The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Numerically we're at 18 delete to 37 keep, which is clearly no consensus to delete but also not quite a consensus to keep. Because this discussion is not a vote, however, I also need to look at the arguments that are being made on both sides and scrutinize them in the light of our relevant policies and guidelines.

The "keep" side points to the media coverage and, as a result, the notability this topic has obtained, whereas the "delete" side thinks this is a WP:NOTNEWS issue and a POV fork. Both of these lines of argument are in principle valid in that they are based on our policies and guidelines, but both also have their weak points: With respect to the "keep" side, just because something has coverage in reliable sources does not mean we have to cover it in a separate article, but we can make an editorial judgment about whether coverage in existing articles is sufficient. On the "delete" side, it's a bit difficult for me to understand how exactly this is supposed to be a (non-neutral) POV fork of an existing article, or how it is supposed to be a WP:BLP violation, or merely an aggregation of news reports (we normally use WP:NOTNEWS to dismiss routine media coverage of unimportant events). Under these circumstances, I cannot dismiss the "delete" arguments entirely and find a "keep" consensus, but I certainly cannot give the "delete" arguments decisive weight and override the "keep" majority.

Ultimately, I suspect the distribution of opinions here reflects (in addition to possible political preferences) a disagreement about whether we give these allegations due weight in light of their political and societal importance and credibility, as reflected in reliable sources, by covering them in a separate article. That is a point made by several people mostly on the "delete" side, and to me it is the core of the policy issue here, which is why I regret that discussion has not focused more on this question. But it is something that we as Wikipedians need to make a collective editorial judgment about, not something that I can decide as closer of the discussion. As things are now, the balance of opinion is about 2:1 in favor of treating this topic separately, and this means that under our rules the article is for now kept by default for lack of a consensus to delete it. This does not prevent continued discussion of the question of due weight, such as in the course of an RfC or a merger discussion. Sandstein 08:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Joe Biden assault allegation

Joe Biden sexual assault allegation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Per WP:POVFORK, if not WP:CSD#G10. If this subject is to be covered, it should be done in the context of Joe Biden. Currently there is an RfC in progress to determine if the material conforms to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. See Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article? Several of the sources cited for this article are not WP:BLPSOURCES reliable. - MrX 🖋 19:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 19:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 19:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per MrX and WP:POVFORK. Left unchecked, this could easily become another Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. KidAd ( talk) 19:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Please note that Media coverage of Bernie Sanders has been nominated for deletion three times and the results were no consensus, speedy keep, no consensus. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Surely there is room in the Biden article for this, assuming it even rates that at this point. O3000 ( talk) 20:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per wp:SUMMARY STYLE. It's my understanding that when media controversies or legal issues have enough sourcing to pass notability hurdles, WP practice is to dedicate a separate article to their coverage thereby avoiding undo weight issues within main biographies.-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 20:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Every reason for deletion listed above is demonstrably untrue.

As of my latest edit, every single source used on the page has been discussed and found reliable for BLP use on the reliable sources noticeboard, and I intend to check any new sources added and remove any that fail BLPSOURCES.

G10 specifically says "...entirely negative in tone and unsourced" (emphasis added). This one is in The New Your Times and The Guardian.

We have many similar pages that are not considered POV forks, including:

Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations,

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations,

Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations,

Kobe Bryant sexual assault case,

Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal,

Roman Polanski sexual abuse case.

Arguments that this is a POV fork ignore the clear wording of that policy. What, exactly are the two POVs?

The RfC in question has not closed, The RfC was closed with a result overwhelmingly in favor of inclusion of the material, so any "this page was an end-run against consensus" arguments should be ignored by the closer.

As for whether to cover this in the main Biden page only, that page is already huge. As is the case with the pages I listed above, trying to cram a complex allegation like this into an already too-big page will not allow us to give the topic sufficient WP:WEIGHT.

-- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Edited 14:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, none of those articles are about subjects that are similar in the extent of coverage in this case, and several of them are about multiple allegations which makes the comparison especially unapt. - MrX 🖋 21:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Washington Post headline: Sexual assault allegation by former Biden Senate aide emerges in campaign, draws denial - NYTimes headline: Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden, and there are multiple other RS with similar headlines. The current Biden article is 85kb so according to WP:TOOBIG we should be dividing when it's over 60kb and to most certainly divide at 100kb. When we add the sexual assault section, it will take it over the top, so this article is warranted. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Linking to headlines does not demonstrate this single incident is on par with the history associated with the subjects in the other listed articles. All it shows is this single accusation had made it to the newspapers. These headlines and commensurate articles do not demonstrate that this has a lasting impact, which is a criteria for a stand alone article on a given topic. Even though WAPO and NYT are considered reliable sources, this just proves this is news, and does not demonstrate lasting significance which is needed per WP:N and WP:UNDUE. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 17:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

