- 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 redirect to Matt Gaetz#Alleged sexual relationship with minor. Numerically, opinions are roughly evenly split between delete, merge and keep. There are sensible arguments for all three outcomes, but in the end it is a matter of our collective editorial judgment to what extent we want to cover these allegations; as such I cannot determine on my own whose arguments are stronger. I can, however, determine that rough consensus is against deleting this article but also against keeping it as a separate article at this time. This makes "merge" the most consensual outcome of this discussion.
It has been noted that the content of this article is not more that what there is already about this topic in the main article Matt Gaetz, which also indicates that most people think that there does not seem to be very much content for a subarticle at the moment. Consequently, given that most of the merger seems to have been already done, I think it best reflects this discussion and is best in terms of article quality to simply redirect the title, allowing editors to merge whatever they think is useful from the history. This does not preclude the recreation of a spinoff article per WP:SS if our coverage of the matter grows substantially, but I advise discussing this on the talk page first to avoid a re-run of this discussion. Sandstein 19:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod declined, redirect to his main page declined. The reporting on this is all less than what, 12 hours old? I have yet to see an actual story that says he was charged. All the reporting is about the fact that someone found out he was being investigated. Not enough for our BLP rules. Merging all this to the main article might be OK as he has been responding to the claims in the media. But keeping an article with the title format "firstname lastname child sex scandal" when the investigation has not been confirmed and charges have not been laid? ---
Possibly (
talk) 04:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Admin note: this is being discussed at WP:AN#Matt Gaetz. I moved the article to Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations per BLP. Fences& Windows 01:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 04:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 04:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 04:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 04:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Merge/Delete Far WP:TOOSOON. This is a developing story. It may well end up being a major news story that deserves a separate article, but we're not there yet and things could go the other way as time goes on. LM2000 ( talk) 05:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete – WP:TOOSOON, doesn't deserve anything more than a paragraph at Matt Gaetz at this point. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 05:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 07:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. If it's adequately confirmed it may deserve a mention at Matt Gaetz, but it's not yet at that point. As a separate page, no. Athel cb ( talk) 08:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Sensational breaking news story, essentially based on the reporting of one source. Grossly premature to call this a "scandal." It is early to even give this a mention in the Matt Gaetz article, due to BLP and undue weight concerns. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Mergekeep, not delete. It's trivially easy to obey WP:BLP by limiting ourselves to reporting the coverage in WP:RS media. As for now, WP:TOOSOON certainly does apply, but this topic can be added to the Matt Gaetz page for now, with the option to fork back out into its own article when that section is more fully fleshed-out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 12:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)- Note I changed my above vote to keep, per below comment by User:Internetronic and User:Scanlyze noting that WP:TOOSOON is an essay and not a policy, and noting that Wikipedia does indeed have current events among our articles all the time. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 18:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Eg, imagine if we were debating whether to keep an article on the Tohoku disaster as it was happening. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 18:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I'm really uncomfortable with this. It says in the article that no charges have been brought, yet the article name uses the phrase "child sex scandal" without any qualifiers, which could well give the impression that not only charges have been brought but they've also been proven. I know WP:BLPPUBLIC sort of allows this, but while the article may be within the letter of that guideline, I don't think it is within its spirit. If it were my call, I'd say speedily delete this as wholly negative BLP that's also just WP:TOOSOON. But given that the story is merely a day or two old, I guess I could live with it being draftified for a while, pending further developments, assuming that's okay legally etc. (And just to say, I've never heard of this chap, I don't even know which party he represents, so my comment is entirely unbiased in that respect.) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 14:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, per what literally everyone else said. Maybe send some info to
Matt Gaetz a day or so later, or something.
AdoTang (
talk) 14:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is not a speedy and a speedy vote would require that you specify a speedy criterion. Please familiarize yourself with WP:SPEEDY, especially WP:NOTCSD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 00:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Mergeto the main page for reasons stated above.JTZegers
Speak
Aura 15:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC) - Merge (partial) to Matt Gaetz. Widely covered in reliable media: he himself has acknowledged. Djflem ( talk) 16:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment for those voting merge, a note that this material has now been covered in the main article here. --- Possibly ( talk) 21:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The topic of this article is not a random piece of gossip that can simply be dismissed by claiming it is a "hit job," it is an investigation being conducted by the US Department of Justice into whether a US congressman has committed the sex trafficking of a minor. Coverage in this article (as in the press, where it is a major story) balances both the serious allegations and the denials by the alleged sexual predator. The investigation which this article is about is very much a real and notable subject and therefore the article is completely appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UrielAcosta ( talk • contribs)
- Keep and speedy close this. Yet again again again, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot with stupid deletion tags, on another big and somewhat complex story that people are looking up and wanting to learn about. It's as if someone dreamed up the most evil strategy for giving a bad image of Wikipedia, to be widely spread whenever Wikipedia is most useful / most visited. Instead, there oughta be some sign put on the page "ANOTHER GREAT BREAKING STORY EXPLAINED SIMPLY AND ACCURATELY AND WELL BY wIKIPEDIA, YOUR FRIEND. BE SURE TO REVISIT THIS PAGE AS MORE FACTS BECOME AVAILABLE. WE ARE PROUD OF WHAT WE DO. CONSIDER DONATING $1,000,000 TODAY." But no, our message is "We are stupid and divided!". --
Doncram (
talk) 02:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree totally. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 13:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete We are not Wikinews. This is just a handful of allegations at the moment. No charges have been filed, and we aren't exactly sure where the investigation is going, though I'm sure Twitter is loosing it. TOOSOON, we'll see if this develops into anything, then we can have our article. At the moment, a small paragraph on the Gaetz page will suffice. - Indy beetle ( talk) 04:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Premature
WP:CONTENTFORK that clearly violates
WP:NOTNEWS. Problematic title as well.
