn't seem like nearly enough. --B (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, essentially agree with above comments stated quite well by Dwcarless (talk · contribs), Efcmagnew (talk · contribs), Tbear1234 (talk · contribs), and Agricola44 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep obviously notable story, despite its complete vacuous nature. I wonder what Tarc thinks about this one, honestly.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The content of the child article remains substantially the same as that of the section from the parent article. There's virtually no new information presented in the fork, and almost all the citations in the child already exist in the parent. About the only real difference in the inclusion of conservative publisher and commentator Andrew Breitbart. This is why I make the case this scandal is adequately represented in the congressman's bio. It isn't that the scandal isn't notable. It is. But there hasn't been enough time for the fallout from the scandal to have hit secondary sources yet. WP:BLP holds articles to a higher standard, one that I fear this article does not meet. I recognize I am in the minority here, but currently I feel the article is kind of coatracky. Best wishes, Liberal Classic (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The article has only existed for a day. The fact that it hasn't yet grown much beyond a stub isn't a reason in and of itself to delete it. --B (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
      • To the contrary, that the child article is a copy of the content from the section in the parent article is an adequate reason to delete it. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
        • That's how forks start. Articles start off small. They grow. If the child article hasn't been expanded in a month, then you will have a reasonable argument. In any event, from eyeballing it, the child article looks like it is about twice as long as the corresponding section in the parent article as of right now. Also, having the child article would allow some of the content to be removed from the parent article. The parent article is a BLP and this one incident in Weiner's life should not consume his BLP. --B (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
          • The child article is fluffed up like a high-school book report. :) In my opinion, it doesn't look like his biography is overpowered by the inclusion of the scandal. There's only so much Wikipedia can say on the scandal at this juncture. But if people insist on a Weinergate article, the parent section ought to be trimmed down to a paragraph and the child needs considerable tightening up to about what the parent section looks like now. I really think WP:RECENT and WP:10YT apply here. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Totally agree with LiberalClassic here. The argument by User:B that "The article has only existed for a day" is precisely the reason it does not belong here. The article was created the same day Weiner admitted to sending lewd photos to a handful of adult women. The article was created with the same material in the parent article, and has only been padded with unencyclopedic elaboration that serves to very irresponsibly give details about these women that are not helpful to an understanding of the issue. Standing on its own at this point, this article is begging to violate the privacy of those women, some of whom have already stated that they do not welcome the attention of the national and social media. Until such time as an investigation may submit its findings and recommendations, and barring any fundamental change or development in the story (not as in merely, ooh, there's another photo, or we've learned the identity of another sexting partner), this is not served by fluffing this up to appear bigger than it is, no pun intended. Abrazame (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong KEEP This event is historic and needs proper documentation in Wikipedia as a stand-alone article. Keep it non-partisan, well-referenced, and fact-based.... but keep it. All arguments for deletion are very suspect and seriously jeopardize Wikipedia's reputation as a balanced source for facts on ALL subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.84.201 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This a very notable event, concerning a sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives. the existence of this page is consistent with precedent and most of the relevant policy. In addition, with increasing press coverage, the article and the main article will likely see a significant uptick in hits as the Weinergate scandal unfolds. Ronk01 talk 21:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep-it is in the Public interest to be informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.150.206 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. This event easily meets all the criteria for WP:EVENT as a Keep. The votes above other-than-Keep are assertions and not argued at all. Recall what notable actually means here: third party coverage in reliable sources WP:GNG. I call WP:SNOW on this. If there was a persuasive case to be made for other than Keep, it would have been made already. patsw (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree, WP:SNOW this one. Approx. 70% Keep with some very persuasive policy- and precedent-based arguments to that point, and no strong arguments for delete. Ronk01 talk 23:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep But the article is useless without pics! ;-) 67.187.111.177 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a perfect example of what is motivating so much of these "Keep" votes, and precisely what is unencyclopedic about the prurient desire to delve deeper into the smarmy, porny aspect for its own sake. There are other places on the web to see the penises of famous men. Abrazame (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I do not like scandal articles, but they exist on WP, and so that must be weighed to a certain extent. The issue thus devolves on notability - and right now this has been covered in the worldwide press, not just the US. That said, the article should be written with BLP in mind at all times (I think my sole edit there shows my position). Collect (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep same as Bigotsgate - *cough* *cough* welcome to wonkyipedia. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

To expand the KEEP above with reasoning:

WP:NEWSEVENT applies rather then WP:NOTNEWS because the inclusion criteria WP:INDEPTH and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE apply.