There's very little to be said about Tara Reade's allegation. At most, two to three sentences will be sufficient. I assure you, that wont break Joe Biden. - MrX 🖋 20:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep and expand to include the full list of Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations. I believe we are up to 8 or 9 women who have publicly come forward to accuse Joe Biden. Many of the allegations are on videotape. We should probably rename the page to Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations to make sure they all get under the same banner and avoid redundancies. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:D976:4355:8684:E49A ( talk) 20:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

^ This IP range is a WP:SPA. ^ - MrX 🖋 21:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

^ This user has never made an edit that includes potentially harmful material to a liberal, a liberal organization, or liberalism as a whole. ^ As far as your personal attack goes, I am currently interested in this subject because the coordinated attempt to sweep the mounting sexual misconduct allegations against Joe Biden under the rug disturbs me greatly. Once it's resolved, I want to move on to other topics. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:D976:4355:8684:E49A ( talk) 03:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

This is a pretty obvious sock of User:Hidden Tempo. Volunteer Marek 06:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - a notable event , covered by reliable sources, including the New York Times. Covering a well-publicized scandal related to a public figure based on reliable sources is so far from meeting WP:CSD#G10 that editors should be embarrassed to make such a claim. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 21:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Guy Macon. Edit: Now that the RfC has finished in favour of retaining some of this info on the Joe Biden article, I think my !vote is even more firmly in 'keep' territory. There is simply a lot of info tht wouldn't be DUE for his article but can be included here. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{( or here)}_{( click me!)} 22:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Right now, the article is a mini-stub that appears to have little room for growth without turning into a POVfork or a BLP mess (both of which you can make a case arguing it already is). Much better to mention this allegation in either the main Joe Biden article or the 2020 campaign article, if at all. — Chevvin 22:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep but rename. The article title sounds like Biden punched someone in the nose, it's incredibly misleading. It was a sexual assault allegation, and the title should absolutely reflect that. This story is all over the web, including articles today from NYT and New York Magazine. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Good catch. After this AfD closes and if the page survives I will propose a rename to Joe Biden assault allegation, which I expect will see little opposition. Let's get this AfD over first. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge/redirect into Joe Biden - The "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section is already longer than this article. If the section becomes too long, the separate article would be adequate ( WP:SPINOFF) where the section would become a short summary and the article would expand. — Paleo Neonate – 23:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Per WP:SS I would prefer that the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section be moved here, if for no other reason than the fact that being in the main article makes the material more prominent and read by more people, and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations is a separate article. We need to avoid any hint of Wikipedia favoring one candidate over another. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  To move the section completely would be favoring one candidate over another. Trump's article does still have a section about sexual allegations in his bio. petrarchan47 คุ ก 02:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Agree. Per WP:SS the main article gets a paragraph or two and a link to the detailed article. This should happen with both Biden and Trump. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  I have striked my !vote as it makes no sense in the context of the now-expanded article. — Paleo Neonate – 12:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep - with a suggestion to move it to Joe Biden sexual assault allegations. We should not mislead readers into thinking Biden may have assaulted some man with a baseball bat. ^{Already moved?} His behavior is best defined as sexual impropriety because of the manner in which he made physical contact, and the fact that he made the recipients of his advances extremely uncomfortable. So far, Meade is the first to describe her alleged sexual assault as going beyond what other women have described. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Adding - Reade filed a criminal complaint, and provided a police report about Biden's sexual assault. Guilty or innocent, the seriousness of the allegation, depth of media coverage and Biden being a presidential candidate elevates this to a strong keep if not a snow keep. 01:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge in to Joe Biden for now, because of WP:CANVASS and WP:BLP issues. The fewer articles we need to monitor and keep neutral about this issue, the better, at least until the election. Samboy ( talk) 04:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete MrX has it right (as usual). This might belong in the Biden article, but there is nothing here to warrant a separate article. Ratatosk Jones ( talk) 05:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation (a move that can be done boldly IMO). Front page coverage on NYT and WaPo, with every other major outlet rolling out stories as well, gives us enough material for a stand-alone page, and too much material for WP:DUE coverage at Joe Biden. I agree with a paragraph or so at Joe Biden and a hatnote to this page, which can have more in-depth coverage. Levivich  ^{dubious – discuss} 06:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Not that I disagree with you, but just as another point of discussion, I'm curious why there isn't a stronger push to rename this article to "sexual assault allegations" (plural), or "sexual misconduct allegations." Tara Reade's story is by far the most serious and violent, but we have several other women who have come forward to accuse Joe Biden of sexual misconduct. I believe the total stands at 8 or 9 currently. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:A92F:87F9:CFBF:E022 ( talk) 14:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Status and summary: Although some people are saying to delete and move the content into the Joe Biden article, such an opinion is actually a keep vote because merge is a type of keep. Consequently, there is an overwhelming consensus at this point to keep the content. There is also a parallel RFC ongoing that will decide how much of the content to keep and how to present it. If that RFC decides to add a "Sexual assault allegation" section to the Joe Biden article, it's going to end up being a summary with a link to this article. The arguments that "Joe Biden assault allegation" is a misleading title seem convincing and are unopposed. There appears to be a consensus to keep and rename the article to "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" and close this AfD. It is bad form to run two parallel discussions because it's not efficient use of time and attention and could lead to inconsistency. It's unnecessary to start an AfD while a parallel RfC is ongoing. I think it would be wise to rename now and then merge if the RfC decides a merge is appropriate. I'm going to await comments before possibly doing anything, and any other administrator who comes along and sees fit to wrap this up could do so. Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Ummm... no, that's not how this works at all. A "merge" vote is a "merge" vote not a keep vote. A merge vote means delete the present article but preserve whatever content is useful somewhere else. This is some wacky logic here. Volunteer Marek 06:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Not only because of the personal attack, and mis-statement of policy and customs, but also because of your history of conflict with other editors, your opinion carries little weight with me. Jehochman ^Talk 12:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't particularly care whether my opinion carries weight with you or not. The comment was for the benefit of discussion in general. Your description of how policy (and "customs") works is just plain wrong and seeing as you've been around for quite awhile that is actually quite shocking. And it may be a good idea to not make personal attacks yourself in the same comment in which you falsely accuse others of making personal attacks. Volunteer Marek 06:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The article is inappropriately named and is misleading because it doesn't specify "sexual assault". There is no "Brett Kavanaugh assault allegation" article, for example. There is a "Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegation" article, however, but it is just a redirect to the Brett Kavanaugh page. The Tara Reade story should definitely be covered in the Joe Biden and Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign articles. And a "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" article might be warranted as a redirect. But "Joe Biden assault allegation" should be deleted. Bueller 007 ( talk) 15:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Bueller 007. Hi. I just wanted to let you know the above is not really an argument for delete. It is probably best to have policy based argumets such as topic or subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline ( WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO) or WP:NPOV, and so on. Or the article breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Just FYI. Whatever you think is best. Hope you don't mind. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 17:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Obviously it is an argument for delete. That an article title is misleading is clearly a concern of an encyclopedia. Bueller 007 ( talk) 20:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  It is an invalid argument for deletion. If the page title is bad, the solution is to rename it, not delete the page. Lots of things are a concern for an encyclopedia; unreliable sources, spam, spelling errors, the list goes on and on. In most cases the answer is to fix the problem, not delete the page. We have a page on this that you should read: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Pay special attention to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Further to the above point - while comparisons with other articles are not very relevant to this AFD, for what it's worth, I'd say Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegation should obviously be an independent article. There's enough content for it, and like this one it's undeniably notable. But that's a discussion for another day. Robofish ( talk) 21:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep and rename per Levivich. This topic clearly meets GNG, and the strong sourcing clarifies any potential BLP issues. Mr Ernie ( talk) 15:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. This has only reached the level of unproven accusations. Biden and his organization has denied it. In other words, this is breaking news and speculative all the way around, and does not define him, his candidacy or his organization. This is not a significant event at this time and does not merit its own article per WP:UNDUE. It is merely sensationalism and Wikipedia is not a tabloid. I think more time is needed to see if this has durable impact, probably at least six months. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 16:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

