Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal (2nd nomination)

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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper also borderline BLP (not really but one could argue). Mike (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a newspaper but the scandal received worldwide coverage hence passes notability guideline. Also the scope warrants its own article. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" is an essay that says articles should not be about "things with no historical significance whatsoever." But this story, which has gone on for 6 months, has been covered extensively by media, and is the most complex story that local media have covered is of historical significance for the city. WP:NOTNEWS policy says "editors are encouraged...to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." It meets the Notability (events) guideline. And Rob Ford easily meets the Wikipedia:Notability (people) as a "Major local political figure[] who have received significant press coverage." He is mayor of a city with a population of over 2 million and the over 90 press sources for this article alone shows he has received significant press coverage. TFD (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The previous deletion discussion brought up the point it might be UNDUE, and that concept was quickly slapped down by editors. Your interpretation of the news argument is false. This article keeps an extraneous amount of articles and information out of the Rob Ford page and onto here, a page with currently 95 individual sources. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Ford's admission to smoking crack today, anyone who thinks this article isn't big news is missing the point... CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't see anything to change the keep consensus of the previous deletion nomination. Alaney2k (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per foregoing. Writegeist (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is it the title that is bugging some people? Why not just "Rob Ford video scandal"? Abductive (reasoning) 18:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written as a timeline, and the name keeps editors from changing that. TFD (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if converted into a proper article: Why do people always call for AFDs right when things start getting interesting? This is a notable scandal that has really escalated over the past few days. But, I just don't think it should be written as a timeline. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. This is definitely a significant current event, so WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here. I don't see how someone could argue that this is "borderline BLP" either, as moving all the content back to Ford's article would be worse for BLP concerns. Since he just today admitted to smoking crack, there is bound to be an increased interest in this article. A discussion about changing the article title (if that is a concern) can take place on the article's talk page. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 19:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I call on an admin to close this AfD as a snowball keep. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people always rush to close AfDs early when there's no need? This one had been open for three hours when the above comment was posted. Such comments always suggest to me that the commenter is afraid that if the AFD was allowed to stay open longer, consensus might change! I support keeping the article, as I've just said below, but it really does no harm whatsoever to let the discussion continue a little longer. Robofish (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a WP:SNOW keep on the second nomination of an article where the first nomination was a unanimous Keep consensus. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the proposer even read NOTNEWS. Not one of the four points applies. The content is entirely based on the coverage in the media. The ratio of cites to sentences is about one-to-one. Alaney2k (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably convert into an article - this material would be better handled with an article than an indiscriminate timeline, which does indeed raise WP:NOTNEWS issues. But failing that, keep as an ongoing event that's demonstrated lasting notability and is a legitimate subject for an article. Robofish (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems early to write it up. That said, I worked on Phoenix Coyotes bankruptcy as a non-list for several years. Alaney2k (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is much easier to write it as a timeline, as it is an on-going event, and we are continually learning about events which had not yet been reported. When the event ends, we know all that happened and authors write biographies of Ford, we will have a template for an article. Otherwise we risk the problems of deciding how the content should be presented and continuous re-writing. So far there have been no major disagreements in editing, except by people who believe there should be no article at all. TFD (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, while we're seven months in, the events are still very in progress. A timeline format is necessary. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has received world wide coverage. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commment This is a questionable article, but to renom an article two months after a snow keep is against WP:DELAFD. I suggest a snow close.Martin451 01:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds appropriate. Anyone contest? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly a significant event. --Ministre d'État (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2013 (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.