Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 12

12 October 2008

Article:The DFenders

The DFenders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This article satisfies three of Wikipedia's criteria for notability: this band has been nominated for a major music award, has received significant coverage in multiple reliable media sources, and has songs on rotation on major, national radio stations. Many editors called to delete this article simply because they had not heard of this band, rather than take Wikipedia's own criteria into consideration.

Troopergate (Bill Clinton)

DRV incorrectly filed on October 11 under October 6 - moving here instead. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate (Bill Clinton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I nominated Troopergate (Bill Clinton), an article that about "an alleged scandal involving allegations by two Arkansas state troopers that they arranged sexual liaisons for then-governor Bill Clinton." The article has been on wikipedia for FOUR years and contains two sources, which call the event a manufactured "scandal." Despite the reasons, which I outlined below, it was closed within three hours by the above admin editor (not an admin.) claiming: "The result was Speedy keep, bad faith nom." I want to see if I can get the AFD reopened so my concerns can be addressed. My reasons, expanded here, for the AFD were as follows:

• 1) The article "Troopergate" is about an "alleged scandal," which in my nomination I noted is dealt in detail with on Paula Jones's page (specifically Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton). I think the article should be deleted, and maybe a redirect there.

• 2) An article solely about one portion of an alleged series of sexual claims (which were thrown out in court) violates WP:BLP for Bill Clinton. Again, relevant information that complies with BLP is on the Paula Jones page.

• 3) The title Troopergate, as I mentioned in the original nomination, is inappropriate. The other "Troopergate scandals" do not use troopergate in the title. For instance, there is not a Troopergate Palin article, but it is called Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal despite "Palin's Troopergate" being a headline news story today (it is how I came across this article).

• 4) A discussion to delete this came up by another editor at Talk:Troopergate_(Bill_Clinton)#Delete and merge. There was no response after a month (28 August 2008) so I took it to an AFD. That editor wrote:

This article should be merged into the PAula Jones article. Apparently "troopergate" is a term that is only being used in a NY tabloid. This doesn't merit another article, and the term should not be used by Wikipedia to describe this. Wikipedia is not the place to showcase novel neologisms.[1]

• 5) I just noticed in 2006 another editor noted: "the content was a subset of jones, and the notability is because of jones." He too thinks the material does not deserve an article independent of Jones.

In response to the AFD was two replies. One included claiming the AFD was "bad faith" because it is "more than notable and sourced and is not replaced by the current Alaska incident." Such remarks, show misunderstanding of my concerns and nomination: 1) It has TWO in-line sources over the last four years and 2) I did not call anywhere for the article to "replace" the Alaska incident. Thus, I believe these are legitimate concerns for an AFD, which was prematurely closed. We66er (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

DRV template added to the article. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - There is an ongoing AfD that may be affected by this DRV. -- Suntag ☼ 14:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. The close was premature and should not have been called "bad faith" (closer, you jumped the gun), but this should stand. First of all, you never really gave a valid deletion reason. This incident was more than significant enough to receive a separate article. As for your points: 1) Simply because it is "alleged" doesn't warrant a deletion. It was still widely reported on. 2) It does not violate WP:BLP because the statements have a source (but could be sourced better), are true, and the article never claims he actually did anything anyways, only that they were alleged. 3) If you don't like the title, come up with a better one. That's not a deletion reason. The article needs more and better sources. But there is no reason to delete and this should have been brought up for discussion, not deletion. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

UsaSatsui, you misunderstood my first point. Above I wrote "Troopergate" is "dealt in detail with on Paula Jones's page (specifically Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton)." The Jones v.Clinton section deals with the allegations and subsequent lawsuit in much more detail. We66er (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My point about the "alleged" actions were they are presented in a POV. I am not the only one concerned about the way in which one of the trooper's claims violate BLP. Again, my point was this is better presented on the Jones article since it is about that event and does not need an independent article. We66er (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. this is a scandal that is rooted in american history. it should be kept in Wikipedia.Degrassi. 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment What does "Troopergate" deal with that isn't or can't be explored at Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton? The Jones' piece covers the allegations and failed lawsuit. We66er (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note This is NOT the place to discuss the merits of the article. This forum is for reviewing the AFD itself only. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as Closed I suggested a speedy keep in the original AFD, and questioned the nom's motives in a more colorful and indirect manner. The nomination itself DOES appear to be biased, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others. Personally, I would have waited for one more 'keep' and worded the summary differently, but the net result would have been the same. The only "crime" here is being too blunt (ie: honest) in summing up the conclusions that we participants had already drawn and clearly stated. I have worked with Hammer a little, and I'm confident he is smart enough to see that it would have been better to choose a more neutral closing statement and wait for another 'keep' or two. This was a gut judgement call on his part, and most experienced editors have made similar calls before (for better or worse), so I don't question his motives. As for the nomination itself, my original statement stands without modification. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time Hammer's been accused of "jumping the gun" on AFDs: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TenPoundHammer_6#Oppose. Read the 54 opposing comments and 18 neutral comments for examples of that. In fact, his closures and behavior seems to the be the crux of his six RFAR failures. Nonetheless, you question me when other editors have the same concerns about the article. I would appreciate if you focus on the content and not level further accusations. We66er (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment This forum isn't for discussing RFA's either. My focus and the entire purpose of this forum is to discuss the process of closing the AFD, not the content of the article, as I have tried to explain to you above. This is degrading into a personal attack against TenPoundHammer rather than a review of an AFD, which will not be tolorated. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You brought up your experience with Hammer so I cited other people's AFD experience/complaints with him. I have not attacked anyone. As I wrote to you above: I would appreciate if you focus on the content and not level further accusations. We66er (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse as closer. Yes, it was a little premature and hasty of me, but I stand by my closure. There are sources and the article can easily be expanded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you apologized on my talk. For the record, I never said there weren't sources. I wrote that it has no notablity outside of Paula Jones or Jones v Clinton. A glance at Google News 1994 for "Troopergate Clinton" shows the 87 hits are about Jones (or Brock's article about Jones). We66er (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I still think that those sources are enough for an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

They all are about Paula Jones, which later became the Paula_Jones#Jones_v._Clinton case. As I asked above, what are in those sources that is not covered or relevant to Jones or Jones v Clinton? If this can be explained then there are two issues and thus, a point to having two articles. We66er (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Deletion Review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review states: "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question." This forum is an opportunity to correct errors in process relating to an AFD/deletion/keep. This is not the place to discuss content of an article. I have tried to politely say this twice previously. This is not a 2nd AFD. Please keep it on topic. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and reclose as keep without the assumption of bad faith. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - the concerns about whether or not this should be a separate article should probably be addressed in a merge discussion. Someone could be bold and carry out a merge and see if it sticks. But maybe not right now. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)