None of the 4 elements of WP:NOTNEWS apply here - It is not original reporting by WP, this is not routine coverage of announcements, sports event or celebrity gossip, Biden is very notable , and the event is as well JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 17:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews, though that is not a particularly active project. Seems relevant to me. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

But Muboshgu, if we followed that to the letter, would we not have to delete most of the articles created based entirely on news reports? BLP policy per WP:PUBLICFIGURE clearly states: 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. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. We have met the qualifications for inclusion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The alleged victim has bizarrely filed a complaint 27 years after the alleged incident, but refused to name Joe Biden as the alleged perpetrator. And yet Wikipedia is going to jump ahead of her and do so? Maybe Wikipedia's 60 minutes-style investigative journalism team can take over the writing of this article. Maybe the Trump campaign can give them financial support. — goethean 16:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

goethean, Please don't make claims when you don't know whether they are true. Previously we only knew that the Incident report did not name Biden. Incident reports (the document the police releases to the public) typically do not name the accuser or the accused, whether or not the police report (the document that a police officer creates when a crime is reported) contains that information.

We knew nothing about the content of the police report, just what Raede said about it. You were wrong to claim knowledge of what is in the police report ("but refused to name Joe Biden as the alleged perpetrator"). Again, please don't make claims whem you have no way of knowing whether the claims are true.

What we know about the actual police report all changed as of 7 AM ET today (Sunday, 19 April 2020). We now know that your claim above is false.

"NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report." [1]

Of course you didn't know it was false when you posted it, but you didn't know that it was true either.

It will be interesting if and when NPR get the report and publishes it. I see no basis for denying a FOIA request in this case. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

What is the policy reason you are !voting to delete? Your personal doubts about the complaint's credibility is not one, as I am sure you realize. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 17:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Christine Ford waited 36 years to tell the Washington Post that Kavanaugh pushed her on a bed and laughed. There's no evidence they've even met, yet her claims are immortalized in 10 detailed paragraphs in Kavanaugh's biography. You're not going to get much traction with a "Wikipedia is biased in favor of Trump" complaint. Tara Reade has proved she worked for Biden, has corroboration of the attack, and Joe Biden's article is still admin-locked to prevent even her name from entering his biography. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:78A2:2CE8:72BE:966E ( talk) 16:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

You're not going to get much traction with a "Wikipedia is biased in favor of Trump" complaint.