KidAd •
SPEAK 06:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- This article does not violate any of the four points in WP:NOTNEWS. The article is not OR, it is not written as a news report, it's not a who's who, and it is not celebrity gossip or a diary. However, it is valid to suggest that at this time, this is a premature fork. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Matt Gaetz article. This page is simply not large enough to justify a separate article. ★Trekker ( talk) 13:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete WP:TOOSOON. Though I think the content should be saved for possible merging into Matt Gaetz or to even be released as its own page in the future, we don't know enough about the story, the validity of the claim, or the motive of the claim to merit its own article. I agree with DoubleGrazing that the title and spirit of the article are quite harsh for something that hasn't even been officially proven yet, upon looking at the most recent developments to the story today I would argue there is not enough information for its own page. Possibly also makes a good point that there is already a section for this topic on Matt Gaetz's page. Yy958 ( talk) 16:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge with Matt Gaetz: per WP:TOOSOON. A section in the main article is suffice for now. Curbon7 ( talk) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There is more than enough reporting from a vast number of reputable sources to qualify this for its own article. All it needs is a WP:CET, and then we should get to fleshing out this article rather than scrapping it. (Everyone here citing WP:TOOSOON should maybe find an actual Wikipedia policy that backs their argument rather than an essay Internetronic ( talk) 04:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Most of the Delete votes cite WP:TOOSOON. It's debateable whether WP:TOOSOON itself is a valid reason for deletion given that it is an essay and not a policy. Be that as it may, WP:TOOSOON states, "For an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources." By that standard, the article is *NOT* WP:TOOSOON.
Scanlyze (
talk) 04:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- You changed my mind for me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 18:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This scandal is getting worse and worse by the day. If deleted prematurely, it's likely to need being added again later. For now, I suggest keeping it. Art Smart Chart/ Heart 10:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or at the very least change title. It's not very NPOV to have an article title referring to a girl who would be old enough to legally have sex with a thirtysomething in 39 states that aren't Florida as a "child".
Khemehekis (
talk) 11:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- changing the title does sound like a good idea to me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 21:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: the problem is not that it happened in Florida, but that he allegedly crossed state lines to do it, which is a federal crime. -- Rockstone [Send me a message!] 22:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Per Doncram Kiltpin ( talk) 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Matt Gaetz article. Not much is even known about this at this time so it would be appropriate to merge to his main article until more info comes out. Article is not NPOV as well because age 17 is or is above the age of consent for many states. Minor and child differ. Chloe0303 ( talk) 16:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete: the article is premature, particularly with respect to its title.
soibangla (
talk) 19:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- As noted above by
User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, this is not a speedy vote.
Internetronic (
talk) 19:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t know what the precise protocol is here, but this article is exceedingly problematic and should be promptly nuked at the earliest opportunity.
soibangla (
talk) 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- for a speedy deletion, you need to specify the speedy criterion as per WP:CSD. (Actually speedies aren't even supposed to be done in AfD.) If you instead feel it is problematic (e.g. you think it's a WP:BLP violation?), you give the explanation why you think so. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 21:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t know what the precise protocol is here, but this article is exceedingly problematic and should be promptly nuked at the earliest opportunity.
soibangla (
talk) 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- As noted above by
User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, this is not a speedy vote.
Internetronic (
talk) 19:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Strong keep, easily passes the notability criteria. Pointless nomination. Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 20:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @
Chessrat: Saying it's pointless is kind of pointless, seeing as more than 50% want to delete and the outcome is very much in contention. It's your basic relevant discussion.---
Possibly (
talk) 23:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's a situation where an article about a rapidly-developing story gets AfD-ed when there's less coverage of it, and as more information comes in it's obvious that an article is needed. Note that most of the delete votes were from a few days ago, and most votes now are to keep. Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @
Chessrat: Saying it's pointless is kind of pointless, seeing as more than 50% want to delete and the outcome is very much in contention. It's your basic relevant discussion.---
Possibly (
talk) 23:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - This story is evolving slowly but surely, and there's no doubt that there'll be further developments as we move along. At best, this could require a rename if more people are dragged into this scandal. Love of Corey ( talk) 23:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete this is definitely WP:TOOSOON. Right now this is an unnecessary WP:NEGATIVESPIN. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 23:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: Article has been moved to
Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations by
User:Fences and windows with summary
Boldly moving per BLP
. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 01:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC) - Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 3. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Scanlyze. My only concern was the article title, but that's already been addressed. ThadeusOfNazereth Talk to Me! 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This is the only thing I’ll say because I tried commenting then the page was deleted. I tried again and I got edit conflicted twice.
