Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump–Russia dossier allegations

Trump–Russia dossier allegations

Note: article was moved to List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations 22:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trump–Russia dossier allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

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

WP:POVFORK spinoff of Trump-Russia dossier. Noncompliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE as the unsubstantiated allegations are clearly defamatory against a BLP which subjects it to BLP policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note: - if this article is kept, then the main article, Trump-Russia dossier, should be deleted as it is only notable because of the allegations that comprise its context. This POVFORK is an exaggeration of the NPOV issues that have been challenged at the main article. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note to closer - Per this diff dated Jan 24th, the subject article was moved and the format changed to list. As a list, it should be deleted and this AfD snow closed as the changes make it noncompliant with several policies, including WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and in this case, cherrypicked unsubstantiated allegations in the highly controversial Trump-Russia dossier with POV commentary by editors which makes it unequivocally a POVFORK and a violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Atsme, those are all patently false allegations. You really need to calm down. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This list is noncompliant with WP:NOR because it involves a selected list of allegations - editors are making the selections and writing the commentary. That is OR whereas in article form it is a summary of the dossier and editors are simply writing what the sources say about the allegations. Big difference. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to add - I don't see how you possibly say this is not an attack page. The dossier itself is opposition research which means it was commissioned for one purpose - to attack and denigrate the opposition candidate. Worse yet, in this one, the vast majority is unsubstantiated. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You are the only one calling it an attack page, and just because no one has responded to that ludicrous claim does not mean "you...say this is not an attack page". Sheesh! Learn what an attack page at Wikipedia means. An attack page in the real world (the dossier sorta qualifies) is something else, and we MUST document it if it has received notable coverage in RS. That's our job. Sure, such an article will have lots of content from one POV, but that's because it is an article documenting one POV. Such articles are allowed, but they must also include any significant countering POV, if they are from RS, and not just from fringe or crank sources.

Summary: An attack page at Wikipedia and an attack page in the real world are two different things. We don't write the first, but we do document the latter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: This was already formatted as a list page before the move. It was in a bulleted format already. The move just clarified this is a list article rather than a prose article, per agreement between several editors. also, this is not a selective list per editor's opinions. It is based on what has recieved coverage in multiples of reliable sources. This is how it has been decided what goes on the page. Saying "selected list of allegations" is either an oversimplification or inaccurate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, Steve Quinn is correct. I tried different formats, even using a table, and the bulleted list framework, with prose content, served the purpose best.

Above you wrote: "indiscriminate collection of information, and in this case, cherrypicked". BS. It was not "indiscriminate" nor "cherrypicked". The choice of allegations was determined quite deliberately, not randomly, or by my wishes or POV. RS made that decision for me. I chose ONLY the allegations which numerous RS wrote about, and I have searched high and low. The dossier contains even more allegations, and if we find RS coverage of them, they will likely get added. You are welcome to help do this. If no secondary RS covers an allegation, then it would be OR to include it, because editors are not allowed to cherry pick from primary sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, this is not a policy-based way to push your mission at Wikipedia to squash anything negative about Trump, regardless of how well sourced it is. It's odd that you mention WP:PUBLICFIGURE, when the article actually is protected by exactly that section of BLP. Have you even read it? Public figures have less protection than normal people:

• "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." (Emphasis added.)