Well, Wikipedia is brimming with Bernie supporters who are angry that the Democrats nominated a Democrat. — goethean 18:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Goethean, she filed a criminal complaint against Biden. Where are you getting your alleged facts from? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  You are misinformed. She filed an incident report which did not mention Biden. — goethean 18:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  You are misinformed. She filed a police report, not an incident report (I myself confused the two at first) and we now know that it did name Biden. [2] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Ummm... From the source: "A record of the report names Biden." - "A record of the report" is not "the report". Also, it's pretty nasty to call someone misinformed about comment they made that precedes this new information by six days. - MrX 🖋 16:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  The NPR source does not state that the "report" was about Biden. It named Biden, and that could very well have been in the course of her explaining why she felt that people were harassing her online. That would be more directly consistent with the statements she's made, knowing that the statute of limitations has lapsed and saying she filed the document "for her safety. The NPR story would be consistent with, pardon the analogy, I tell the police that a burglar made her getaway in a green Ford truck. The police report names a Ford truck. We really need to be careful and patient about this. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  and in subsequent interview a day later, she said the complaint is about him. Move on. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 18:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep but rename article is well sourced and follows BLP policy, but I'd rename to sexual assault allegations, not "assault allegations." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

You don't seem to be up to speed on the subject of the article. There is only one sexual assault allegation. No 's'. - MrX 🖋 20:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTNEWS. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments re: Clinton, Trump, and the others mentioned above should have no bearing here. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

None of the 4 elements of WP:NOTNEWS apply here - It is not original reporting by WP, this is not routine coverage of announcements, sports event or celebrity gossip, Biden is very notable, and the event is as well Which article do you think this is a POVFORK of? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 18:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

^ This. Citing "NOTNEWS" as a reason to hide the fact that a presumptive presidential nominee has been credibly accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct, one of whom has filed a criminal complaint, demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:91FB:9E23:F11A:B31A ( talk) 20:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

