This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Balph Eubank (talk | contribs) at 14:32, 29 November 2010 (move top posts to correct order). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:32, 29 November 2010 by Balph Eubank (talk | contribs) (move top posts to correct order)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Political scandals of the United States
- Political scandals of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This coatrack-like article currently stands at 571 kB and continues to grow every day. I have been deleting a large number of unsourced BLP violating entries, but the article is so huge that going through it is a time sink. The current article does have a number of sourced entries, but I've also found a lot of unsourced ones, as well as entries on people who were "suspected by never found guilty of any wrongdoing". Article as it stands would be a nightmare to clean up and/or bring into compliance with BLP. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: what the hell... way too long and yet probably uncompleteable. The criteria alone take up an entire screen. This is better suited to a category. Hairhorn (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete: This might work well as a category. Not as an article/list. - The Bushranger Return fire 18:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - No reason to keep like this. perhaps somebody should create a category to replace this as suggested above. NotARealWord (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- keep Perfectly good article about a subject of interest to many people. If it were a category, then it would be attacked it as lacking a place to to put explanatory comments that an article can, and this article does, contain. Most of the entries are sourced either directly or though their linked WP articles--the comments above are misleading. 'Too long' is not a reason to destroy WP content; at most, it is a reason to split up the article. Incomplete is also not a reason to delete a list; most lists are 'incomplete'; WP is a place for improvement, not deletion. By the way, BLP only applies to living people, not dead ones. Hmains (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless of which way this goes, please do not restore the blatant BLP-violating material. We cannot have unsourced allegations against people remain in a Misplaced Pages article, such as the charming "was once accused of having sex with a 14 yr old" entry for a city mayor. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - This is an inherently unworkable nightmare of an article premise. If there are notable scandals that can be reliably sourced, then the info can be added to the relevant articles if not there already. There's nothing to justify a grouping of every bad thing that every public figure has ever done, and all that is happening now is that every whiff of controversy that hits the front of Google News becomes and entry here. Utterly retarded. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: Very good article and inherently notable. --Monterey Bay (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Good" and "notable" aren't reasons to keep BLP violations. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - Notable and encyclopedic list, the fundamental strength of the Misplaced Pages system will bring this article into balance eventually. jengod (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - I have been working my way down the article adding references and removing unsourced entries as I go. The few unreferenced BLP issues you discovered and didn’t bother to look up, are older entries. Sorry if I’m not going fast enough. An attempt to shorten the article led to Political Sex scandals and Convicted Politicians which are well researched. But you want to delete those too. This important article is neither “huge” nor a “nightmare.” Your efforts to delete only hamstring efforts at improvement. Richrakh (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Hmains (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- KEEP - A good article on a difficult subject. Lots of info not available elsewhere I hope it gets even bigger.Leeroy10 (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)