Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:16, 16 November 2017

Roy Moore teenager sexual assault and harassment scandal

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

Way, way too soon. There is discussion going on right now at Talk:Roy Moore about whether to split off the allegations into a separate article, and the consensus appears to be, to wait and see if it has lasting significance, which is not yet clear. (Right now it's a sensational but unproven story about one notable politician; if it turns out to affect the partisan balance in the Senate, for example, that could qualify as lasting significance.) In any case, this article is a BLP disaster, going into minute detail on the allegations, and often stating them in Wikipedia's voice. I wish we didn't have to have to wait the usual week for discussion before it can get deleted. MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Clearly meets WP:N. Very important and ongoing event that requires its own article.Casprings (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Obviously notable, obviously of lasting significance, huge amount of coverage, utterly not a "sensational" story, obviously not a "BLP disaster". Also I would remind MelanieN that WP:BLP applies to the women who have stepped forwards also. Artw (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly because whatever is salvageable is redundant to what’s already in the Roy Moore article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Artw. I'm not happy with the state of the article at present and the title is debatably a mess, but I think the topic itself is worthy of its own article and any flaws can be worked on. --RevivesDarks (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; although it is noteworthy, right now there is overlapping content between this and the main article on Roy Moore, so it's twice as much work to maintain, and consensus should have been obtained first, given the heavy updating on the main article. However, if there is a consensus to keep, I urge that we remove nearly all discussion of this topic from the main Roy Moore article, again because of the difficulty in maintaining two overlapping articles that are heavily edited as events unfold. If another accuser emerges or new details on existing accusation emerge, we shouldn't be updating two articles with the same facts. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should overlap with that article and the special election article. The right answer is to cut the content in the Moore article and link.Casprings (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Ideally we'd have a very short paragraph in the Roy Moore lede, a couple of longer paragraphs in the body and this article can go fully in depth with timelines, reactions and implications etc... it'll be a bit of a wrangle to sort out the balance but it's entirely normal and doable and solves a lot of potential problems with overwhelming the parent article. Artw (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unneccessary content fork. Wikipedia is not news and it appears a few editors here have fallen victim to a bad case of recentism. At this point, this is a BLP disaster fueled by speculation. I am baffled that lasting impact can supposedly be determined when the story is ongoing and a crystal ball hasn't been brought here for us all to see any future repercussions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheGracefulSlick. It's a content fork that is dripping with BLP issues. That may change at some point. But as of now we are not there, or even really close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to WikiNews which doesn't appear to have any content on this topic. Surely there are enough people here to jump-start coverage of this topic on that site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork for now, but let's not say these are unproven allegations or something like that--they may not yet be proven in court, but that's not the same. We're NOT the NEWS, and what we have in the Moore article right now is more than enough for Wikipedia's purpose--said the lone voice crying in the desert. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 *'''Delete''' per TheGracefulSlick. It's a content fork that is dripping with BLP issues. That may change at some point. But as of now we are not there, or even really close. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 02:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * '''Move to WikiNews''' which doesn't appear to have any content on this topic.  Surely there are enough people here to jump-start coverage of this topic on that site. [[User:power~enwiki|power~enwiki]] ([[User talk:Power~enwiki|<span style="color:#FA0;font-family:courier">π</span>]], [[Special:Contributions/Power~enwiki|<span style="font-family:courier">ν</span>]]) 02:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' as a fork for now, but let's not say these are unproven allegations or something like that--they may not yet be proven in court, but that's not the same. We're NOT the NEWS, and what we have in the Moore article right now is more than enough for Wikipedia's purpose--said the lone voice crying in the desert. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 03:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)