It won't be hidden if it's covered in the biography, so that argument is a non-starter. The credibility of the accuser has not been firmly established in the sources. If anything, some of the better sources have made suggestions to the contrary. Of course, credibility has no bearing on whether there should be an independent article about a subject that could easily be encapsulated in the main biography. - MrX 🖋 20:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews, though that is not a particularly active project." This applies here. Newsworthiness has not been established to the extent that would support a standalone article. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The above paragraph gives examples of what would be news items that are not suitable for articles: "For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". None of these are remotely comparable to an allegation of criminal conduct by one of the leading presidential candidates. Newsworthiness has been established by extensivcoveragege in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe and virtually every other major US newspaper. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 00:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS per the "other" posted articles regarding Clinton, Trump, Bryant, Roy More and so on. There really is no correlation between the coverage in those Wikipedia articles and this, which has no enduring value, and seems like a one-off based on an a accuser with possibly questionable credibility. This story is merely sensational breaking news. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Yes, this "story" has reached the level of newsworthiness as it has been splashed across the pages of major media organizations. But newsworthiness does not equate with the enduring nature of notability. News organizations have a different standard than Wikipedia. They are in the daily news cycle business, Wikipedia is in the notable topic business. A good question to ask is - 10 years from now will this story matter, 20 years from now, or 30 years? At this time, I don't think so. I think we have to see if the story unfolds into anything that really matters beyond being political fodder of the moment. Six months should give some perspective. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 01:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation.-- MONGO ( talk) 20:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Joe Biden - Per my !vote in the RfC on that page, I think the content should be included in the article there.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 21:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• On second thought, KEEP - I had thought merging this into Biden would be the best way to go, but I have been convinced by Jauerback's wise words below. This content belongs somewhere, and if it is not going to get more than a sentence in the Joe Biden article then it belongs here. That might save us all some headache.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 01:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• There is an RfC on renaming this page at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Request for Comment: What should the title of this page be?. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• KEEP Lot of media coverage of multiple women accusing him of various things, and media comments on video footage of him touching people. Dream Focus 22:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep as being covered by ample reliable sources. Consider renaming and expanding scope to "Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations" to cover sexual misconduct other than assault. Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 00:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. There is media coverage in some reliable sources such as WAPO and NYT, but that does not indicate the accusation is notable and deserves a stand-alone article. There is nothing to indicate this accusation will have a lasting meaningful impact on Joe, his campaign, or election. This allegation is far different from previous media coverage about Joe. And since the credibility of the accuser cannot be determined at this time, all the more reason for dispensing with this article. Wikipedia is not in the business of covering salacious allegations in the manner of tabloid - which, fortunately, Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is also not a gossip column ( wp:notgossip) or in the business of scandal mongering ( wp:notscandal) to garner an audience. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 00:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:RAPID. We can choose to merge later. I doubt we will though. This growing in prominence still. There is no rush to delete. ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Lots of solid sourcing. Biden is the presidential candidate. Biden article is where it is mentioned and this article will hold the details. Patapsco913 ( talk) 08:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Wikipedia isn't a collection of tabloid gossip and flash-in-the-pan material about momentary events. Neither of those situations apply here. This article, as it stands, needs significant work and particularly ought to have its title altered. However, none of that changes the fact that we're talking about an important subject that has been discussed by totally reliable sources on multiple occasions and is in no way a temporary thing that will get flushed to nothing by the news cycle. The very serious nature of the accusation and the context in which its been reported on matters. A criminal complaint has been filed, after all. This isn't something that won't seem to matter in six more days or even six more months. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 10:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete this rather obvious end-run around failure to gain consensuis for inclusion elsewhere. Guy ( help!) 10:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  I am having trouble reconciling the above "failure to gain consensus for inclusion elsewhere" claim with the result of Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article?. We agree on many things, but in my opinion you have a keen eye for Red Team misbehavior while being somewhat blind to Blue Team misbehavior, and are are up front about it, saying "My team really is better and the other team really is worse". -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  For the record, the RFC concluded that it should be included in the main bio. [3] So yes, it has consensus elsewhere. PackMecEng ( talk) 15:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• That RfC does not indicate consensus as to whether the allegation itself is WP:NOTABLE. It doesn't even preclude article text along the lines of "a dubious allegation was promoted across certain media outlets and partisan websites..." SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• No, but it is concensus that something about it belongs which is counter to what Guy was saying. Also there is no reason it has to be true to be notable. As you say the content could be a dubious allegation was promoted across certain media outlets and partisan websites... Personally, I have not made a decision yet if it needs it's own article or not. It was just something I noticed while reading peoples opinions. PackMecEng ( talk) 15:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Seems like an important "event" (talking about Tara going public with the allegation). We have Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal - one could argue that the scandal was about a sitting president, however since Joe Biden is a major politician and a presidential candidate, seems to me that this article's existence is justified. BeŻet ( talk) 12:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete There is barely enough RS coverage of this allegation to warrant mentioning it in the Joe Biden article. It's received attention due to persistent internet chatter sustained by an energetic coalition of social justice and political advocates. The most significant RS coverage has told us the allegation per se is either dubious or not credible. The current rush to a separate article would create a POV fork or coatrack. If this changes in the future, we can create a properly sourced standalone article. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• That's a ludicrous claim to make. Newsworthiness has been established by extensive coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe and virtually every other major US newspaper. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! ( talk) 16:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• "It's received attention due to persistent internet chatter" (yes, that's called 'journalism') "sustained by an energetic coalition of social justice and political advocates" (yes, those people are called 'journalists'). This is how it works. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 16:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Oh. I guess we have quite a few "journalists" at the Biden article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• SPECIFICO, please point to the specific language in RS telling us the allegations are dubious or not credible, otherwise your comment is a BLP violation and I will be forced to redact it. Mr Ernie ( talk) 16:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Please take any concerns to WP:BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Also, see my NYT article post below, which may help answer Mr. Ernie's question. ---09:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Per WP:POVFORK and WP:BLP merge this information into the main article where it belongs. Mind you, if this article was merged, it would have way more watchers looking at it, which is entirely the point of POVFORK, and unlike Media coverage of Bernie Sanders this article is only a start class, which definitely isn't good enough to stand on it's own. It fails BLP too because the allegation is not substantial as well, compared to other politicians. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 16:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

What evidence have you that this isn't a substantial accusation? It's more collaborated and justified than that against either Woody Allen or Justice Kavanaugh as far as I can see, and those articles substantially cover those (if we're honest, most likely false) accusations. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 16:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Kanavaugh had a very publicized Supreme Court confirmation, and has had more than one person submit sexual assualt clams, Biden has none of that. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Swordman97: Do you think that the article could not be improved to more than stub-/start- class? Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 18:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