WP:NOTCENSORED is of importance because the material belongs somewhere and due to the amount of referenced material is will not fit into the Anthony Weiner article.

WP:NotEarly applies, anything less could imply CENSORship and political conflict of interest as appeared to occur with Bigotsgate. AFD to run 7 full days and not less(unless SNOW applies). Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Bigotsgate (this is the first I've heard of that—I did see the Brown comments about the woman on CNN) — which links to a section of an article about an election and not its own article (for those who don't understand) — was an issue of a pattern of comments by a number of elected officials specifically about their own constituencies. Those statements go directly to the state of mind about the obligation or lack thereof they perceive they have to these people as their elected public representatives. This story has absolutely none of that relevancy to service element. Similarly, if the argument is that we need to examine the ways that technology like e-mails or social media like Twitter is not as private as their users in the public eye seem to believe, then that should be the article, as Bigotsgate was not specifically about one person's comments precisely because none of those comments was in and of itself relevant beyond their own biography, but when taken as a whole were perceived to be a significant phenomenon, sign-of-the-times, political attitude, or what-have-you. Because if there were a broader article about some encyclopedically responsible analysis of this aspect of the Weiner sexting scandal as part of a broader look at these issues of the publicness of e-mails, texts and social media, then I'd be all for that. Show me where to support that kind of approach. But that's not specifically relevant to this one scandal alone, and is not the raison d'etre for this article, which exists to provide sordid details that are not materially relevant, in the interest of prurience and political smearing. To WP:NOTCENSORED, what element currently or likely to go into this subject's own article do you think has been or is likely to be censored from its coverage in the biography? Isn't that the point of WP:COATRACK, that the encyclopedia is only supposed to cover the encyclopedically responsible aspect of the story, and not spin it off to be piled with every sordid detail and self-interested response? Just what material is it that you believe "belongs somewhere" but was not at the bio? Abrazame (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - per what was mentioned above. It's now clear that this is an event that will be discussed and refereed for some time and is (obviously) highly notable. The article has already grown large enough that merging back into Anthony Weiner is pointless, a merge out of this information is inevitable. Based on the information gleened for the Larry Craig article, expect the article will expand, maybe even double in size (and still be properly references to reliable news sources). Danski14^(talk) 00:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Per reasons given above by others. Michael5046 (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. This is of a much lower importance than Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Infidelity Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Anthony Weiner --The Σ ^talk_contribs 02:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This discussion is not a vote. Please explain the reasoning behind your suggestion. Quigley (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: This article does not describe a one-day news event; the subject is a complex case with long-lasting implications that are just starting to be studied about the effects of social media, sexting, and network security on political careers. A relevant recent precedent for keeping this article can be found on the AfD for the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case. Quigley (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That's absurd! DSK was accused of rape, picked out of a lineup, charged with the crime, held at Riker's Island, paid a $6 million bail, prevented from leaving the country, forced to take up residence in NYC to stand a criminal trial, and, oh yes, stripped of his job and forced to abandon his hopes for the presidency of France, for which he was considered a shoo-in. Do you really see the argument for an article to cover all of those monumental developments as akin to Weiner sexting smutty photos of himself? Please, someone, tell me that Wikipedians have a more rational perspective on the relative encyclopedic notability. The very corollary is POV in that you're connecting a violent crime punishable by 20 years in prison with a skeezy habit of texting raunchy photos to women who are not your wife. There will unquestionably be a trial of DSK, which will either exculpate or convict him. The sort of ethics investigation that the House of Representatives does is not at all the same sort of adjudication; even those that find wrongdoing end with a slap on the wrist that has no affect on electability much less legal consequences like prison. Further, unlike a public criminal trial, ethics investigations are largely sealed until the final decision, and even then they remain sealed unless the subject wants to contest them. Meaning that it is likely that we will learn little to nothing about the House investigation, again, entirely night and day from DSK's criminal trial. Abrazame (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The AfD was argued and closed as keep before the trial, lineup, Riker's Island, $6 million bail, or any of that. The community was able to sniff out a lasting story then, and it is able to sniff out a lasting story now. Quigley (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep While I personally think the issue is stupid and not worthy of news coverage--that doesn't matter because it DOES have the news coverage, and that coverage is extensive in reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Nancy Pelosi (the most prominent Representative of Weiner's own party) is calling for a formal investigation, which is evidence that this issue has gained significant traction and thus I see no need to speculate as per WP:CRYSTAL - this has already become a major scandal deserving of an article. Kansan (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: There's no question that this particular matter of Weiner's life and career is a wp:standalone subject and is definitely "wp:notable". And appealing to "WP:SCANDAL" is silly, as the policy on that clearly says "scandal mongering from stuff heard through the grapevine" and should not be "libelous" etc. This is not libelous at all, but simply factual summation of what's happened, and what's involved. This situation is overwhelmingly sourced (reliably), and is definitely a separate and stand-alone topic. Not just regular "news", but an actual topic now. Deserving its own separate WP article. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment (I already !voted Delete above). While clearly there are more Keep voices in this debate, in many cases the rationales they provide are quite flimsy and in fact are perfect arguments for Deleting instead. Some examples: "can affect a popular and potential New York City Mayoral candidate's political career's future" and "Will decide the future of Anthony Weiner. We all know this" → actually an argument for deletion (CRYSTAL, BLP). "This article will continue to expand with the ongoing fallout", "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" (quote from policy) → the operative word is "afterwards", for now claims of lasting significance are WP:CRYSTAL. "Obviously notable story" and "This event is currently receiving too much news coverage to justify deleting it at this time." → we are an encyclopedia of notable topics, not a news aggregator service of notable stories. Finally, "WP:SNOW" - clearly not applicable, given there is a significant minority of voices arguing deletion. That is why we discuss something for a period of time. Martinp (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral, and I'll explain the reasons for and against keeping this article as I see them:

• Keep:

• A groundbreaking story in that it illustrates the rise of social media into today's modern culture and place in the lifestyles of people from many walks of life, from congressmen to middle-Americans, and the question of whether Internet affairs are equivalent to infidelity [6]
• Weiner was a rising star in the Democratic party and possible candidate for future high-profile offices and this has effected future races [7]
• The media has compared and contrasted the response by the Democrats to this incident with those of high-profile Republicans caught engaging in similar behavior
• Pelosi has called for an ethics investigation into Weiner's behavior
• High-profile colleagues and friends of Weiner who hold elected office have commented publicly on the incident
• Weiner is a public figure and employee (as an elected legislature whose salary is paid by the taxpayers) and therefore accountable to the public, with no right to privacy, for behavior which reflects on his performance or suitability for public office
• Weiner may have used government equipment for the acts, including computers, phones, and office space
• The incident has given a great deal of publicity to a conservative blogger, who commandeered the microphone before Weiner's press statement, which was reported on in the media
• More women are coming forward with hundreds of emails and photographs [8]
• The incident has been center stage for jokes and humor on American evening talk shows like the Daily Show, Tonight Show, etc, so is a major pop-culture incident

• Delete

• It's one of many hundreds of these type of scandals that surface from time to time and then are usually quickly forgotten
• Weiner has not resigned or been fired
• NOTNEWS Cla68 (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: notable political scandal.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm partisan, and I just don't want an article about a scandal involving a politician I otherwise agree with kept on Wikipedia. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect without prejudice - This incident merits a section in Weiner's article, but as it stands does not warrant a standalone article. That could change in the future, but since the vote is now, the article needs to be judged on what it is, not on what it might become. I would change my vote if he resigned over this, or if it leads to criminal charges though. Seaphoto^Talk 07:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Merge with the congressman. The event provides a lot of material for stand-up comedians to comment on, but it is at the end of the day a news story without all that major consequences. As a representative in the House, Anthony Weiner was not really a really high profile politician as a governor or president is, until this came to light I believe most people had never heard of Anthony Weiner. The long-term consequences are mostly limited to the person's career, and it is unlikely that it will cause a major shake-up in government. By comparison, the events that got James Traficant expelled from the House were more serious (but less amusing for comedians), yet those are all covered in the bio on Traficant. I see no reason why a more embarrassing, but less serious scandal of this nature should be treated with a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. All things being equal, the level of coverage would suggest that this event/scandal is notable. Once things have settled down, and the scandal is resolved one way or the other (Resignation / people quit talking about it), we can make a better determination. Note also that Google News is linking this article, at least when I load the main news.google.com page - so having a big-ass deletion notice is a bit embarassing to the project. If this can be closed early, if only to reconsider in a few weeks when everything dies down, I'd be all for that. (Hell, I almost did it myself.) UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. Scandalous, TMZ-ish tabloid zeal does not belong in the Wikipedia. Worth a small section in Weiner's bio, not an entire article. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong keep - a scandal of historical significance because it is the first scandal in which a senior public official made use of a social media network for sexual purposes. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Where are the scholarly sources studying the impact of social media on political scandals as a result of this incident? Where are the secondary sources reporting on the phenomenon? I don't disagree that this is the first congressional twitter scandal, and that such a thing may be notable and may have an impact on future use of social networks by political leaders. But this constitutes looking into the crystal ball and original research. Look at the section for Reaction -> Media. There isn't any reporting about the media's reaction to the scandal or involvement in the circuis surrounding scandal. It's just more fluff. Article should be merged back into his bio until something notable and verifiable happens that is beyond the scope of Weiner's marriage and career. If the consensus is to keep, article should be stubbed and re-written. Liberal Classic (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep This article covers an entirely notable subject, and contains a great deal more sourced content than would be 'due weight' within the Weiner biography. There are already interesting facets of the case that aren't being covered by the article, and which aren't likely to be until the sound and fury dies down a bit. I envy the closer.. Nevard (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep So Larry Craig and Mark Foley can have a scandal article of their own, but Anthony Weiner can't? You never know, this could get serious. Booyahhayoob (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"This could get serious" is the gist of much of the keep arguments, and is hardly a strong argument. We create articles after something gets serious, not before, and the very fact that so many people expect there to be further developments without any evidence thereof is one of this discussion's best arguments for deleting, not for keeping. If "this" gets "serious", that's the time to seriously propose its own article. As of now, this is not serious. Abrazame (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To re-iterate, and not sure why you're not getting this simple fact. I don't say that this will necessarily "damage his prospects". Even if others have said that, that's not my point. But that just as the situation stands NOW, it's a stand-alone topic, and copiously sourced. Something that is arguably bigger and more separate than just Anthony Weiner or his life. It's a separate situation, and quite notable. As it stands now. Regardless of what may happen in the future regarding it. Hashem sfarim (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither were Larry Craig and Mark Foley's scandals, and yet their articles were kept and developed. Booyahhayoob (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep but rename. The name of this article is kind of silly. Maybe Anthony Weiner photo incident sounds better than scandal. The scandal here was that he lied. Who doesn't send lewd pics nowadays?. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Anybody with half a brain. Opps, he is a congressman, you are right. --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong, strong keep 167.225.107.17 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. It's notable. -Leonard (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep for the moment. It's hard to check whether this fails WP:NOTNEWS at the moment. In a few months it should be clear whether it's had a significant impact or not. Anthem 17:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable issue, widely covered. A breakout article is better than overwhelming his bio with this matter in violation of WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe this warrants a couple of paragraphs in Weiner's article, but it is a minor scandal and does not warrant a full article. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Redirect to Anthony Weiner#Twitter photo scandal, this incident just needs a short section not an entire article. Dreadstar ☥ 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Keep It is a current, newsworthy event that will set a precedence for the inevitable future mesh of politicians and social media. It should not be deleted because some liberal editors dont want their ideology to look tarnished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.166.138 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Covered everywhere. Notable.--76.31.116.153 (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)