Before mentioning BLP, you need to read it. BLP forbids "contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced", and this is extremely well sourced, every single day, in pretty much every major RS. It's the "road map" for the FBI and the Special Counsel investigation. That's pretty notable. Stop trying to squash it. This is a frivolous AfD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a POVFORK that breaches BLP policy and should be speedy deleted. The material is not just contentious, it is highly defamatory based on unsubstantiated allegations in memos by anonymous sources that have spawned conspiracy theories. WP does not spread gossip to defame or discredit a BLP, and it does not promote political advocacies or conspiracy theories to defame a political opponent. You need to read the policy again, BullRangifer - "contentious", not defamatory, material belongs in the article" not deserves its own article. We already have the main article which is based entirely on the same unsubstantiated allegations. ^{Atsme📞📧} 08:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Merge clear POV fork. Billhpike (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  To be clear - you think the content of this article should be included in the other article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Most of the content does not belong, but there might be a few sentences worth keeping. Billhpike (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So that's really a delete vote masquerading as a merge vote, because, given the extensive coverage in sources, "merge" sounds more reasonable? Why is it that "most of the content does not belong"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral Is it a POVFORK, or is it a case of WP:Summary style? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• SarekOfVulcan, it's a WP:SPINOFF because its size may create an undue weight situation. Deletion is not the solution, but putting it into the main article might be, but then we'd have to spin it off fairly soon anyway. What we have had is an article about a document which did not describe the contents of the document. That's absurd. This resolves that problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Merge obvious fork is obvious Darkness Shines (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. This is all well sourced, notable, and perfectly compliant with WP:PUBLICFIGURE. We can not really judge if the allegations were "the truth" or very strongly substantiated. We can only judge if the allegations were published in multiple secondary RS and belong to the subject of the page. Hence this page should not be deleted. Should it be kept as a separate page or merged to Trump–Russia_dossier#Allegations? I think it should be kept separately simply because Trump–Russia dossier page is already large and and this page is also large and expected to grow because every individual allegation needs to be described as "disputed/admitted/denied/whatever" - as described in numerous RS on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A question: is this page actually a "WP:List"? Probably it should be. If so, this is an additional argument against merging. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The main framework is definitely a bulleted list, and the choice is based on the MoS advice for this type of subject matter. It's the only way to do justice to each allegation, and it's much easier to work with as an editor and understand as a reader. Prose works fine under each bulleted item. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. But then it should be probably renamed to the List of Trump–Russia dossier allegations? It should also provide criteria for inclusion, which is trivial in this case (simply all allegations noted in the dossier). You are probably using more strict criteria (an allegation should be also discussed in secondary RS), which is probably a good thing. My very best wishes (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

An interesting proposition. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keerge (keep the content but in the main article) - The article easily meets WP:GNG and given the international coverage of the subject does not appear to violate WP:NOT. On the other hand, I think it may serve our readers better if it were in the main article in collapsible sections. I know thats a bit of a deviation from convention, but let's let WP:IAR rule the day.- MrX 🖋 23:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

- a first MrX. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork, poorly sourced, and several BLP issues. PackMecEng (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you point out the BLP violations you see here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

As discussed on the talk for Trump-Russia Dossier the golden shower accusations, especially in Wikipedia's voice. In fact since every allegation is in Wiki's voice that is a problem. Also going into the poor sources litter throughout for some of these crazy claims. PackMecEng (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Before you criticize it, you should read the dossier. We must document its allegations, and the "salacious" one seems crazy, but that's what it is. NPOV requires that we not censor or alter it. We must present it as it is. The majority of the allegations are not salacious, and it's not in Wikipedia's voice. Attribution is used for the small amount of commentary, and the rest, which is straight presentation of what the allegations actually are, is very well sourced to very RS.

It's not a forbidden POVFORK, but a standard WP:SPINOFF because its size may create an undue weight situation. This is completely normal procedure. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I must say, all the statements appear to be well-sourced and attributed, so I don't see a BLP violation. The Dossier has attracted enormous attention and is of unquestioned significance, so an article that documents its contents is more likely to clarify the public discussion of it for our readers. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: If by well-sourced you mean almost 1/3rd of them being opinion sources or not RS then yes it is well-sourced and attributed. PackMecEng (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

We have no way of knowing which of the allegations may be true, but we do know what the Dossier says and we do know that the allegations are widely disseminated in mainstream press. By all means we can remove anything for which we don't have secondary discussion to establish noteworthiness, but the question here is whether there is substantial secondary coverage per GNG. "Keep" is rather a low bar, right? SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a low bar, which is why we already have an article on the dossier. A second article, at this point, seems unnecessary. But we will see how this turns out, I could even be wrong. I think that has happened before. PackMecEng (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Telling about the existence of the dossier is the basic "duh" we have to do, but the public needs to know "what's in it". That's the part of interest to everyone. That's the part that has played a role in indictments and arrests. Having an article about a book's cover is somewhat pointless without describing the book's contents. That's the most important part. Due to the nature of the contents, Trump and some editors don't want Wikipedia to document those contents, even though myriad very RS write about the contents every single day. Even Fox News does it! Well, they are not going to stop us from doing what policy demands of us. "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Per my comment immediately above. Gives our readers a good detailed summary. The main Dossier article gives larger context, history, and related events. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, most of the claims in the dossier (particularly the Rosneft bribe) are obviously false on their face, and the "golden showers" allegation in particular has been convincingly debunked by Trump's longtime bodyguard Keith Schiller (cf. this very compelling explanation of how it ended up in the dossier), but it's still better to keep this stuff off the main page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources that debunk specific allegations should be included on the page, and it should be clearly stated which allegations have been debunked. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