No because the article has not had very much RS publication yet. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment And also we need a section at WP:OUTCOMES for this kind of article, considering how common they are. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 16:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment Something to be aware of, NYT executive editor Dean Baquet has revealed that the reason they sanitized the Biden piece (which was buried on page A20 by the way) is because the Biden campaign told them to: [4]. The line in question was "...no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable". Baquet also tried to explain why Kavanaugh's accusers were covered immediately and in great detail despite no evidence or corroboration for them, while Biden's accusers were ignored by most of the mainstream media until after Bernie dropped out. Thought this is noteworthy since many editors were opposing even the mention of Ms. Reade in Biden's biography until The Venerable Gray Lady mentioned her name. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:8E:8C0C:85C3:8B40 ( talk) 18:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This has plainly, transparently, become a notable story deserving of an article. I find it hard to see how anyone could argue otherwise. That is to say nothing about the truth of the allegation or how seriously it should be taken, but it has received enough coverage from the media recently that it should have a Wikipedia article. Biden's article is long enough already that adding this content there would be excessive (and somewhat off-topic - only a summary there would be appropriate). Robofish ( talk) 21:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - initially, I was going to say Merge, because I thought the information would be fine in the Joe Biden article. However, realistically, that's just going to start a whole another fight about how much of this article should belongs in there. If "merged", I'm sure any more than a sentence or two would bring cries of WP:UNDUE there. And those on the opposite end of the argument would try creating this article again. So, let's just cut to the chase and leave this article, because you all know we'll end up here, anyway. Jauerback ^dude?/ _dude. 22:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There is no way that a credible sexual assault allegation against a major party presidential nominee doesn't meet the notability threshold. Additionally, there is too much content to be merged into the main Biden article without running into undue weight problems within the main article itself, thus a sub-article is needed here. Rreagan007 ( talk) 22:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• You are assuming the consequent. Nobody has shown that the weight of mainstream RS call this a credible allegation -- more the opposite. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  • And where are you getting this standard that it must be the weight of mainstream RS in order for an article to exist? Even if only a few RS characterize a sexual assault allegation against a mainstream presidential candidate as credible, then that is more than enough, in my opinion, for an article to pass the notability threshold. And on the flip side, how many RS have characterized the allegation as discredited? Rreagan007 ( talk) 03:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• This may help answer Rreangan007's question. The implication is, based on a conclusion by the New York Times, the claims by Reade do not appear to be credible [5]. I quote:

  "The Times interviewed Ms. Reade on multiple days over hours, as well as those she told about Mr. Biden’s behavior and other friends. The Times has also interviewed lawyers who spoke to Ms. Reade about her allegation; nearly two dozen people who worked with Mr. Biden during the early 1990s, including many who worked with Ms. Reade; and the other seven women who criticized Mr. Biden last year, to discuss their experiences with him. No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden."

  Underline is mine. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 09:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• You conveniently left out the last part of that sentence from the NYT's article.

• It seems that I didn't leave out the last part of that sentence. However, feel free to elaborate. We may be talking about different things. Also, would you mind adding your signature to the above comment? --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• That they found no pattern outside of touching and kissing, which made women feel uncomfortable, does not discredit Reade’s claim of a one-off. Until there is RS directly questioning credibility, it is a BLP violation to assert it. Mr Ernie ( talk) 15:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep There has been a sufficient amount of media coverage, and the topic is of wide interest. Natureium ( talk) 22:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Note – 2601:681:5400:7730:4cc5:afa8:6681:4a7 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) left a comment on WT:AFD, seemingly intended for this debate. Cross-posting here in good faith. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 03:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There is no legitimate reason to delete. Kire1975 ( talk) 05:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:POVFORK and BLP vio. Also huge POV/Troll magnet. Volunteer Marek 06:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I have to agree with Volunteer Mark that this is a POVFORK because we just had a RFC about should this incident be placed in the Joe Biden article? This article was created during that RFC. In any case, consensus is for placing this incident in that article. I won't go into the off-wiki canvasing that took place during that RFC - because it doesn't impact the outcome of this AfD. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 09:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep passes WP:GNG, the controversy has been there since the 1990s. I don't see any reason to remove it. This is now a legal issue and there is a police complaint against Joe Biden.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 08:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment This allegedly happened in the 1990's and it has not been controversial in news since the 1990's. It would be incorrect to say that. A police report is not RS per se, and does not indicate notability. A conviction might be worth covering, but there isn't one. She hasn't yet been determined to be credible. So this is also a BLP violation. Additionally, this is very much flash-in-the-pan and tabloid gossip even if it is covered by some reliable sources. It already seems to be fading from the news cycle which shows it is newsworthy and not noteworthy. A sexual assault allegation against a public person, by itself, does not indicate notability by Wikipedia standards. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 09:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  It's the same as many other articles in Wikipedia like Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations (who was the republican nominee) or Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations etc. I don't think there is any legit reason to remove this. This is a very notable public figure and there are many news reports covering the story. -- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 09:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)This is not nearly like any of those. I could see if several or half dozen or a dozen women came forward with actual sexual violation accusations, then there would be something worth covering in Wikipedia. Anyway, those examples are OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What is happening with this is sensationalism and RS like the New York Times have not been able to lend credence to the accusation. See this [6]. I posted the same thing above for Rreangan007 and I don't want to take up space re-posting it here, if you want to look there. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 09:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Steve Quinn, you may want to brush up on WP:WELLKNOWN. It is not for us to determine what is notable. Only RS coverage determines notability. If it has been covered by multiple reliable secondary sources, then it is notable. It is our job to say what RS say. Whether or not it is true is completely immaterial. It has received significant coverage in RS and belongs on Wikipedia. Plain and simple. ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Please note WP:WELLKNOWN doesn't say anything about a standalone article where notability is required for inclusion. It says "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." That's seems to be talking about an article that already exists, and there is one and it should go there, if anywhere. What we have here is an incident that shows no sign of an enduring quality and that is one of the main characteristics of notability, which has already been said by some editors above.

