Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

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 Keep per WP:SNOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by After Midnight (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

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

"Attack page" is the rationale Zigzig20s gave for speedy deletion here. This is procedural as the speedy deletion has been declined, and please note that I don't advocate for either this article's deletion or its retainment. epicgenius (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created this article using Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations as a rough guideline. Every allegation is properly sourced, and either includes or will include Trump's response to the allegations (if he has not already responded to them), so it does not violate WP:G10. It also meets WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 02:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I advocate to keep this page due to the numerous allegations over decades that can be properly cited and sourced, and agree with User:aqwfyj. WClarke (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Attack page and character assassination based on unprovable allegations in the midst of a campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to be a failure to understand certain basic Wikipedia editing principles; e.g. it is irrelevant whether the allegations are provable; what matters is that there appears to be adequate RS coverage of the material. I haven't read the whole thing so I don't know whether it needs more attribution, etc, but that has nothing to do with a keep/delete decision. Allegations of attack page need to be accompanied by evidence, and I have seen none presented—despite repeated such allegations by one editor regarding this article and at least one other article that reflects unfavorably on Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep and possibly semi-protect. Everyone please re-familiarise yourselves with WP:OSE and WP:ATTACK (and why not refresh your knowledge of the relevant parts of WP:BLP) before voting. There are some definite misunderstandings here. De Guerre (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although now that I think of it, I'd be happy to merge into Legal affairs of Donald Trump if that page isn't too long. De Guerre (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Decent coverage and hence, notability, through reliable sources on allegations. Zigzig20s ought to familiarise himself with the term "allegation" before throwing attack page accusations. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of the issues with this article is that it might be accused of "improper synthesis". However, media sources are now analysing these allegations in the round not just in isolation. See for example this from Slate: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/10/12/trump_sexual_assault_allegations_the_floodgates_are_open.html. There's similar coverage in many mainstream news sources in the past day. I am neutral on whether to cover this individually or in the legal article, but an article covering all his legal issues along with the sexual assault allegations would probably be too long and would need to be split. Fences&Windows 09:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – widely reported coverage in national and international news media, including right, left and centre leaning media outlets. Of extreme notability, reliable citations are being used from an array of sources. Described are not just accusations of notability, but actual past and pending court cases relating to alleged sexual misconduct on the part of the subject Donald Trump. Al-Andalus (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above. 124.106.143.211 (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)— 124.106.143.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, as per aqwfyj and Mandruss. Reliable sources are used, and the article is either balanced or well on its way. -- Zanimum (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by all means, in this contentious and often fact-free election cycle, the public needs a resource which is fact-checked, verifiable and balanced. User aqwfyj has provided this valuable service. To delete it (and Bill Clinton's parallel article) would be naked political aggression.Rcarlberg (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question to any AFD-patrolling administrators, or really anyone who can answer this: As the AFD nominator who nominated purely procedurally (so my nomination was not an automatic !vote for deletion), can I !vote in this too? epicgenius (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and that's a good way to do it-dispassionate nom followed up after some time with a !vote. -Pete (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, thanks. epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's well-cited Victor Grigas (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Impeccably cited and quite likely the key to the collapse of a presidential campaign. Nominator has expressed no valid rationale for deletion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Impossible to justify removal. Interesting, important, and well-cited; losing this to some misinterpretation of a policy would be fundamentally wrong, and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.—chbarts (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per numerous arguments above - KConWiki (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per numerous arguments above - 00ff00 (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - the article is just following the sources, very reliable sources. Deleting this would look very much like censorship. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per precedents (the Bills: Clinton, Cosby), and because reliable sources can be found. (Note, I am the nominator, but I nominated this neutrally). epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is being built up and referenced properly. JJARichardson (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider re-naming since the title implies that Trump is accused of having sex, whereas I think he's accused of something a bit less than that, like "misconduct toward women" or "unwanted touching" or whatever.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have waited a few days. But, the story is obviously going to last, the coverage is widespread, and who am I to argue with a melting snowball? Objective3000 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs quite a lot of work, and ideally it should have appeared a little further into the news cycle, but there's plenty of coverage and several allegations that would make this notable. This is Paul (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and SNOW close It's clear that these allegations are as notable as the Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby allegations. There is too much content to merge anywhere, as it is sufficient for its own page. It does need work to make sure it doesn't fall victim to WP:RECENTISM issues, but should not be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (already !voted above) with the totally one-sided !vote (21-1), and the declaration of the nominator that he is for "keep" it really is time to close this as "snowball keep". The templates at the top of the article page tend to place the article in a no-man's land for the reader "is this a real article or not?" It definitely is a real article and removing the templates at the top of the article page would show that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would self-withdraw if I could, but as per WP:CLOSEAFD, if there's even a single oppose vote, I can't do that. Some uninvolved admin should please SNOW-close this AFD, which is leaning toward keep. epicgenius (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: because there are now too many claims for any 1 person to keep tracking of all the claims against Trump. I strongly feel that only a wikipedia list/post can do full justice to this topic and this is also of huge current interest till the elections get over. J mareeswaran (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you believe the "attacks" are unjustified, take that up with the editorial control of the numerous reliable sources covering this. We report what the sources say. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:37, 13 October 2016 (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.