Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troopergate (Bill Clinton)

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 Speedy keep, bad faith nom. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate (Bill Clinton)

Troopergate (Bill Clinton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete and redirect to Paula Jones. The only two sources in the body of the article say its a manufactured "controversy." There is not enough material nor controversy for an article. The court dismissed Jones' claims before the trial as noted on her article page.

Furthermore, the title is inappropriate since there is serious dispute whether the claims are truth. In contrast, with the the other media-dubbed Troopergate, an article titled Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal concluded Palin abused power, but the title is not "Troopergate". We66er (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination; this event is more than notable and sourced and is not replaced by the current Alaska incident. Nate • (chatter) 18:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I take offense to the "bad faith" claim. The article is alleging a conspiracy of sexual behavior and has only two sources. That is 1) not notable and 2) not well-sourced. As for the second part of your sentence, what are you referring to? Replace what? I think you misread the nomination and critique of the title.
  • Let's examine the content of the article:
  • The first sentence of the article reads: "Troopergate is the popular name of an alleged scandal involving allegations by two Arkansas state troopers that they arranged sexual liaisons for then-governor Bill Clinton." An article based on allegations of two people who were paid thousands for their stories years after the alleged event (one later convicted of lying to the FBI), which contains TWO sources by people who say it was manufactured--not true isn't worthy of an article. At worse it is a violation of WP:BLP. We66er (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This is a notable event, and lord knows, the phrase was used on every damn cable TV news show, newspaper and radio talk show. To think this wasn't a notable event AND used this exact phrase requires a large amount of crack cocaine. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:30, 11 October 2008 (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.