Wikipedia is not a news organization, a newspaper, or a tabloid. And what are doing here at this AfD is determining the notability of this topic, contrary to what you just wrote. And it is not only RS coverage that determines notability. There are a number of policies, sections of those policies, and some guidelines that determine notability. RS is just the beginning. RS allows editors to evaluate whether the topic is suitable for inclusion based on policies and guidelines. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 09:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

It has received significant coverage in numerous RS. Notability determine. We are done here. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry but this doesn't seem to be a good argument. RS is not the only factor that determines a topic's notability. In fact, my other points are being demonstrated with your reply. First, please notice, it's the same story over and over and over - the same single event - in each publication - and it's part of news cycle. It's the hot story of the moment. It might as well be carried in one reliable source for the same effect.

It is just that each media outlet has their readership and there are many media outlets, and in this case they carry the same story. For a counter-example, media organizations seem to have their own take on the many aspects of the effects of the Covid-19 virus over a significant time period. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a news organization clamoring for clicks, views, or readership. Rather, there are a number of policies and guidelines that go into determining notability, beyond the news. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 17:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep, article has enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Not a very active user ( talk) 14:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Per WP:GNC, WP:RS, and WP:Notability.-- JOJ ^Hutton 14:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Even international sources can be found like BBC, Independent, Herald Sun etc. Even non-English, Arabic sources [22], [23], [24]. This is an internationally reported subjected. The hashtag #Ibelievetara was trending in Saudi Arabia and Egypt one day.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 19:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• You are telling us that anonymous pumping a hashtag on self-published social media confers notability? SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - this is a classic case of POVFORK, and as others have pointed out, the existence of news articles about a topic doesn't necessarily mean that the topic needs its own article. I am similarly concerned about BLP issues; there has been no corroboration of Reade's story. If this gains traction, the situation might be different, but as of now I question whether this even warrants more than a sentence in Biden's article, let alone a whole spin-off article. -- WMSR ( talk) 20:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete A single unproven allegation does not warrant a separate article. What there is to be said about this can be done at Joe Biden or Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign or both. Zaathras ( talk) 20:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 20:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 20:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete Seems to me to be a clear POVFORK/NOTNEWS with some major BLP implications for at least the alleged victim. SportingFlyer T· C 20:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete I'm not understanding why this is deserving of an article by itself. The article itself is not very long and all of the information just can just be stored to Joe Biden's actual page. This article is not warranted. Auror Andrachome ( talk) 23:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment I want to comment on a misunderstanding that I keep seeing in this discussion. Some (not all) keep rationales argue the article should be kept because it meets the WP:GNG, but the GNG explicitly says that meeting the threshold does not guarantee a standalone article. WP:N says that for a topic to merit a standalone article it must pass the GNG and not be excluded by our other policies. The main deletion rationale is not that the article fails the GNG but that it is excluded by our other policies, specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Point-of-view forks. Rationales that only address the GNG are missing the point and will hold more weight if they are revised to address the specific points brought up in this discussion. — Wug· a·po·des​ 23:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Good point. But the Joe Biden article is already long and this is probably going to be spun out as a sub article because there are plenty of sources that have something to say about it, making the article longer than what could easily fit in the parent article. Can you clarify what article this is a POV fork of? What seems to be happening is a marge discussion under guise of AfD, which isn't exactly correct. Jehochman ^Talk 03:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

This isn't meant to be a delete !vote in disguise; not everyone reads policy cover to cover, so I hoped to prevent people talking past each other. My understanding of the delete arguments so far is that the appropriate level of detail for this allegation would not be undue in the main Joe Biden article, and that this article is a POV fork of that one because it bypasses developing consensus on how to treat it in that article. There are a number of keep arguments, but you bring up the main rebuttal---Joe Biden is already very long and giving due weight would make it too long. Others I've seen that go beyond GNG are don't rush to delete breaking articles and that this isn't actually an unusual split when considering how we treat other politicians. Both sides have brought up reasonable arguments, and I think this is an important discussion to have. I'm a little more lax than most when it comes to appropriate venues, but you're right this is an atypical AFD which is why I think it's worth noting that we're discussing more than the GNG here so that everyone is on the same page. — Wug· a·po·des​ 07:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Wugapodes, Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking (aka spin-off) happens when the main article is already too long, as in this case. Editors are simply following WP:Article size. With regards to notability, a bit ambiguous for some perhaps but new articles must pass GNG or be deleted - rule 101 in WP:NPP. With regards to the sexual misconduct allegations, there have been prior discussions about including sexual allegations in similar BLPs when WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies, and the obvious result is Guy Macon's list of articles above - new articles are created. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete this POVFORK per nom, NOTNEWS and WEIGHT. Mini apolis 00:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:RAPID. Note Subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 00:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep meets notability and coverage guidelines. It's in the press and covered and our readers deserve a fair aneutral account of the sexual assault allegations leveled by a former staffer and other accounts of a history of unwanted touching leveled by many women. ConstantPlancks ( talk) 07:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC). reply
• Note that UpdateNerd has added merge tag that says someone has suggested merging the content of the article. I assume that this discussion is where the consensus would be whether it should be merged or not.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 18:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Essentially, deleting and merging would have the same effect, which I support. UpdateNerd ( talk) 19:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Deleting the article would delete the history which would delete the attributions. Sometimes the outcome of a deletion discussion is "merge" but it is never "deleting and merging" because that would be copyright violation.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 21:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  @ Sharab Salam: What is your concern about copyright? SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  Not to break the law or violate our terms of service. If we move content, we have to keep the history. If this article were to be merged into Joe Biden it would become a redirect to that article, and the contribution history would still be available. This result is unlikely because Joe Biden article is already too long. Jehochman ^Talk 00:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  I didn't get the sense that was his concern. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  It was. "Deleting and merge" would violate copyright.-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 17:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