My very best wishes, I agree. That will be coming. The confirmation status of each allegation will be added as soon as RS reveal it. The ongoing Special Counsel investigation takes these allegations seriously, treating them as a national security threat which risks impeaching Trump. There is already enough evidence to have resulted in the convictions and indictments of several of his closest advisors. Trump supporters attempt to treat these as frivolous allegations but they aren't. This isn't gossip from the National Enquirer. It's intelligence from top experts in these areas and is treated seriously by American and foreign intelligence agencies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps "debunked" is incorrect word. "Disputed" or "denied" would be more appropriate. For example, I do not think that sources by TTAAC actually prove, disprove or debunk anything. But the controversial and frequently opposite views from these sources should be included per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What in the article is worth keeping? For example if this ended with merge, what material would be worth merging? PackMecEng (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete POV fork with little, if any, redeeming value. Lepricavark (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Lepricavark, your !vote will be discounted because you lack the competence to don't seem to understand the difference between a forbidden POV fork and a totally normal WP:SPINOFF. Deletion is not a solution, but merging might be. If you used legitimate arguments you'd have a chance of getting your !vote counted. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Your bludgeoning and personal attacks notwithstanding, I'll let the closing admin decide how to view my !vote. Lepricavark (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Lepricavark, my sincerest apologies. You didn't deserve that. Stricken. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Apologies accepted, and I have accordingly struck the relevant portion of my response. Lepricavark (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. I'm so sorry. I got a bit carried away there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Happens to all of us from time to time. Lepricavark (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Satisfies NOTABLE and RS coverage every single day. The article is still growing as there are at least two types of content which will be added: (1) Commentary, which of course must be attributed, and (2) Confirmation status, since each allegation has its own status. The subject is extremely notable, receiving coverage in major RS literally every day for a year now, and the Special Counsel investigation is literally using this dossier as their "road map". Those are the words they use. This isn't going away. Our job is to document it, and the allegations are very important in that regard. That's what the dossier contains, and RS are constantly discussing them. We must document that.

Deletion is NOT the solution, but putting it into the main article might be, but then we'd have to spin it off fairly soon (again) anyway. What we have had is an article about a document which did not describe the contents of the document. That's absurd. This resolves that problem. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC) -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Merge A fork, and just how many article do we need related to this subject?Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Merge This article looks like a section from another. In fact it should be a section of the Trump-Russia dossier.Ravenanation (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ravenanation, that's exactly what it is, and it was indeed originally intended to be in that article. Now it's a legitimate WP:SPINOFF due to size constraints, and, per the proper SPINOFF method, has a section there pointing to the sub-article.

