Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wreathgate (2nd nomination)

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. Despite multiple problems noted, it's clear that this is a notable controversy, no matter why it started. Arguments to WP:NOTNEWS do not apply here because this policy does not forbid coverage of all newsworthy events but just asks that the lasting notability is considered. In this case, while the article should probably not stay as it is, an article on Corbyn's political stances or similar will probably be required sooner or later if the main article gets too long and then this material can be merged there. SoWhy 11:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wreathgate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Wreathgate (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)

This relates to a current controversial news item. The name itself comes from an opinion piece in a right wing journal. We have no idea if this is going to be reported after the initial controversy. ---Snowded TALK 18:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are issues with the title (Wreathgate as compared to Corbyn and Tunisia - though several news orgs are using wreath in their title, BBC calling this a "Tunisia wreath row" and Independent - "Corbyn's wreath-laying controversy"). However, title issues aside, this major scandal clearly has very wide international coverage above and beyond SIGCOV - e.g. BBC, BBC, Telegraph, Guardian, CNN, Sky, NYT (Reuters), NYT (AP), Independent... And lots lots more.Icewhiz (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It blew up a few days ago, it may be worthy of a separate article at some stage, for the moment there are a few facts and the odd quote which are in the Corbyn article. The name itself was coined by a journal that has long campaigned against Corbyn so using that is using wikipedia's voice to promote a particular political polemic -----Snowded TALK 19:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it is a "Wreath-gate", "Wreath row" (per BBC), or "Wreath controversy" (Independent), or some other permutation of wreath (or terrorist in some titles) is debatable - however that would be the subject a move discussion - not AfD. As a rather significant political scandal with international coverage - this event clearly passes WP:EVENTCRIT.Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article was nominated for deletion less than 24 hours ago. Consensus can change, but not that fast. I think this article should be left alone and we should wait some time to see if it is worthy of an article. SemiHypercube ✎ 19:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous nomination was open for a few hours and was a speedy close as the request was not properly formulated. As you say "we should wait some time to see if it is worthy of an article" -----Snowded TALK 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is neither a Pro-Labour paper nor a pro Corbyn paper-- BOD -- 21:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian endorsed Labour in the 2017 general election and the 2015 one. EddieHugh (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
apologies ...i used to it being a more liberal/ centre leaning paper.-- BOD -- 21:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: When I saw this article earlier I was going to suggest deletion, but its subject seems to be something that's not going away. I would prefer a different title as this particular one seems to trivialise the whole affair, but I guess we have what we have. This is Paul (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or Redirect to Jeremy_Corbyn#Foreign_affairs where it is covered in roughly the same detail as the article, plu its getting tiresome and confusing duplicating the same information to both pages). This is clearly part of the ongoing mud slinging at Corbyn. I was surprised the previous AfD was closed before anyone could add comments.-- BOD -- 21:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant; the question at AfD is whether a topic is getting WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to Reeve in his book One Day in September: The Full Story of the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and the Israeli Revenge Operation "Wrath of God" [1] the terrorists who murdered the athletes at Munich were not even burried in Tunisa but where buried in Libya-- BOD -- 22:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Relevant and sourced. A deletion is definitely not justified. WP:Editing policy#Try to fix problems--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per the others - it's a relevant event which is getting WP:SIGCOV and is far more likely to develop further than it is to go away. The article title needs changing to something more neutral, and the article itself is rather unbalanced at present, but both of those things can be resolved by improving it, and aren't reasons for deletion. Neiltonks (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant event with significant news coverage. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've heard of the event, but I've never heard it called "Wreathgate" - that's an issue for a movement discussion, however. I can see no reason for the mad rush to delete this article. It meets the inclusion requirements - it's been all over the news in the UK for days - so it's time to drop this particular stick. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Simon Reeve (2000). One Day in September: The Full Story of the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and the Israeli Revenge Operation "Wrath of God". Arcade Publishing. pp. 147–. ISBN 978-1-55970-547-9.
