Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woody Allen sexual assault allegations

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. This is a Keep rather than no-consensus because there is no real dispute that the allegations are well documented, the only substantive question hinges on whether this can be covered adequately in the main article. The arguments appear to me to credibly support the idea that a separate article is the best way of covering these allegations with adequate nuance and context to satisfy WP:BLP, but without overwhelming an already lengthy main article. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Allen sexual assault allegations[edit]

Woody Allen sexual assault allegations (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)
Delete - Virtually the entirety of this simply repeats what's found at Woody Allen — a verbatim copy-paste. The material is certainly important in the context of his life, yet since anyone can allege anything, and no proof of any sexual assault or harassment, let alone criminal charges, has ever been documented despite multiple proceedings and trial-by-public, this entire article outside of its context is hugely WP:UNDUE and seems to exist only to "shame" the subject. Tenebrae (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:ARTICLESIZE. The section about this in the parent article at Woody Allen is too long and it became necessary to split it into this subarticle. Dylan Farrow's allegations against Allen are obviously of lasting significance and have garnered a huge amount of news coverage especially since she has written about the alleged incident and multiple actors and actresses have expressed regret for participating in his films because of it.--The lorax (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The allegations have gained enduring coverage, and several actors have said recently that they regret having worked with him. After Weinstein, #MeToo and Time's Up, the coverage is likely to continue. A well-written article based only on high-quality sources would be beneficial, and it would allow us to cover the allegations summary-style in the BLP so that they overwhelm it less. SarahSV (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UNDUE, as the only reason this controversy continues to be in the news is its continued use as publicity. Additionally, there is still zero valid controversy regarding his 20 year marriage to Soon Yi beyond the affect she had on Mia and Woody's relationship. If this article is kept, will we be seeing articles of this type for all notable humans who have been merely accused of a crime? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 04:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A section on Woody Allen's article has always been sufficient. This 25 year old story never had the political ramification that the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations or Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal did. See the similar AfD regarding Matt Lauer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations, which closed as merge.LM2000 (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do we really need a new article about one allegation by one person? Not to mention it's decades-old and thrown out of court. Is there new evidence that should be made aware of? Or is it merely gossip mongering? Gene2010 (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SlimVirgin. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Weinstein, #MeToo and Time's Up: these are all notable subjects but we aren't discussing them. Just because we can arguably throw this into the pot doesn't mean it is notable. Having a seperate article on allegations and gossip that never had the same ramifications as, say Weinstein, is WP:UNDUE, especially when the main article can easily detail the allegations.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extensive in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Billhpike (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's been a significant topic for decades. If it's a copy-paste split, then fix it by removing the copied text from the main article and giving attribution on the split. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's good policy to reward someone for refusing to follow split-discussion protocol. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SarahSV (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unneeded content fork; The content should be / is covered in the main article already. Copy/paste is not an appropriate WP:SPLIT process. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the fact of extensive references which are in-depth. Per coverage which has been consistent for decades..Article meets WP:GNG. Many of the Delete !votes above are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS per Weinstein comments and WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Saying that editors should follow split-discussion protocol is not IDONTLIKEIT. Also, no one is questioning the validity of the content, only that it completely duplicates part of an already existing article. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of the content is already in Woody Allen as it is, and I've seen no convincing reason here why it would need its own separate article as a standalone topic. Keep arguments based on notability and sourcing are missing the point, because nobody's suggested that notability or sourcing are absent — the point is that Wikipedia policy also requires us to pay some mind to what's the best context to present content in, such as the question of whether the topic needs its own standalone article or is better handled as a subsection of another related article that already exists, and I have yet to see anybody in this discussion present a compelling reason why this needs its own independent spinoff article rather than being addressed in Allen's existing BLP. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bearcat, the issue is extremely complex, and only part of it has been explained in the Allen BLP. I don't want to list the things not mentioned because they would have to be written carefully and in context. The section can't be lengthened because it is arguably already too long for a biography. Another issue is that there are three principal figures: Woody Allen, Mia Farrow and Dylan Farrow, all living people. In the Allen BLP, there is an effort (rightly) to make sure the text is BLP-compliant as it relates to him, but there is no corresponding effort (in that bio) to do the same for the women. Moving the issue to a stand-alone article solves both problems. We will be able to explain what happened clearly without having to worry about overwhelming other sections, and it will become more obvious that there are multiple, competing BLP interests.