This is growing and will quickly create an undue weight situation. Deletion is not a legitimate option, but merging might be. We can then deal with size issues later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, these articles have to be merged and the allegations could be simplified. Ravenanation (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Reluctant keep It seems like it should go into the main article about the dossier, but then that article would be huge with all the content from this one added. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 20:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Trump–Russia dossier & merge anything useful. An unneeded content fork and indiscriminate collection of information. If someone wants to read about the allegations in this detail, they might as well read the dossier which is available online. The main article is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep exceeds requirements for meeting GNG, WP:NRV, and WP:N due to the significant amount of attention this topic has received in reliable sources. It seems appropriate to have a standalone article along with the main article so both can be of a readable size per WP:SPINOFF. This article "...creates the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible" (per WP:SPINOFF) and solves the undue weight situation that would occur (per WP:SPINOFF). Also, the availability of so much reliable sourcing indicates NPOV, NOR, and BLP criteria are satisfied (including WP:Public figure) . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep – A lot of the allegations have become notable in and of themselves, independently of their appearance in the Steele dossier. POVFORKy aspects can be solved by the normal editing process, taking care to document denials and notable commentary on each item. — JFG ^talk 12:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This AfD is not about meeting notability requirements. It is about POVFORK, NOR and WP:NPOV as it all relates to BLP policy. When we are performing original research in that editors are making their own selections of allegations and adding commentary about their selection, that is OR. When in article form, we are simply summarizing what the sources say about the dossier using inline citations and in-text attribution for the unsubstantiated salacious allegations. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The commentaries are fine if they properly summarize what the sources say about specific allegation. The list maybe needs to be expanded, but this is not a reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The policy violations are there - say what you will about the commentaries. We are dealing with an entire article based on partisan opposition research which is and of itself an WP:ATTACK on the opponent - the purpose of opposition research is to dig up dirt on the candidate. I hope editors are grasping why this is not commpliant, regardless of the sources, because the dossier was bought and paid for to include only dirt, unsubstantiated or not. Including a sentence or two with inline citations or in-text attribution is one thing, but an entire article of nothing but dirt? No. Just no. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Edit conflict, and I'm on my phone so I lost it. Atsme, I do think your points have been made, most of them multiple times, and it would be nice you would let others speak. MelanieN alt (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Edit tally: BullRangifer - 16 +3 fixes, My very best wishes - 17, Atsme - 11 +2 fixes +created AfD. Yep, Melanie - *sigh* I'm the one you single out. +1 more now. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep It took me a while to decide how I feel about this article. At first I thought it should be in the main article, possibly under a show-hide button. The article is mostly about the dossier but does a very inadequate job of saying what's in it. But now that this has been identified and structured as a list, it makes sense. It's actually not unusual for us to supplement a regular article with a list article. MelanieN alt (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC) (Yes, it's really me. --MelanieN)

@MelanieN: Do you have an example of such a list article? I was looking though the MOS on lists and did not find anything that fit this kind of article. I was hoping you could point me in the right direction if I am missing something. PackMecEng (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Just do a random search for "List of"; the vast majority of these articles have a related main article, which they supplement by adding detail which would be TMI for the main article. Just offhand and at random: List of English monarchs and Kingdom of England. List of Star Wars characters and Star Wars.List of Crayola crayon colors and Crayola crayons. List of Doctor Who episodes and Doctor Who. List of Lucchese crime family mobsters and Lucchese crime family. Etc. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPINOFF has several examples. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

None of those are list articles. PackMecEng (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not an issue of relating to the main article, it certainly is related to the main article. It is the list format we are using does not meet the MOS standard for lists, which is the point I was making. Even the examples of lists you gave do not meet what we have or even a format we would want to use for such content. The closest was perhaps the crime family list, but even then does not allow for the info needed for NPOV on this subject. With all the changes switching around on formats and what the article is. It comes across as trying to change the article around to anyway that might survive AFD. Which is not a good basis for creating an article. PackMecEng (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I share PackMecEng's concerns above. I have never seen a list like this, and I'm sure the list format is suboptimal format for complex allegations that have BLP implications. For example a reliable source may have commented some allegations in general level without going into details. If your argument is that changing the article into list format made the article worth keeping, the argument is not very strong. Politrukki (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• To summarize one last time why this article is not only a POVFORK, but an ATTACKPAGE:

1. - the dossier itself is a unverified document that was published by one unreliable source that is now involved in litigation over its publication.
2. - subsequent publications (court records) would make it a primary source that we are not supposed to use.
3. - we already have Trump-Russia dossier which desperately needs trimming because it does not even focus on what makes it notable, specifically the allegations.
4. - this perceived "list article" is unambiguously a POVFORK and ATTACKPAGE. No other president or public figure has an article devoted to unsubstantiated allegations.
5. - purposefully separating unsubstantiated allegations from the dossier article which should not/cannot exist without the allegations created an attack page, regardless of the spin used to justify keeping it.
6. - based on BLP policy, ATTACKPAGES should be speedy deleted. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
7. - (almost forgot) there is also non-compliance with WP:SYNTH and WP:INDISCRIMINATE 16:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

So you still haven't figured out what an attack page is at Wikipedia? It's a page that's "entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced" (emphasis added). I already explained it to you, but if you're not even going to read and respond, then your failure or refusal to get the point applies and your comments will be discounted. In fact, they amply demonstrate your lack of competence here and how frivilous this AfD really is. You're just repeatedly, here and everywhere else, a POV warrior who wikilawyers against what you don't like.

BTW, is this an "attack page"... Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations? Nearly all are unsubstantiated allegations, described in embarrassingly clear detail. So why is it allowed here? Because it's properly sourced! -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• sigh* BR, your persistent WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT is frustrating. Your responses contradict your own position.