Too soon to know where this story will go or if it is even substantiated.
Trillfendi (
talk) 01:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Trillfendi, sorry for the inconvenience. You can comment now. Fences& Windows 01:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Has significant press coverage/sources and the problematic title was changed. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 01:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as an WP:UNDUE spinout of a BLP subject that is far too soon. The parent article itself is only 5500 words right now, and it absolutely could be trimmed further; there's no basis for needing a spinout article (that as pointed out essentially makes assertions of criminal conduct in the very framing). There's no reason that this article should exist as a separate topic. Suppositions that it could "blow up" or involve tons of people that require a separate article are entirely jumping the gun; we judge suitability for merging or deleting by the sources we have now, not on the idea that maybe something will happen later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge Majority of the article is about the extortion attempt. This is an article engaging in sensationalism as very few facts are available to actually cite about the allegations. Instead, you can already see the WP:Coatrack to tie this to Q, Roger Stone and Human Sex Trafficking. Slywriter ( talk) 01:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I struck out "
with the title format "firstname lastname child sex scandal"" from the AfD nomination as the article title has been changed.--- Possibly ( talk) 02:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC) - Keep or merge, do not delete - Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:DELAY. The allegations are simply too recent. We can probably summarize everything in about 2 paragraphs in the main Gaetz article. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 02:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Its gonna become a major devolping story, lets kep it so its ready Phillypaboy123 ( talk) 11:37, 2 April 2021 (EST)
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 04:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Obvious keep per WP:N and ample, substantive coverage of a public figure. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This has so much mainstream media coverage (including from major newspapers in other countries that one might hope are sufficiently farther removed to provide a less-politicized point of view) that it's obviously notable by now and it would overwhelm the main Gaetz article if we didn't keep it separate. It's an unstable and fraught situation but that's only an argument for why it can't be a Good Article now, not an argument for deletion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge into Matt Gaetz - this is clearly a notable incident with reliable sourcing, that is not in doubt. However, I don't think there's enough coverage to warrant a discrete article (yet?). ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Scanlyze. Gazamp ( talk) 13:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete it is far too premature for a standalone article on this. The article is still short and the main Matt Gaetz article has a discussion of these allegations which is more detailed than the one in this article. Nor do we have any good reason to believe that these allegations will have much lasting significance, as they haven't been confirmed, they haven't led to any charges and the person they relate to is only a congressman. I don't see anything to merge given that the main article covers this in more detail already. Hut 8.5 14:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete At least for now. If charges are filed in court, then restart the article. Too much sheer speculation at the moment. Personally, I think he looks like a putz, but he might be an innocent putz. 104.169.24.168 ( talk) 14:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- SNOW Keep: because by the time this is closed it will meet notability requirements. versacespace talk to me 15:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Per
WP:SNOW,
The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes
. Nothing about this page's notability is "likely" or "quite likely." KidAd • SPEAK 16:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Per
WP:SNOW,
- Redirect to Matt Gaetz#Alleged sexual relationship with minor, where it is already covered in sufficient detail. Too soon to spin out. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge into Matt Gaetz, at least unless there is an indictment and trial. Liz Read! Talk! 17:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- delete At present it's a clear BLP/NCRIME violation, and at any rate if the allegations are borne out, it is just part of his biography and will cease being just allegations. Mangoe ( talk) 17:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, Blindingly, Obviously. 1, the topic is seeing sustained, widespread coverage in both national and international sources. 2, as long as the article is focused on the allegations of a crime and not stating that the subject actually committed a crime (until he is indicted, of course). 3, WP:BLPCRIME is not applicable, as the subject is a public figure. If there are concerns about improper language used in the article such as "child s**" or "s** trafficking", than those can be handled by reverting to err on side of caution, and discussing. Finally, a merger is not appropriate given the scope of what has been reported so far. It would be undue to include this much info in the bio. Zaathras ( talk) 17:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge. It's far too early for this. Guy ( help! - typo?) 17:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Matt Gaetz. While this is certainly notable, per WP:SIZERULE the length of this and the main article do not justify a split at this time. Username 6892 00:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge This very obviously shouldn't be its own article. Whoever closes this discussion should consider the Delete votes to be the same as Merge, as this content will be covered in Matt Gaetz regardless. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge and Delete - At least half the verbiage is already in the parent article. There may be a time when a stand alone article is justified, but it isn't today. Seems like an unnecessary fork for what will easily fit in the main article, where some of this is going to be anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep or merge&redirect, do not delete. A completely different title may be appropriate as a substantial portion of the article of about David McGee allegedly extorting Gaetz for $25M. "Gaetz and McGee investigation and allegations", not exactly that but it's hard to come up with a clear title that covers both. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 01:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep but consider rename to
Matt Gaetz scandals given the sprawling nature of the scandal which some sources suggest extends beyond sexual misconduct.
