Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disgraced United States politicians

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 Delete AniMate 07:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of disgraced United States politicians

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

I'm really not sure on this one, but it merits some discussion. It appears to me to be a list calling these people "disgraced" with no commentary and minimal sourcing. As it is, there are redlinks on here with no sources at all, additions that are POV- is Clinton "disgraced"?

This list might be salvagable, but right now it's a BLP minefield. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of OR (who gets to decide what makes a politician "disgraced"? Should someone is full of bullshit, like Minnesota's Michele Bachmann a disgrace? What about someone who quits halfway through their term and is just an embarrassment to everyone, like Sarah Palin?). TJ Spyke 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is fundamental violation of core policies: OR, BLP, etc. There may be room for a list of politicians who have resigned because of, say, criminal investigations - that's verifiable. But the third and widest criteria for this list "resigned in disgrace" is not verifiable. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we want such an article, we already have Political scandals of the United States which could serve such a purpose. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The original research and BLP issues are, well, disgraceful. Reach Out to the Truth 21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are 9001 valid reasons to delete this article, but for some reason I believe that no elaboration is even necessary. — C M B J 22:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. It would be nearly impossible to source this and get it right per NPV. Waiting on a fight for what the mean of "disgraced" is. ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 23:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NPOV. I am not a crook and I did not have sexual relations with that woman. — Rankiri (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a vandal magnet with no rationale for existence. While I am a mergetarian, and a redirect to Political scandals of the United States may be a easy way out, this is an unlikely search term. If kept, the definition of the list needs to be clarified. Bearian (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure whether everyone above has examined the actual article. The qualification are listed very explicitly "have been convicted of crimes, removed by impeachment, or who have resigned in disgrace." -- this last phrase does need a little qualification, resigned in disgrace needs to be explained as resigned while under reliably reported threat of criminal charge or impeachment. The very broad interpretation suggested by TJS is not the one used in the article. At worst, we certainly could have lists of those who were impeached, we could also have a list of those convicted or indicted while in office, or before or afterwards. Those would not be POV, and would have very clear RSs. These would be useful rearrangements of the data in the other article suggested, going back more systematically I can see doing it as a sortable table by name, state , position, charge, and result. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to support the creation of List of impeached United States politicians, List of convicted United States politicians, and List of resigned United States politicians. — C M B J 09:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term politician is problematic. Lester Crawford, for example, is not a politician but a veterinarian. Also keep in mind that we have Category:Impeached United States officials, Impeachment in the United States, Category:Politicians convicted of crimes, Category:Political corruption investigations in the United States, Category:People acquitted of corruption, political scandals of the United States. Neutrality^talk 01:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word disgraced was actually what caught my attention as most problematic, but you make a very good point. I see that Crawford is in Category:American government officials convicted of crimes. — C M B J 15:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no neutral definition of what constitutes "disgrace". Criminal convictions aren't always a disgrace (for example, civil disobedience). Removal from office isn't always disgraceful either, since they're often removed by political opponents. "Resigned in disgrace" is a circular definition. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:32, 16 March 2010 (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.