1. Cosby was charged with a crime and tried in a court of law - you've been so intent on accusing me of not understanding that you've made it quite clear that it's you who doesn't.
2. There is a big difference between derogatory unsubstianted allegations in a politically motivated dossier vs allegations that led to felony charges.
3. Politically motivated research is partisan and occurs for the sole purpose of digging-up as much dirt on an opponent as possible - verified or not - rumors included. This article is not about allegations against Trump that resulted in actual felony charges, an arrest, and/or a trial.
4. See the AfD for Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations - it's closer to being an apples to apples comparison, and it resulted in a #REDIRECT to a section in the main article for many of the same reasons this article should except for the fact this article violates policy. Please, it's best to let a neutral admin weigh the arguments, and make a determination. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• These examples are completely irrelevant because the significance of sexual misconduct allegations in these cases is nothing compare to significance of the allegations in the Dossier. The latter is something important for the entire country, possibly for the entire world. My very best wishes (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per MelanieN. A separate article in this form seems like a good way to cover the specific allegations in the dossier. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per MelanieN and just the general fact that the other article is already very long and is missing most of this information.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The readable prose of Trump–Russia dossier, is currently 31 kb with 50 kb generally being considered the limit. Well below the limit. The article is not very long. The list in it's current form looks to be about 10 kb with the redundancies from the info the two share. PackMecEng (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is long. Not sure where you get the 50kb but that is at best an upper bound. Do you really think that stuffing this info into the parent article would be useful? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The 50 kb is from WP:SIZE, which yes is the upper limit they suggest before splitting. So currently the main article is at 31 kb, if we add all the non redundant parts of the list it would maybe be up to 36ish kb. Well short of the 50 kb suggested maximum. PackMecEng (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I find any arguments based on content size unconvincing because in the new article chunks of new material which has never seen daylight in the main article. On the talk page BullRangifer made several proposals about adding allegations, but the proposals never really gained traction (and I told them they should make proposals in smaller batches). If there's not even some kind of preliminary consensus to add dozens of allegations to the article, the size issue is artificially created non-issue. Politrukki (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of whether your description of the process is accurate or not, this actually cuts both ways - for those who argue the original article is too long and those who argue it's not. There's nothing anywhere that says that we must first exhaust the 50kb of one article before creating a sub-article. Indeed, good practice is to create a sub-article before we get there as it makes the organization of both original and spin off article easier.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you have nailed exactly why I did a reverse spinoff. I have enough experience with article creation and spinoffs to see where this was going and just did it. Why waste all the time and effort, when we'd end up with a spinoff anyway? This allows both articles to develop and expand without constantly "looking over one's shoulder". Then the amount of coverage in RS dictates the content, not some often artificial size constraints. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per Atsme. WP:POVFORK which violates WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ^Falling_Gravity 01:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per MelanieN. The article itself is very long. Good way to cover what is actually in the document.Casprings (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as POV fork. Where is the mention that the allegations are largely/mostly (depends on the source) unsubstantiated/unverified?

An edit which deleted the old Contents section in the main article actually made the main article worse because the edit removed content that partially corroborates Michael Cohen was not in Prague. Yet Cohen and the allegations are still mentioned in the main article. Moreover, after the content had been moved to the new article, this edit added editorialising "revealed" to the content. Cited source (RFE/RL) says "pointed out" (and Respekt – the original source – just says it's theoretically possible).

The main article is under "consensus required" provision, which means that any challenged edit cannot be reinstated without talk page consensus. Some of the content added to the new article has been challenged in the main article. For example Rosneft allegations (technically a different edits, but similar content) have been challenged at least twice in the main article. In that light creating a new article could be seen as gaming the system.

The article was moved to a list article, but it's unclear what kind of selection criteria should be used. Currently the list consists of 25 allegations, 15 of them are without commentary or denial. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE we should not list allegations without providing context. The dossier is a catalyst for many things, but individual allegations are not important unless they have been widely discussed in reliable sources. Politrukki (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Politrukki, thanks for your concerns. I'm going to check those details you mention and try to resolve them. Improvement is always desired, and your concerns will be taken seriously. The weekend is nearly here, and your concerns are my top priority.