Neutrality
talk 03:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with this, especially due to the fake ID aspects just starting to come out.
- https://www.rawstory.com/matt-gaetz-2651324756/
- https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-text-messages-led-the-feds-to-matt-gaetz Internetronic ( talk) 03:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- @
Neutrality: Maybe "Matt Gaetz misconduct investigation". It seems the word "scandal" is rarely if ever used in a title together with a name. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me) 15:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, there is
Jack Abramoff scandals.
Neutrality
talk 16:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, Larry Craig scandal, Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal, John Ensign scandal, Mark Foley scandal, Petraeus scandal... 162.208.168.92 ( talk) 21:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, there is
Jack Abramoff scandals.
Neutrality
talk 16:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Article is well sourced and this topic continues to circulate in the media. As per above, the title is not inclusive as there appear to be several distinct controversies surrounding this person including an extortion scandal, sexual solicitation scandal, and sexual conquest scandal related to his previous legislative positions, and FBI and DOJ investigations. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 05:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Matt Gaetz. It's part and parcel of his career, not a separate, long-running story. It's better handled as part of the main article. no matter what happens. → Stani Stani 12:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- just out of curiosity, what if the scandal section of the Matt Gaetz article ends up growing until it's 90% of the article? That would still be okay and not a case of
WP:UNDUE, would it?
AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (
talk) 21:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Your hypotheticals have no bearing on the issue at hand and your comments thus far haven't advanced the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The story has gotten comparable coverage to the Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations. The explanation of the story is too long to include in the main article, and will only get longer. Davey2116 ( talk) 22:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- ^
WP:OTHERSTUFF
KidAd •
SPEAK 22:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not really. That's if my argument was solely based on the other article existing, which it is not. That sentence was merely another way of saying that the story has received lots of coverage.
Davey2116 (
talk) 00:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Your "argument" is that this controversy has gotten as much coverage as another controversy which has an article. That's
WP:OTHERSTUFF.
KidAd •
SPEAK 00:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not at all. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't just whenever someone mentions another article. Davey was very clearly comparing the coverage of the two incidents, which is the metric we use to determine notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Your "argument" is that this controversy has gotten as much coverage as another controversy which has an article. That's
WP:OTHERSTUFF.
KidAd •
SPEAK 00:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not really. That's if my argument was solely based on the other article existing, which it is not. That sentence was merely another way of saying that the story has received lots of coverage.
Davey2116 (
talk) 00:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- ^
WP:OTHERSTUFF
KidAd •
SPEAK 22:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with a redirect - I don't really see the rationale for deletion. It's a developing story receiving substantial coverage in secondary sources. The only question is where we should cover it (here or on Matt Gaetz), not whether or not the content should remain on the encyclopedia full stop. This should have been listed as a merge discussion on the talk page, not brought to AfD. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wait, leaning towards Keep. I think this is actually very similar to the Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign AfD. Initially yes it was WP:TOOSOON but over time it developed much more into a complete article. As the investigation pans out, I am certain there will be more information which will make this a more complete article, but we just need to be patient and find out how much merit these claims have. Right now, I think this article is in that sweet spot of being too short for its own article, but too long to merge with Gaetz's article. Apoorv Chauhan ( talk) 03:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. For now. We got tons of coverage but most of it are just allegations, and didn't merit its own article. Merge all of these to his own page. SunDawn ( talk) 14:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge for now. There is certainly reliable source coverage here, but not enough (yet) that it couldn’t be covered in the main article. 28bytes ( talk) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Mmmm,isthattrue ( talk) 10:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Note:SPA and this is their only edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge There is definitely important reliably sourced content here that we should be covering, but it is covered well on the main Gaetz article. There is no need for a content fork. If they story grows considerably, we can re-consider at that time. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete anything that is reliably sourced can be covered in the article on this individual. There is no reason to have a seperate article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge for now Once we have specifics (and I'm pretty sure they are coming) we can have this. But for now, it seems to be mostly coverage of rumors. Well-sourced coverage of rumors, but still. Topic easily meets WP:N, but I feel there are too many BLP and, frankly, common-sense issues with having an article about rumors. Hobit ( talk) 19:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge for now too small currently, can fit onto the Matt Gaetz article. -- Pithon314 ( talk) 02:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I would say merge, but all that does is change the venue for Republican apologists to argue about its inclusion. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to Matt Gaetz#Alleged sexual relationship with minor. Numerically, opinions are roughly evenly split between delete, merge and keep. There are sensible arguments for all three outcomes, but in the end it is a matter of our collective editorial judgment to what extent we want to cover these allegations; as such I cannot determine on my own whose arguments are stronger. I can, however, determine that rough consensus is against deleting this article but also against keeping it as a separate article at this time. This makes "merge" the most consensual outcome of this discussion.
