Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lochtegate

Add links
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 was keep. Possible page moves can be further discussed on the article talk page. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lochtegate[edit]

Lochtegate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic article on an isolated news event: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP concerns. More encyclopedic approach, adequate for reflecting coverage in reliable sources, is to cover briefly at Ryan Lochte (where it is already covered at somewhat excessive length) and in one sentence at those of the other swimmers concerned. PROD was declined. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is explicitly not about Ryan Lochte, but rather the scandal (this term is cited) centered around four US Olympic swimmers and that aftermath. So merging this article isn't appropriate. The incident is already covered (possibly in excessive detail) in the articles of all four swimmers, 2016 Summer Olympics, and Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics with broad and ongoing international coverage from WP:RS. The undue issues are better served by keeping as a linked, stand-alone article which is (already) well-sourced. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to 2016 alleged robbery of U.S. Swimmers in Rio de Janeiro - This is clearly a highly notable event, considering the massive and continuing coverage of the event worldwide. However, the "Lochtegate" title is not widely recognized and mostly tongue in cheek. I would therefore propose that the page be moved to a more widely recognized title. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment I would've agreed with your recommendation even a few days ago, but I've heard this term myself recently and just did a Google search for it - 949,000 results. It appears the name is going to stick; whether that's good or lamentable, I couldn't tell you. But it is certainly less wordy. ArchieOof (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion exclusively about name of the article (please do discuss at Talk:Lochtegate#Name of article).
It's a cute title but I don't agree it's widely used in reliable sources, and I don't think it would be recognizable to most people. Take a look at coverage today in reliable sources and you'll see almost no sources use the title (this is just a random sampling I just opened from Google News): IB Times, NBC News, CNN, USA Today, ABC News. Media generally use gas station incident or Rio gas station robbery. See WP:CRITERIA. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, a Google News search for the term returns 41,000 results, and articles from NBCNews, Inquisitr, Fortune, Yahoo News, NPR, Vanity Fair, and CNN, among many others, are using the term. Even the Esquire TV network is using "Lochtegate" to promote their re-airing of Lochte's reality show. It's all over the place. ArchieOof (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The most appropriate name for this article was/is already under discussion at Talk:Lochtegate#Name of article and belongs there, rather than this AfD discusion. Let's keep the focus here on the scandal and GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that no sources used the title, I'm saying the vast majority of articles on the incident do not. Anyways, I agree with UW Dawgs and will move my discussion to the talk page instead. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notability is established by significant news coverage of an international incident, especially by United States news sources. It is definitely an emerging news story in light of the allegations, counter-allegations, and investigation by USA Today. Given the different people involved and the many places on wikipedia where it is being tracked, I say it makes sense to have one stop article like this one, at least for now. At a minimum, I recommend that people read the essay on WP:RECENTISM. This is a perfect example of a significant topic that changes rapidly. Peace, MPS (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that we can take seriously any comment that claims that notability is established "especially by United States news sources". This is an encyclopedia , not a compendium of Americana. 86.17.222.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • point taken, but a quick review of INTERNATIONAL NEWS SOURCES also reveals that the Lochte story has traction on most continents. RUSSIA + ISRAEL + FRANCE+ AUSTRALIA + SOUTH AFRICA + VENEZUELA... would have given you all 7 continents but I am not sure if Antarctica has a newspaper. ;) Peace, MPS (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does this story really have any long-term lasting encyclopedic value, as suggested in WP:RECENTISM? To that I propose another way of looking at it: does this event deserve a mention on Brazil–United States relations? I think not. Both nations have said this event will not impact their relations, and it would be silly if either nation used this event to worsen relations. This article came about because the day-to-day developments, ie. RECENTISM, have gotten a bit out of hand. The info can be trimmed considerably and kept on the pages of the swimmers. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the ongoing developments of the last day or so, I strike my delete. The Brazilians want Lochte back to testify. This has now gone beyond WP:NOTNEWS. I think the article title is putrid and should be changed, but that's another matter. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notability is established by significant news coverage of an international incident, also by Brazilian news sources. -- Andrevruas (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Crime, the Ben Johnson case in 1988 still have a lasting effect and this compared to it is chicken feed. Donnie Park (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the biggest non-sports story of the 2016 Olympic Games. How does anyone feel this isn't notable enough for an article? The story isn't even over yet, as new articles about it continue to come out, from mainstream sources every day. There are hundreds of sources to draw from already. Deleting this article is the fever dream of an overzealous PR rep for the US swim team. ArchieOof (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like it or not, this has become worldwide big news. And definitely defined the ending days of these games. Sadly. It definitely is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We have an entire article on Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics?! Good grief. This is in no way independently notable; deal with it there. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is a news story about some people who went out and got drunk one night and went on to make a silly decision that blew up into an international incident. If it ever gets into history books we can have an article, but for the moment it is obviously news, not encyclopedic content. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, so you ***agree*** that there was "an international incident" but you don't think wikipedia should document it? Please clarify. Peace, MPS (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not every international incident needs to have a dedicated encyclopedia article about it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, so what I hear you saying is you don't think this particilar incident is notable enough... is that what you are saying? (Do you think that this incident has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?) Peace, MPS (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought that I had made my position clear. Everything that gets into a few newspapers has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but, per WP:NOTNEWS, that doesn't mean that we should have an article about everything that gets into the news. This is an encyclopedia that should take a long-term perspective of what should be included, not a news site that reports everything that has been in the headlines for a week or two. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics. It is notable, it has got encyclopedic value on the conduct of an Olympic team’s members and for foreign people interested in the matter it’s undoubtedly something that should remain documented in this encyclopedia. ―Born2bgratis (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, wikipedia is not news, this is one news event but as it involves members of the us swim team it will of course receive a large amount of international coverage, a redirect/merge to Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics would be appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and cross-link. This page is definitely needed to consolidate text from the articles of the 4 swimmers, and other pages, to avoid wp:UNDUE details in other pages, but allow separating what swimmers said versus what their families (incorrectly) assumed in news interviews. Seems some details called "false" came from family members, not from the swimmers themselves, and investigative journalists visited the gas station and talked to employees about minor damage to refute police report of "vandalism". Under Brazilian law, the event seems to be armed robbery because of money taken (with no written receipt) versus actual damage proven. All such details need to be covered in a separate page. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:25/15:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The event "seems to be armed robbery" "under Brazilian law"? Are you sure about that? I've been researching this article for days and that's the first time I've seen that opinion. Do you have a source for that? Because that's something I would definitely add if I could cite it. ArchieOof (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Brazilian judge quoted by USA TODAY Sports, Aug 22, 2016 [1]: "João Batista Damasceno, a Rio judge, does not discard the possibility that the guards' actions could be rightly interpreted as a robbery. 'If they only asked for the amount of the damage, it may not be a robbery,' Damasceno said in a message to USA TODAY Sports. 'But if the amount taken is higher than the value of the damages, with the use of a weapon by the security, this is robbery.' " That was a Rio judge's opinion, in report from reporters who investigated site. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable. Significant international coverage. The article's name might use a tweak. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this gives undue weight to minor events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Minor? It has been in the news media in basically every country. Wikipedia is more or less a source for news these days.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The people that has !voted delete or merge refers to NOTNEWS. But at the same time does not refer to the fact that this article subject has been in the media spotlight all over the world, is well sourced and does fall within NOTNEWS.BabbaQ (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reason to think that anyone, of whatever opinion, in this discussion has failed to refer to WP:NOTNEWS. We simply disagree about how it should be applied to this article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This story has gone beyond "routine news" and "breaking news" as described in NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, participants in this discussion disagree about how WP:NOTNEWS should be interpreted in this case. If there wasn't any such difference in interpretation then there would be no need to have a discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No because NOTNEWS is not longer applicable for this article. BabbaQ (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is it necessary to have the associated category Category:Lochtegate ? -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Still thinking, but I do want to bring up that the notability guideline is clear that even if topics may be considered notable under relevant notability guidelines, that does not mean that a standalone page must be created as a matter of editorial judgment. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE: When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. Also, per Yngvadottir, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP definitely factor in. We must be especially cautious of recentism bias. The controversy is still fresh in our minds, and so we might be giving more weight to it than it would really be worth five years down the road. How big is this in the context of Lochte as a whole? Mz7 (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is so big that it definitely was the main topic of the last days of the Olympic games. Again, IDONTLIKEIT does not trump the fact that this subject has reached the notability threshold. NOTNEWS is not relevant anymore. BabbaQ (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it was the main topic of the last days of the games depends on where you are sitting. It got coverage in the UK, but the main topic of the last few days here was definitely the UK team holding on to second place in the gold medal table. And please stop repeating your opinion about whether WP:NOTNEWS is relevant as if it was proven fact. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTNEWS is relevant in every case. A newspaper reports on events as they occur, focusing specifically on recent events and disregarding the past as "old news". An encyclopedia looks at the whole of knowledge available on a topic, balancing both past and recent events according to neutral point of view. By creating an independent standalone article, we are saying that this recent controversy involving Lochte weighs the same as the entirety of his swimming career. Perhaps that is what you really mean by "NOTNEWS is not relevant anymore"? (Not sure where you're seeing an IDONTLIKEIT argument in my comment. Yes, my personal feelings on the topic are not relevant, but the balance of coverage is.) Mz7 (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because two different topics are notable does not mean they are equally notable. Certainly articles about US Presidents or World Wars are more notable than almost anything else on this encyclopedia, Lochte included. That's completely irrelevant. This still passes WP:GNG per myself and others above and below. And a merge isn't appropriate anyway because there were other swimmers involved. Smartyllama (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not different levels of notability, i.e. one topic is "more notable" than another topic. The relevant concern is neutral point of view: how we balance our coverage of different aspects of the same topic per WP:WEIGHT (especially WP:BALASP). The controversy described in Lochtegate is an aspect of either Ryan Lochte or Concerns and controversies at the 2016 Summer Olympics. How significant is this controversy in the context of the topic as a whole? This is, in my view, the relevant policy-based question for this AfD, and I think the closing administrator should focus on the arguments that address that issue. Mz7 (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. This article really has no place in an encyclopedia. However, this article is more fair and balanced compared to how Mr. Lochte's BLP is written and presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE98:1510:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Should be merged into his main article. The Title Lochtegate is a Neologism and really doesn't belong under that title. If a different title is used then Keep but it involved more that just Ryan Lochte since other olympic swimmers were involved with him. Should be something like "Rio Olympics Robbery Incident". 207.135.137.72 (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate article name for the scandal involving the four swimmers and associated international fallout has been under discussion since its creation, see Talk:Lochtegate#Name of article, but is not being evaluated in context to this AfD discussion. The current title, which may change, has no bearing on whether we should have a stand-alone article to consolidate coverage of the scandal, or just support it within at least six other articles with less context. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, but possibly rename. plenty of sources. Frietjes (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge is not appropriate as it discusses several subjects. Plenty of reliable sources and coverage for a lengthy period of time after the event satisfies WP:GNG easily. Agree should be renamed, though, but this isn't the place to discuss that. If it's notable under some name, it's notable under any name. Names don't confer or deny notability. Smartyllama (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few weeks is far from "a lengthy period of time" in relation to whether a subject is suitable for an encyclopedia, rather than simply news. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:46, 31 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lochtegate&oldid=1068855054"