There was obviously no attempt to game the system. The existing content in the old "Contents" section was woefully lacking, so I developed what was intended as its replacement to be used there. This was done without looking at the rest of the article. As I worked, it became apparent that there was far more than enough to already create an undue weight problem. Seeing that it would quickly grow to the point of needing to be spun off anyway, per WP:SPINOFF, I did a reverse spinoff. This happens all the time. That's why this isn't a forbidden POV fork (no one has presented any evidence that it is), but a legitimate SPINOFF subarticle. I have seen attempts by POV warriors to hide or sideline uncomfortable content which they don't want in a main article. This is not such an attempt. I'd love to have it all there, but it's much easier to develop content without an "article size" axe over one's head.

As far as the choice of which allegations to mention (there are several which are not mentioned), my hands were tied on that one. The only ones included are those which "have been widely discussed in reliable sources". That is the inclusion criteria required by our policies. Inclusion of allegations which have not been so discussed would be OR. That would be a newbie mistake, and I'm no newbie here. If any of the other allegations receive more coverage, they may get added, and if anyone discovers such coverage, they are welcome to add them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Politrukki, I have done my best to improve the denial content. Take a look here. I hope that meets your concerns. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Politrukki, I have now added content about the confirmation status. We're moving in the right direction. As we get information on each allegation, we'll also add it where it belongs. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as POV fork. We don't have lists of things that are completely covered by a single article. The only purpose for such an article is looser sourcing requirements. That's not a valid reason for a list. Lists must span multiple articles. --DHeyward (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• ??? The sourcing requirements are exactly as strict as for BLP content anywhere at Wikipedia. Fortunately, there is no policy which relaxes those demands. There are also many kinds of list articles. This is a subarticle. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Not a POVFORK but a valid spin-off of the regular article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per MelanieN and Casprings. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 00:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as it is a POV fork of Trump–Russia dossier and not much more than a list disguised as an article. We have too much of this as it is, and the fact that the references are larger than the prose (an ineffective defensive move) doesn't make it less of a POV issue. Once merged, it can be trimmed down. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be summerizations of facts, not exhaustive lists of every possible detail and every possible source. Keeping the gist of the content is important, keeping every detail in multiple articles is undue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Right now there is very little content overlap between this sub-page and main page. One could argue that almost all this page should be copy-pasted and included to the corresponding section of main page. However, that would be bad solution because this page is essentially a list, and placing a list in the middle of a regular page contradicts our manual of style. "We have too much of this" is a frequent argument and usually an incorrect one. As long something has been described in a large number of RS, and someone is willing to create a page, this is never too much. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

MVBW - the allegations are the dossier - the two are inseparable. We already have the Trump-Russia dossier which should focus entirely on the allegations that comprise the dossier instead of all the cruft, speculation and commentary that developed before or after the fact; none of it is directly relevant to the dossier or the memos it comprises. The Trump-Russia collusion investigation by Mueller is entirely separate, connected only by media claims that the FBI and Mueller used the dossier for leads. Anything more and we're dredging up unchartered territory. The sections in the main article including "Hints of existence", "Veracity", "Reputation in the US intelligence community" (?which are attempts to validate the dossier?), "Carter Page testimony", and half of the material in the "Reactions section" should be removed or trimmed substantially based on NPOV, UNDUE and IMBALANCE, and the focus changed to the Allegations section where parts of this "list" should be merged. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

LMFAO!!!

First (based on your long history of seeking to suppress all things critical of Trump, regardless of how notable and properly sourced), you started this spurious and baseless AfD to delete this list, and have described in excruciating detail how it violated practically every policy and guideline, almost including how it insults your dead great-grandmother.

Now you've completely flipped in a spectacular about face and admit that this is really the only part worth keeping and want to get rid of the main article, even though it's super notable and very well sourced.

Don't you understand the article creation criteria here? You don't seem to at all. You're constantly fighting content which meets inclusion criteria.

Let's face it, you just don't like the subject at all, and are misusing noticeboards and AfDs to try to get what YOU don't like removed from Wikipedia. You're a classic tendentious editor and time sink. If you aren't here to build the encyclopedia, but instead are a political content warrior, then what are you really here for? Gah! Don't answer that. Your contribution history speaks for itself.

If you were topic banned from American politics and all Trump-related topics, you could actually do some good here. I wish you'd do it voluntarily. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)