It has been noted that the content of this article is not more that what there is already about this topic in the main article Matt Gaetz, which also indicates that most people think that there does not seem to be very much content for a subarticle at the moment. Consequently, given that most of the merger seems to have been already done, I think it best reflects this discussion and is best in terms of article quality to simply redirect the title, allowing editors to merge whatever they think is useful from the history. This does not preclude the recreation of a spinoff article per WP:SS if our coverage of the matter grows substantially, but I advise discussing this on the talk page first to avoid a re-run of this discussion. Sandstein 19:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod declined, redirect to his main page declined. The reporting on this is all less than what, 12 hours old? I have yet to see an actual story that says he was charged. All the reporting is about the fact that someone found out he was being investigated. Not enough for our BLP rules. Merging all this to the main article might be OK as he has been responding to the claims in the media. But keeping an article with the title format "firstname lastname child sex scandal" when the investigation has not been confirmed and charges have not been laid? ---
Possibly (
talk) 04:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Admin note: this is being discussed at WP:AN#Matt Gaetz. I moved the article to Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations per BLP. Fences& Windows 01:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 04:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 04:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 04:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 04:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Merge/Delete Far WP:TOOSOON. This is a developing story. It may well end up being a major news story that deserves a separate article, but we're not there yet and things could go the other way as time goes on. LM2000 ( talk) 05:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete – WP:TOOSOON, doesn't deserve anything more than a paragraph at Matt Gaetz at this point. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 05:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly ( talk) 07:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. If it's adequately confirmed it may deserve a mention at Matt Gaetz, but it's not yet at that point. As a separate page, no. Athel cb ( talk) 08:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Sensational breaking news story, essentially based on the reporting of one source. Grossly premature to call this a "scandal." It is early to even give this a mention in the Matt Gaetz article, due to BLP and undue weight concerns. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Mergekeep, not delete. It's trivially easy to obey WP:BLP by limiting ourselves to reporting the coverage in WP:RS media. As for now, WP:TOOSOON certainly does apply, but this topic can be added to the Matt Gaetz page for now, with the option to fork back out into its own article when that section is more fully fleshed-out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 12:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)- Note I changed my above vote to keep, per below comment by User:Internetronic and User:Scanlyze noting that WP:TOOSOON is an essay and not a policy, and noting that Wikipedia does indeed have current events among our articles all the time. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 18:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Eg, imagine if we were debating whether to keep an article on the Tohoku disaster as it was happening. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 18:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I'm really uncomfortable with this. It says in the article that no charges have been brought, yet the article name uses the phrase "child sex scandal" without any qualifiers, which could well give the impression that not only charges have been brought but they've also been proven. I know WP:BLPPUBLIC sort of allows this, but while the article may be within the letter of that guideline, I don't think it is within its spirit. If it were my call, I'd say speedily delete this as wholly negative BLP that's also just WP:TOOSOON. But given that the story is merely a day or two old, I guess I could live with it being draftified for a while, pending further developments, assuming that's okay legally etc. (And just to say, I've never heard of this chap, I don't even know which party he represents, so my comment is entirely unbiased in that respect.) -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 14:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, per what literally everyone else said. Maybe send some info to
Matt Gaetz a day or so later, or something.
AdoTang (
talk) 14:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is not a speedy and a speedy vote would require that you specify a speedy criterion. Please familiarize yourself with WP:SPEEDY, especially WP:NOTCSD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 00:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Mergeto the main page for reasons stated above.JTZegers
Speak
Aura 15:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC) - Merge (partial) to Matt Gaetz. Widely covered in reliable media: he himself has acknowledged. Djflem ( talk) 16:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment for those voting merge, a note that this material has now been covered in the main article here. --- Possibly ( talk) 21:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The topic of this article is not a random piece of gossip that can simply be dismissed by claiming it is a "hit job," it is an investigation being conducted by the US Department of Justice into whether a US congressman has committed the sex trafficking of a minor. Coverage in this article (as in the press, where it is a major story) balances both the serious allegations and the denials by the alleged sexual predator. The investigation which this article is about is very much a real and notable subject and therefore the article is completely appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UrielAcosta ( talk • contribs)
- Keep and speedy close this. Yet again again again, Wikipedia shoots itself in the foot with stupid deletion tags, on another big and somewhat complex story that people are looking up and wanting to learn about. It's as if someone dreamed up the most evil strategy for giving a bad image of Wikipedia, to be widely spread whenever Wikipedia is most useful / most visited. Instead, there oughta be some sign put on the page "ANOTHER GREAT BREAKING STORY EXPLAINED SIMPLY AND ACCURATELY AND WELL BY wIKIPEDIA, YOUR FRIEND. BE SURE TO REVISIT THIS PAGE AS MORE FACTS BECOME AVAILABLE. WE ARE PROUD OF WHAT WE DO. CONSIDER DONATING $1,000,000 TODAY." But no, our message is "We are stupid and divided!". --
Doncram (
talk) 02:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree totally. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 13:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete We are not Wikinews. This is just a handful of allegations at the moment. No charges have been filed, and we aren't exactly sure where the investigation is going, though I'm sure Twitter is loosing it. TOOSOON, we'll see if this develops into anything, then we can have our article. At the moment, a small paragraph on the Gaetz page will suffice. - Indy beetle ( talk) 04:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Premature
WP:CONTENTFORK that clearly violates
WP:NOTNEWS. Problematic title as well.