  No it wouldn't, because as explained at Wikipedia:Merge and delete, any merge and delete !vote is treated as a merge !vote. Nobody is going to remove the page history or delete the redirect. See Wikipedia:Merging#Merger as a result of a deletion discussion for the procedure we do follow. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Clearly notable. Fdr2001 ( talk) 21:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Meets WP:RAPID. Sourcing looks good and sufficient as well. BabbaQ ( talk) 14:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Notable. MagicatthemovieS ( talk) 16:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS reply
• Keep and rename to an article that also covers his sexual misbehaviour allegations. Article zooms past WP:N and WP:V. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 03:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I'd like to add that this article is not just about the allegation itself but also about how the mainstream media covered it (which was controversial and talked about a lot), which makes it difficult to include in the Joe Biden article if we'd like to talk about it in more detail. BeŻet ( talk) 16:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per NOT:NEWS and as a POV fork. Not every allegation is notable enough to have a separate page, even though it was covered in news. Mention it on BLP page of the subject. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: - the subject is still evolving. with elections looming you can be sure there will be more headlines and groundbreaking information relating to the subject matter. The Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page wasn't created until after he first ran for president despite the events having taken place many years earlier. Grmike ( talk) 20:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)grmke reply
• Delete - Holy disappointing AfD. Yes, pretty much every aspect of every major presidential candidate will meet GNG, but we don't create separate articles for them. We create articles for them when they come to dominate existing articles disproportionately, or when there's an incredible amount of coverage of a sustained period of time. We have neither one of those here. At this point, this probably deserves a mention in one or more of the existing articles, but per WP:NOPAGE, WP:BLP, WP:POVFORK, and common sense when it comes to the most notable subjects and WP:WEIGHT, no of course we shouldn't yet have a stand-alone article about this. Maybe in time. Also, WP:RAPID is an irrelevant AfD argument, as it's not only canceled out by WP:DELAY but superseded by BLP, etc. I don't envy the closer of this discussion... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• I've commented elsewhere, but it seems as if we've struggled with WP:POVFORK/ WP:UNDUE as a community in a couple recent and well commented AfDs. Whether an article meets WP:GNG doesn't matter if there's an exception. All of the keep !voters so far have basically concluded that it's notable without actually looking or commentating at whether any exceptions to WP:GNG exist. As I've noted above I think this gets easily filtered out in spite of the press coverage. I still don't envy the closer. SportingFlyer T· C 04:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• You are making an unsupported assumption. You are assuming without evidence that not commenting on these supposed exceptions to GNG means that the editors who didn't comment didn't look at them. You cannot draw a conclusion from silence. One could just as easily say that they didn't bother commenting on those supposed exceptions to GNG because they read and agreed with my comment at the start of this RfC arguing that every reason for deletion listed by the OP is demonstrably untrue -- but that would also be drawing a conclusion from silence. In addition, if you make the assumtion from silence that any !vote that does not specificly address the reasons the OP listed implies some sort of agreement, then why wouldn't you make the assumtion from silence that any !vote that does not specificly address my post about those reasons being invalid implies some sort of agreement? Silence means silence. You shouldn't draw any conclusion from what people didn't write. Not responding to a particular argument does not imply agreement or disagreement. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Yes, and I would take that logic one further: I look forward to the closer(s) factoring in not just what arguments people didn't make, but also the opinions of the thousands of editors who didn't say anything at all (whose silence we cannot assume means they would support a keep outcome!). :) Seriously, though, all we have are the arguments presented here. For a contentious discussion that will rely on the strength of arguments, the closer can only factor in what's presented here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Guy Macon's comment. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about sexual assault allegations, especially after the MeToo-era, and nothing in them makes them an attack page or a POVFORK, as long as there is coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing is here. The ambitions here, in my opinion, are mostly political and not related to Wikipedia's editorial policies. -- Pudeo ( talk) 10:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep WP:GNG is fulfilled and the arguments listed above for keeping the article sound very convincing, especially since merging this into another article would create endless fights as well.-- Baumfreak ( talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep The story has blown up so much in media over the last few days that it deserves in depth coverage. ImTheIP ( talk) 15:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.