Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of rape against United States presidents
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was No Consensus.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least two of the four entries are ludicrous and a third (Jefferson) is POV and speculation which should be covered within the main article --JohnFlaherty 02:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Has been through AFD before. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of rape against U.S. presidents.
- Keep. Perhaps the charges are ludicrous, almost certainly the most recent is (as the article makes fairly clear). They are also notable and well-known. The article does not endorse or promote the validity of any of these charges. It does provide a neutral and well-sourced exposition of them. The issue of Jefferson and his slave is certainly speculation by its very nature, but this article does not speculate. It reports notable speculations and research of others; that's exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Derex 01:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the last AfD. I just stumbled across the article and found it very interesting. I'd imagine it would qualify as notable, some of the most powerful men in history being involved. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Interesting article, seemed well-sourced. That they are unproven is not a problem, since the subject of the article is specifically allegations. David L Rattigan 21:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this kind of thing should go into the articles on the presidents. Separating them out like this seems like an attempt to paint U.S. presidents as alleged rapists (I doubt that was the creator's intention, though), especially since there are only four presidents listed. -- Kjkolb 23:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure we want to devote a section of the various presidential articles to these allegations. While they are themselves notable, they are not central to the notability of those figures. Those articles should probably each contain one sentence with a pointer to this one which can present more detail without hijacking the presidential articles. One could separate these into four separate ones, but a unified article makes a more interesting read and provides context. Part of that context is, as you note, that most recent presidents have had allegations of this sort made, which likely speaks more about the current culture than about their characters. Derex 01:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and send content to individual articles per Kjkolb --BillC 00:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for above reasons. -- Mwalcoff 01:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete I started this AfD, just thought I should vote officialy.--JohnFlaherty 01:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The articles on the president already include this material if it is worthy of being there. The Thomas Jefferson already has a subsection and two sub-articles about the Heming stuff. The Bill Clinton article already addresses the Broaddrick allegation with a sentence or two. If the other two are truly worthy of mention, they'll be covered sooner or later. The extremely short intro to this article indicates that there is nothing in common about these various accusations to merit an article on such accusations. This is a home for POV attacks, and has no hope of being more. GRBerry 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after merging any salvageable content into articles on individuals. Look, you wouldn't defend an article on "Accusations of rape against Bus Drivers" would you? And if there were individual cases that were notable enough there would be articles on those people, you know, just like we have articles on the individual presidents. Shenme 04:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and add more illustrations. --Chris Griswold 06:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete List of allegations... give me strength. If these allegations are notable, then what is the problem with mentioning them on the article of the respective president? The only reason I would consider something like this worthy of its own article is if there was some kind of reason to believe that U.S. presidents are particularly prone to raping. Otherwise, it's just an excuse to list allegations, or for someone who has had his contributions thrown off presidential bioggraphies and decides to start his own article instead. - Motor (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Exactly. Also, it creates more work for those trying to maintain NPOV, as they have to try to come to a consensus on multiple articles instead of just one. Finally, editors should be aware that a truly comprehensive biography on a person is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, even Wikipedia (whether the biography consists of one article or multiple articles). For United States presidents, such a biography would consume a short book at the least since we know so much about them, relatively speaking. If the event (or situation, action or whatever) did not have a significant impact on the person or on the industry, nation, culture or society, there is a good possibility that it should not be included. -- Kjkolb 12:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Motor. -- GWO
- Delete Agree with Motor. ---DrLeebot 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete gimme a break.... anything with "accusations" in the title automatically disqualifies itself from inclusion in an encyclopaedia where verifiable facts are the norm. Accuasations furthermore are ludicrous. Reagan and Bush as rapists? I won't even touch on the fact that these people (certainly in this day and age) are always going to be accused of something as do virtually all celebrities, athletes, politicians etc. which means that without solid reasons there should be extra care taken with this sort of thing or we might as well devote half of the encyclopaedia to accusations made against well-known people.--Kalsermar 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting that Wikipedia never mention that Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape, or that Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of harassment, or any other well-known allegations? Wikipedia does not report what is. We report what people say is. That's the very cornerstone of the NPOV policy. The fundamental questions are whether the allegations are notable, yes as evidenced by media coverage, and verifiable, yes the accusation is verifiable. The article never suggests the alleged act did or was likely to have occured. So, removing the material has no basis in policy, nor does it serve the reader. There have also been lots of people worried that this article exists to promote POV or that it creates problems monitoring that. I ask, where is the evidence for that? This has been a remarkably quiet article, and I think is scrupulously neutral. If people are looking for a POV brawl, stick this back into the main articles and see what happens. That's exactly how this article got started, because the Selene Walters and Juanita Broadrick articles were hotspots. I see a lot of opining about how this article causes more trouble than a merge by people whose names I don't recognize as being active contributors to those Presidential articles. The evidence points to the contrary. Jimbo is right about this: AFD is broken, long live AFD. Derex 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am suggesting that the first word of the article disqualifies it right then and there. Furthermore, Broaddrick (I am nor familiar with this particular case) may, and I say that carefully, be worthy of inclusion considering Clinton's record. Hill's accusation played a large part in Thomas's
character assasinationhearings, making it notable. The rest of this article is again, filled with ludicrous accusations. Wikipedia should imho not report everything people say. Also, the term undue weight springs to mind.--Kalsermar 22:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am suggesting that the first word of the article disqualifies it right then and there. Furthermore, Broaddrick (I am nor familiar with this particular case) may, and I say that carefully, be worthy of inclusion considering Clinton's record. Hill's accusation played a large part in Thomas's
- Are you suggesting that Wikipedia never mention that Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape, or that Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of harassment, or any other well-known allegations? Wikipedia does not report what is. We report what people say is. That's the very cornerstone of the NPOV policy. The fundamental questions are whether the allegations are notable, yes as evidenced by media coverage, and verifiable, yes the accusation is verifiable. The article never suggests the alleged act did or was likely to have occured. So, removing the material has no basis in policy, nor does it serve the reader. There have also been lots of people worried that this article exists to promote POV or that it creates problems monitoring that. I ask, where is the evidence for that? This has been a remarkably quiet article, and I think is scrupulously neutral. If people are looking for a POV brawl, stick this back into the main articles and see what happens. That's exactly how this article got started, because the Selene Walters and Juanita Broadrick articles were hotspots. I see a lot of opining about how this article causes more trouble than a merge by people whose names I don't recognize as being active contributors to those Presidential articles. The evidence points to the contrary. Jimbo is right about this: AFD is broken, long live AFD. Derex 20:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Any notable allegations can be covered in the article about the relevant president. Ace of Sevens 15:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Per comments by Derex. --Jayzel 01:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per others. - CNichols 01:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep this please per the others Yuckfoo 20:01, 21 June 2006 (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.