    Another two points are worth noting. First, Vox recently called this "one of the most visible and acrimonious scandals of the early 1990s". [1] (That article is a good summary of the key issues.) Had Wikipedia existed then, we would have had a stand-alone article rather than splitting it between BLPs. Second, the sub-section in Allen is likely to keep getting longer because people are discussing it again; since December 2017 five actors have apologized for having worked with him. None of that can be explained properly within the BLP. For example, for length reasons, we can't discuss actors who have spoken positively or actors who have been discussed but won't comment. We can't discuss the rewards ceremonies that were marked by online protests from two of the principals and another family member. None of it can be mentioned because it would overwhelm the biography. When you find that happening in an article, and where the sources are high quality, it indicates that a split is needed. SarahSV (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is all fine, but it's the discussion that the editor who created this page was supposed to have initited before he unilaterally took it upon himself to decide for the rest of the community.
The honorable thing for that editor to do would be to agree to the deleting of the article and then do a WP:SPLIT discussion the way every other responsible editor would have done it. If we're going to circumvent the established protocol — which was designed to prevent contentious duplications just like this — then why have a SPLIT process at all? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept, I was thinking we could move it to Allen–Farrow family dispute or Allen–Farrow custody dispute. SarahSV (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not going to !vote here (though I think, in general, that there is little need to spinout such an article) - however if this goes, then Delete !voters here should nominate Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations and Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations - as opposed to Weinstein & Moore, allegations around Allen have been covered in-depth for over 20 years - it didn't go away. I'm not sure we'll be talking about Weinstein in 10 years and I'm pretty sure that (assuming he won't be running again for office (fairly safe just on his age)) that we won't be talking about Moore much.Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually I can see the Moore issue being a big one in the 2020 election. Orrin Hatch's decision to not run for reelection may have in part been brought about because his unwillingness to totally distance himself from Moore outraged the Utah electorate's total non-acceptance of Moore. I can see both potential primary opponents and general election opponents of Trump playing the Moore card in 2020. I can see Trump himself trying to emphasize that he did not support Moore before the primary election. The allegations against Allen have just never become so broadly covered in the media as those against Weinstein and Moore. On the other hand, I see lots of good arguments to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The issue here is that this is a specific accusation that turned into a long, drawn out case. There is just too much relevant detail here to adequately cover in a biological article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a proper WP:SPINOUT from the biographical article. The RS coverage of these issues has been voluminous and WP:SUSTAINED. Including this much information at Woody Allen would be WP:UNDUE. Note that if this is kept, the summary at Woody_Allen#Sexual-assault_allegations should be trimmed per WP:SUMMARY. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this isn't a POVFORK, since the info is already there. I agree with 24.151.116.12 that the original info should be culled, and with SlimVirgin that the section of the Woody Allen article would get too long without this WP:SPINOUT. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 05:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether it is a reasonable split or not, I have to agree that it had to be discussed on the main article's talk page first. Excelse (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is one question here and one question alone: Is this fork an UNDUE fork, or is it not. Closing administrators are not interested in the notability as that is practically an obvious: yes this is notable. That would happen to almost any allegation like this, but especially one involving 3 notable persons who we have BLPs on here at this site. I will likely be closing this, as I see that there are some gender-related arguments already being presented in this discussion and I want to be sure that such arguments are thouroughly taken into account as well, as I'm strictly against us pushing a pro-male or pro-female bias (the former seeming to be the most common due to the editor ratio here). I will consult (or close the discussion concurrently, if they'd prefer) with someone who I think everyone will agree has the same viewpoint but from a female perspective, to ensure my gender isn't also an issue here. Some may take this concept as me saying I will supervote, that is not the case, I will only apply the consensus that we are able to determine from the discussion while ensuring no personal biases get in the way, and am doing as such to ensure that all systemic biases are also taken into account. This has the potential to be a highly contentious discussion, due to the nature of the topic, so I ask that everyone remember that we all want this to be the most accurate encyclopedia it can be (even if there are bad apples around sometimes... but I don't see anyone in this discussion who doesn't seem to have the right intentions). Let's try and work together to see if there is any firm consensus that can come out of this, as of now, the consensus remains unclear.