KidAd •
SPEAK 06:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- This article does not violate any of the four points in WP:NOTNEWS. The article is not OR, it is not written as a news report, it's not a who's who, and it is not celebrity gossip or a diary. However, it is valid to suggest that at this time, this is a premature fork. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 13:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Matt Gaetz article. This page is simply not large enough to justify a separate article. ★Trekker ( talk) 13:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete WP:TOOSOON. Though I think the content should be saved for possible merging into Matt Gaetz or to even be released as its own page in the future, we don't know enough about the story, the validity of the claim, or the motive of the claim to merit its own article. I agree with DoubleGrazing that the title and spirit of the article are quite harsh for something that hasn't even been officially proven yet, upon looking at the most recent developments to the story today I would argue there is not enough information for its own page. Possibly also makes a good point that there is already a section for this topic on Matt Gaetz's page. Yy958 ( talk) 16:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge with Matt Gaetz: per WP:TOOSOON. A section in the main article is suffice for now. Curbon7 ( talk) 16:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep There is more than enough reporting from a vast number of reputable sources to qualify this for its own article. All it needs is a WP:CET, and then we should get to fleshing out this article rather than scrapping it. (Everyone here citing WP:TOOSOON should maybe find an actual Wikipedia policy that backs their argument rather than an essay Internetronic ( talk) 04:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Most of the Delete votes cite WP:TOOSOON. It's debateable whether WP:TOOSOON itself is a valid reason for deletion given that it is an essay and not a policy. Be that as it may, WP:TOOSOON states, "For an article to be created, its subject should be verifiably notable due to its discussion in sufficient independent secondary reliable sources." By that standard, the article is *NOT* WP:TOOSOON.
Scanlyze (
talk) 04:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- You changed my mind for me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 18:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This scandal is getting worse and worse by the day. If deleted prematurely, it's likely to need being added again later. For now, I suggest keeping it. Art Smart Chart/ Heart 10:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete or at the very least change title. It's not very NPOV to have an article title referring to a girl who would be old enough to legally have sex with a thirtysomething in 39 states that aren't Florida as a "child".
Khemehekis (
talk) 11:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- changing the title does sound like a good idea to me. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 21:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: the problem is not that it happened in Florida, but that he allegedly crossed state lines to do it, which is a federal crime. -- Rockstone [Send me a message!] 22:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Per Doncram Kiltpin ( talk) 15:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Matt Gaetz article. Not much is even known about this at this time so it would be appropriate to merge to his main article until more info comes out. Article is not NPOV as well because age 17 is or is above the age of consent for many states. Minor and child differ. Chloe0303 ( talk) 16:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete: the article is premature, particularly with respect to its title.
soibangla (
talk) 19:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- As noted above by
User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, this is not a speedy vote.
Internetronic (
talk) 19:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t know what the precise protocol is here, but this article is exceedingly problematic and should be promptly nuked at the earliest opportunity.
soibangla (
talk) 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- for a speedy deletion, you need to specify the speedy criterion as per WP:CSD. (Actually speedies aren't even supposed to be done in AfD.) If you instead feel it is problematic (e.g. you think it's a WP:BLP violation?), you give the explanation why you think so. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 21:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t know what the precise protocol is here, but this article is exceedingly problematic and should be promptly nuked at the earliest opportunity.
soibangla (
talk) 19:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- As noted above by
User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, this is not a speedy vote.
Internetronic (
talk) 19:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Strong keep, easily passes the notability criteria. Pointless nomination. Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 20:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @
Chessrat: Saying it's pointless is kind of pointless, seeing as more than 50% want to delete and the outcome is very much in contention. It's your basic relevant discussion.---
Possibly (
talk) 23:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's a situation where an article about a rapidly-developing story gets AfD-ed when there's less coverage of it, and as more information comes in it's obvious that an article is needed. Note that most of the delete votes were from a few days ago, and most votes now are to keep. Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- @
Chessrat: Saying it's pointless is kind of pointless, seeing as more than 50% want to delete and the outcome is very much in contention. It's your basic relevant discussion.---
Possibly (
talk) 23:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - This story is evolving slowly but surely, and there's no doubt that there'll be further developments as we move along. At best, this could require a rename if more people are dragged into this scandal. Love of Corey ( talk) 23:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete this is definitely WP:TOOSOON. Right now this is an unnecessary WP:NEGATIVESPIN. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 23:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Note: Article has been moved to
Matt Gaetz sexual misconduct allegations by
User:Fences and windows with summary
Boldly moving per BLP
. -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 01:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC) - Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 3. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Scanlyze. My only concern was the article title, but that's already been addressed. ThadeusOfNazereth Talk to Me! 01:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This is the only thing I’ll say because I tried commenting then the page was deleted. I tried again and I got edit conflicted twice.