  • SNOW keep - definitely one of those news stories that can't be deleted while the press cycle is ongoing, though it may be seen as a nothing-burger in a year. Useful for editorial purposes to not have excessive details on Jeremy Corbyn. Name changes can be discussed at a WP:RM. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - broad coverage in reliable sources.Smeat75 (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nine-day wonder, made-up title, anything legitimate should be included in Corbyn's article. PatGallacher (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject has received significant international news coverage, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll just make the general point that there is virtually nothing here that isn't also on the Corbyn page. I can't see those who think this is significant cutting down on the Corbyn material by referencing this article -----Snowded TALK 06:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep removing the content you don't like(which is pretty much everything), don't be suprised when it is similar to what's on the Corbyn article. Super-Mac (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With reference to the name of the article- the controversy is referred to as "Wreathgate" in this article by Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian yesterday - [1] so it seems to be becoming the Wikipedia:COMMONNAME for the issue.Smeat75 (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it perhaps the WP:COMMONNAME because it was the name given to the controversy on here? Tunisia wreath row is better. Jeremy Corbyn Tunisia wreath laying controversy might be a more accurate title. This is Paul (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of those articles that we will have to wait and see if it has a WP:LASTING impact, but this really doesn't pass notability despite the keep notes. These are basically all repetition of the Daily Mail story. Per WP:NEVENT (Derivative reports and reports under common control cannot be used to verify each other, nor does mere repetition necessarily show the kind of effort that is good evidence of a significant matter. The fact that there are 12 keep votes and the relevant notability policy has not been cited even once is pretty telling - if this policy isn't going to be followed at AfDs, it really should be changed to reflect practice, because this is very frustrating every time there is a "breaking news" related AfD. Seraphim System (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subsequent reporting in RSes mainly do not repeat the Daily Mail. The Mail indeed broke the initial story - however the political scandal evolved and developed significantly after the Mail's publication.Icewhiz (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need for a new article this whole story can be added in Jeremy corbyn article. SharabSalam (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's had significant coverage by the media and reliable sources are provided in the article. Greenleader(2) (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

  • Delete At this point, the part on Corbyn’s page is more detailed and accurate than this article. The name is unfamiliar and the event itself has no long lasting impact. Kigelim (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The segment on Corbyn's page is more detailed now because Bodney selectively deleted everything he doesn't like despite a lot of it being agreed to on either the talk page for this article or in Corbyn's article Super-Mac (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comment The BBC has clearly shown in a news report from Inside the Jeremy Corbyn wreath row cemetery in Tunisia, Corbyn would have stood throughout all ceremonies in the designated area where all dignitaries typically stand during ceremonies within the covered area of the enclosed Palestinian section of the Hamman Chott Cemetery. This report from the respected BBC totally undermines the Daily Mail original article and all that has risen out of it. Is Wikipedia about the truth or recording hysteria whipped up by a misleading press story.-- BOD -- 16:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked in the talk page and you didn't reply. Which specific claim by the Daily Mail in this case was demonstrably false? Please quote the claim. Super-Mac (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is about an allegation that is not proven yet.

Adeeb moha (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) — Adeeb moha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep on account of worldwide coverage. The nom is defective. The nom reads "This relates to a current controversial news item." This is no grounds for deletion and has never been. XavierItzm (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has been covered widely and is well sourced. Perhaps in a few weeks we can reopen the discussion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Page is about an event which garnered very little interest when it happened 4 years ago nor in the three years Corbyn has been leader until it was recently published by Daily Mail which the community has deemed unreliable because of its inaccurate reporting and lack of fact-checking. The facts of the whole story can be added to a section within the Jeremy Corbyn article with no long-lasting impact as per WP:NOTNEWS, other than one of many McCarthyism against Corbyn and it doesn't need a page of its own. RevertBob (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jeremy_Corbyn#Foreign_affairs where it is already covered in roughly the same detail as the article. As we see over and over with Donald Trump and other high-profile politicians, countless events attract a ton of news coverage over the course of a news cycle or two. One one hand, GNG requires lasting significance such that we stay away from WP:RECENTISM/WP:NOTNEWS/WP:DELAY. No evidence of lasting significance yet. Regardless, WP:NOPAGE is pretty clear that even when we do have a lot of sources, it's absurd to create separate articles on each and every sub-topic of things we already cover. This looks like a great example. What we're debating isn't whether to cover this subject, but whether we need to duplicate content across two articles such that it's covered under Corbyn's foreign affairs or needs its own article. To me this seems like a pretty clear-cut case of WP:NOPAGE. I would say Merge, but it's already all there in the Corbyn article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the upside, it's always nice to see the rush-to-create-an-article-on-this-news-cycle's-headlines-and-then-pile-on-keep-at-afd-because-WP:RAPID-is-great-and-WP:DELAY-is-lame wikiphenomenon apply to political figures outside the US (with apologies if it's common with UK politics, too, and I just haven't seen). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elaborate on what you mean? (Not about his involvement, but what that means in the context of what I said). Do you mean that it's not sufficient to redirect to Corbyn because Corbyn is not at the center of this? There are other possibilities (e.g. one of the nation-nation relations articles) but as it stands basically all of the sources have "corbyn" in the headline. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs updating - Sheikh isn't in. But this Tunisia row has now expanded to two different significant political figures - which would make sense covering in a single article (as opposed to coverage on Sheikh's and Corbyn's pages separately. There's already quite a bit that can be written up in the standalone article (there is some edit warring both on the Corbyn page on and on Wreathgate - seems length/scope changes in both) - I don't think that the Corbyn article, long term, should contain all of the details on this particular scandal - a spinoff makes sense.Icewhiz (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of a false argument, there is likely never going to be much Sheikh content. A sub page like this a great way to get round BLP rules and duplicate Noise about a subject. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jeremy Corbyn, which is the proper place to give this controversy the due weight that it deserves. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:GNG. Per numerous reliable third party sources. Per extensive coverage. BabbaQ (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BBC's article on the issue stated that it's rare that a prime minister of a foreign country would criticize a opposition party leader, so I believe this is a notable incident - also taking into account the antisemitism controversy the Labour party is currently embroiled in. --Pudeo (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThe whole idea of 'Wreathgate' is a fantasy. It can't be compared to Watergate. In fact here in the UK it's not even known as 'Wreathgate'.Garageland66 (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many editors above have suggested discussing a rename, no one disagrees. The name of the page is not relevant to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is basically a political attack against a living person, as such is in violation of wikipedia core policy - WP:BLP Govindaharihari (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Political positions taken by politicians are appropriate topics, even living politicians.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Corbyn page is very long, and the antisemitism sections are burgeoning, with new material emerging almost daily, well, weekly. It is reasonable to break some of the enormous volume out into stand-alone article, that, as in this case, are also usefully linked form related pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, there's no way that WP:NOTSCANDAL can apply. It's not as if this is some strange advocacy position that was started up - the controversy over the incident was, and is, significant, written about in numerous non-opinion pieces. It has been participated in by individuals on both sides as well as better editors working to keep it approaching NPOV. None of the five criteria apply and so it doesn't function as a legitimate deletion reason. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSCANDAL does not apply to a political topic with INDEPTH in major media on both sides of the pond. As for WP:RECENTISM, we do keep articles on breaking news, and we follow WP:RAPID to avoid the error of deleting significant events merely because they just happened. I suspect, however, that Simon223 mistakes this for a new topic, the wreath laying ceremony happened in 2014 and was a public event covered by the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editors should follow WP:DELAY when creating the articles. Why is it in the policy if it has no effect? The coverage has already stopped, it was only ongoing for a few days and it fails diverse - the articles all more or less mirror each other - they repeat Corbyn's statement, some comments from Netanyahu and the Daily Mail report. Even the reliable sources say there isn't likely to be any WP:LASTING significance ‘Wreath-gate’ looks bad for Jeremy Corbyn. But in these politically polarised times, that may be as far as this British summer scandal goes. [3]Seraphim System (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Wreath Laying incident (blast but Wreathgate is an stupid name) was dormant until some anti-Corbynists dredged it up like... last week... as part of the ongoing horror show that is UK politics in the age of Brexit. This may refer to an incident in 2014 but it is WP:RECENTISM and it is mostly just rumour mongering. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The dredging up might have been by those against Corbyn but balanced coverage has occurred. The recentism issue was covered well by E.M.Gregory and it is well beyond rumour mongering by coverage, basic underlying details etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was written too WP:RAPIDLY and nominated for deletion too WP:RAPIDLY. But that fact is not a reason to delete. Oh, and since my comment above, Frank Field's resigned from the Labour Party over Corbyn, antisemitism, and bullying (he'll sit an an independent,) but his resignation has started a another news cycle with the BBC taking a deep dive into the wreath as I write this. WP:SNOW in the forecast.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is a reason to delete, I just pointed that fact out. I don't have enough information to make an opinion or valid vote so I'm staying out of the voting here. Redditaddict69 02:02, 31 August 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/Wreathgate_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=857391644"