Please pose any questions about this atypical type of comment in a relist (and one that isn't necessarily "orthodox", although our lack of female editor retention tends to be) to my talk page if you can, as I do not intend to distract from the goal of finding the best way forward with this article via further discussion (while ensuring this discussion is not toxic for our female contributors... after already hearing several complaints about this over the past few years).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 11:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic to the deletion discussion, but a thread is open now at ANI for anyone who would like to discuss this further. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • We can continue to discuss this to the end of the world. The reality is that this is notable. Notability is notability. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coffee, if the result is no consensus, that's how it should be closed, and there was no need to relist it. It does sound as though you're planning to cast a supervote, so I'd appreciate it if you'd let someone else close it. Timely action would be appreciated because an interview with the alleged victim is about to be broadcast by CBS, which will mean the need to add even more to the BLP if this article doesn't exist. We need a decision. SarahSV (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would advocate the decision is that we follow proper protocol, delete this improperly started article, and do a WP:SPLIT discussion the way we're supposed to, and which will also provide the opportunity to detail what to leave on the old page should a split occur. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SlimVirgin: Common practice is that if consensus cannot be determined within the first 7 days, a relist is conducted for up to two more 7 day periods. I will not be casting a supervote of any form (nor will my colleague), I am purely stating I plan to close it with another administrator. It is because of the unorthodox nature of a two-admin close that I am making the point to state this will be happening before it does, that is all. I hope you at least give the close a chance before making a decision about its merits. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the reviewing administrator I specifically determined that discussion sufficient enough to determine any consensus had not happened before the relist. This type of relist is standard procedure, as these discussions are not votes. Even if every single person who commented here after this made the exact same arguments for deletion as above, the arguments for retention would hold no less weight. And I surely doubt that having two administrators (of two genders) close this can possibly be this contentious. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is well sourced, notable and more in depth than what is at the Woody Allen article, this article is notable in itself, as allegations on Woody Allen and should be kept. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The reality of Allen's "proclivities" isn't a new thing, it's been around since the early 1990s and has never lost steam. The article is well written and sourced properly. I see no reason whatsoever to remove it from this encyclopedia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find SarahSV's arguments to be compelling. This article ought to be improved and expanded rather than being deleted. Significantly expanded content is not appropriate for the three BLPs, so a spinout article is appropriate in this case, especially because of recent developments. While I understand Tenebrae's concerns about the technicalities of the process by which this article was created, please remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If you care about those problems, then clean them up and talk constructively to the editor that made the mess. Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - entirely appropriate to spin this topic off into its own article given the volume and history of notable and reliable sources on the topic. Woody Allen is obviously a notable person irrespective of the allegations, and the parent article (Woody Allen) was becoming overloaded. If the parent article still contains too much duplicate content to what's in the child article, then the parent article should be pared down. fish&karate 08:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also a supplementary comment - we don't need any attention-seeking non-standard closes, on this or any other xFD discussion. We have a policy and guidelines on how to close deletion discussions which have been arrived at through the consensus and collaborative work of thousands of contributors over 17 years, let's stick to that. fish&karate 08:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what else we've had for over 17 years? A very toxic environment for female editors/admins, and a very low retention rate of them because of it. This isn't a paper encyclopedia, in fact one of the pillars of this site is for us to be WP:BOLD. Incredible to see someone who is supposed to be an administrator casting aspersions just because I faultily tried something and then decided against it. Why you found it necessary to say something like that is beyond me. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: Would you be so kind as to hat this at some point, or at least make sure we don't take this entire discussion off-track somehow? I really would have preferred if User:Fish and karate had taken this concern to my talk page... but alas, we're here now and I felt it necessary to at least not allow myself or my actions intent to be misrepresented as "attention-seeking". I think you of all people know I'm not like that, nor do I enjoy being yelled at profusely. I took a lot of time pondering this whole thing before I ever made the relist, but even that didn't help me this time at all apparently. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:20, 18 January 2018 (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/Woody_Allen_sexual_assault_allegations&oldid=1090674314"