Too soon to know where this story will go or if it is even substantiated.
Trillfendi (
talk) 01:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Trillfendi, sorry for the inconvenience. You can comment now. Fences& Windows 01:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Has significant press coverage/sources and the problematic title was changed. Jackattack1597 ( talk) 01:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as an WP:UNDUE spinout of a BLP subject that is far too soon. The parent article itself is only 5500 words right now, and it absolutely could be trimmed further; there's no basis for needing a spinout article (that as pointed out essentially makes assertions of criminal conduct in the very framing). There's no reason that this article should exist as a separate topic. Suppositions that it could "blow up" or involve tons of people that require a separate article are entirely jumping the gun; we judge suitability for merging or deleting by the sources we have now, not on the idea that maybe something will happen later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 01:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge Majority of the article is about the extortion attempt. This is an article engaging in sensationalism as very few facts are available to actually cite about the allegations. Instead, you can already see the WP:Coatrack to tie this to Q, Roger Stone and Human Sex Trafficking. Slywriter ( talk) 01:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I struck out "
with the title format "firstname lastname child sex scandal"" from the AfD nomination as the article title has been changed.--- Possibly ( talk) 02:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC) - Keep or merge, do not delete - Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:DELAY. The allegations are simply too recent. We can probably summarize everything in about 2 paragraphs in the main Gaetz article. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 02:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Its gonna become a major devolping story, lets kep it so its ready Phillypaboy123 ( talk) 11:37, 2 April 2021 (EST)
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 04:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Obvious keep per WP:N and ample, substantive coverage of a public figure. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This has so much mainstream media coverage (including from major newspapers in other countries that one might hope are sufficiently farther removed to provide a less-politicized point of view) that it's obviously notable by now and it would overwhelm the main Gaetz article if we didn't keep it separate. It's an unstable and fraught situation but that's only an argument for why it can't be a Good Article now, not an argument for deletion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge into Matt Gaetz - this is clearly a notable incident with reliable sourcing, that is not in doubt. However, I don't think there's enough coverage to warrant a discrete article (yet?). ƒirefly ( t · c ) 10:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Scanlyze. Gazamp ( talk) 13:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete it is far too premature for a standalone article on this. The article is still short and the main Matt Gaetz article has a discussion of these allegations which is more detailed than the one in this article. Nor do we have any good reason to believe that these allegations will have much lasting significance, as they haven't been confirmed, they haven't led to any charges and the person they relate to is only a congressman. I don't see anything to merge given that the main article covers this in more detail already. Hut 8.5 14:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete At least for now. If charges are filed in court, then restart the article. Too much sheer speculation at the moment. Personally, I think he looks like a putz, but he might be an innocent putz. 104.169.24.168 ( talk) 14:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- SNOW Keep: because by the time this is closed it will meet notability requirements. versacespace talk to me 15:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Per
WP:SNOW,
The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes
. Nothing about this page's notability is "likely" or "quite likely." KidAd • SPEAK 16:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Per
WP:SNOW,
- Redirect to Matt Gaetz#Alleged sexual relationship with minor, where it is already covered in sufficient detail. Too soon to spin out. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge into Matt Gaetz, at least unless there is an indictment and trial. Liz Read! Talk! 17:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- delete At present it's a clear BLP/NCRIME violation, and at any rate if the allegations are borne out, it is just part of his biography and will cease being just allegations. Mangoe ( talk) 17:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, Blindingly, Obviously. 1, the topic is seeing sustained, widespread coverage in both national and international sources. 2, as long as the article is focused on the allegations of a crime and not stating that the subject actually committed a crime (until he is indicted, of course). 3, WP:BLPCRIME is not applicable, as the subject is a public figure. If there are concerns about improper language used in the article such as "child s**" or "s** trafficking", than those can be handled by reverting to err on side of caution, and discussing. Finally, a merger is not appropriate given the scope of what has been reported so far. It would be undue to include this much info in the bio. Zaathras ( talk) 17:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge. It's far too early for this. Guy ( help! - typo?) 17:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Matt Gaetz. While this is certainly notable, per WP:SIZERULE the length of this and the main article do not justify a split at this time. Username 6892 00:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete/Merge This very obviously shouldn't be its own article. Whoever closes this discussion should consider the Delete votes to be the same as Merge, as this content will be covered in Matt Gaetz regardless. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge and Delete - At least half the verbiage is already in the parent article. There may be a time when a stand alone article is justified, but it isn't today. Seems like an unnecessary fork for what will easily fit in the main article, where some of this is going to be anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep or merge&redirect, do not delete. A completely different title may be appropriate as a substantial portion of the article of about David McGee allegedly extorting Gaetz for $25M. "Gaetz and McGee investigation and allegations", not exactly that but it's hard to come up with a clear title that covers both. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 01:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep but consider rename to
Matt Gaetz scandals given the sprawling nature of the scandal which some sources suggest extends beyond sexual misconduct.
Neutrality
talk 03:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with this, especially due to the fake ID aspects just starting to come out.
- https://www.rawstory.com/matt-gaetz-2651324756/
- https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-text-messages-led-the-feds-to-matt-gaetz Internetronic ( talk) 03:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- @
Neutrality: Maybe "Matt Gaetz misconduct investigation". It seems the word "scandal" is rarely if ever used in a title together with a name. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me) 15:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, there is
Jack Abramoff scandals.
Neutrality
talk 16:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Also Clinton–Lewinsky scandal, Larry Craig scandal, Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal, John Ensign scandal, Mark Foley scandal, Petraeus scandal... 162.208.168.92 ( talk) 21:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, there is
Jack Abramoff scandals.
Neutrality
talk 16:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Article is well sourced and this topic continues to circulate in the media. As per above, the title is not inclusive as there appear to be several distinct controversies surrounding this person including an extortion scandal, sexual solicitation scandal, and sexual conquest scandal related to his previous legislative positions, and FBI and DOJ investigations. Octoberwoodland ( talk) 05:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Matt Gaetz. It's part and parcel of his career, not a separate, long-running story. It's better handled as part of the main article. no matter what happens. → Stani Stani 12:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- just out of curiosity, what if the scandal section of the Matt Gaetz article ends up growing until it's 90% of the article? That would still be okay and not a case of
WP:UNDUE, would it?
AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (
talk) 21:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Your hypotheticals have no bearing on the issue at hand and your comments thus far haven't advanced the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The story has gotten comparable coverage to the Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations. The explanation of the story is too long to include in the main article, and will only get longer. Davey2116 ( talk) 22:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- ^
WP:OTHERSTUFF
KidAd •
SPEAK 22:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not really. That's if my argument was solely based on the other article existing, which it is not. That sentence was merely another way of saying that the story has received lots of coverage.
Davey2116 (
talk) 00:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Your "argument" is that this controversy has gotten as much coverage as another controversy which has an article. That's
WP:OTHERSTUFF.
KidAd •
SPEAK 00:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not at all. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't just whenever someone mentions another article. Davey was very clearly comparing the coverage of the two incidents, which is the metric we use to determine notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Your "argument" is that this controversy has gotten as much coverage as another controversy which has an article. That's
WP:OTHERSTUFF.
KidAd •
SPEAK 00:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not really. That's if my argument was solely based on the other article existing, which it is not. That sentence was merely another way of saying that the story has received lots of coverage.
Davey2116 (
talk) 00:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- ^
WP:OTHERSTUFF
KidAd •
SPEAK 22:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with a redirect - I don't really see the rationale for deletion. It's a developing story receiving substantial coverage in secondary sources. The only question is where we should cover it (here or on Matt Gaetz), not whether or not the content should remain on the encyclopedia full stop. This should have been listed as a merge discussion on the talk page, not brought to AfD. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wait, leaning towards Keep. I think this is actually very similar to the Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign AfD. Initially yes it was WP:TOOSOON but over time it developed much more into a complete article. As the investigation pans out, I am certain there will be more information which will make this a more complete article, but we just need to be patient and find out how much merit these claims have. Right now, I think this article is in that sweet spot of being too short for its own article, but too long to merge with Gaetz's article. Apoorv Chauhan ( talk) 03:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. For now. We got tons of coverage but most of it are just allegations, and didn't merit its own article. Merge all of these to his own page. SunDawn ( talk) 14:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge for now. There is certainly reliable source coverage here, but not enough (yet) that it couldn’t be covered in the main article. 28bytes ( talk) 18:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Mmmm,isthattrue ( talk) 10:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Note:SPA and this is their only edit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge There is definitely important reliably sourced content here that we should be covering, but it is covered well on the main Gaetz article. There is no need for a content fork. If they story grows considerably, we can re-consider at that time. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Delete anything that is reliably sourced can be covered in the article on this individual. There is no reason to have a seperate article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge for now Once we have specifics (and I'm pretty sure they are coming) we can have this. But for now, it seems to be mostly coverage of rumors. Well-sourced coverage of rumors, but still. Topic easily meets WP:N, but I feel there are too many BLP and, frankly, common-sense issues with having an article about rumors. Hobit ( talk) 19:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
- Merge for now too small currently, can fit onto the Matt Gaetz article. -- Pithon314 ( talk) 02:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I would say merge, but all that does is change the venue for Republican apologists to argue about its inclusion. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 08:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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.