Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:45, 4 December 2017

Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations

Matt Lauer sexual misconduct 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)

It is unclear why we need a separate article on this topic. Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LENGTH and WP:FORK, separate articles aren't necessary where the parent article isn't so long as to demand splitting. There's nothing that can be said in this article that isn't already in the article Matt Lauer. As a simple matter of organization, I see no compelling reason to have a separate article. The information is fine, and I may have proposed a merge, but there's nothing here which was not already there before. If the information has a home already, and this article has no reason to exist, I don't see why it does. Jayron32 11:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train 14:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train 14:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Merge with Matt Lauer. That article isn't so long to demand a subsidiary article. Rhadow (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Merge with Matt Lauer. Agree with Rhadow. -- Alexf 19:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Merge with Matt Lauer. This is not an incident but a culmination of actions through out his career and should be in context. Fettlemap (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Merge - Unfortunately, I surmise some editors will say there is "precedent" to keep these content forks. They have fallen into the WP:RECENTISM trap but there is nothing beyond a basic news cycle or any significiant impact. And, in all seriousness guys, we don't need a new article for every new set of allegations because we aren't the news.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP SPEEDY KEEP - the article was just created and is in the process of being expanded. You don't delete an article that's barely 24 hours old crying merge. Looks to me like some editors need to read WP:BEFORE. 21:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

comment - there is no POVFORK here, it is routine for sections of articles to spin-out into a standalone so they can be expanded - that is not forking. See Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations for all the same arguments that apply here to keep. 00:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

adding reasons to keep - the topic is highly notable, well sourced and should not be censored or trimmed to "fit" into Matt Lauer. This article is a WP:SPINOFF to prevent the expanding volume of the section already in the article from creating an undue weight problem. 02:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Atsme speedy keep actually means something and this nomination meets none of the criteria. I can't speak for Rhadow, Alexf, or Fettlemap but I believe those experienced editors know and understand WP:BEFORE. The fact that you are expanding this content fork doesn't change its lack of independent notability unfortunately.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

TGS - simple enough change to strong. I totally disagree with your assessment as the article clearly does have independent notability...even more so considering he admitted to what he did, and more information has come forward. The article has already expanded beyond what needs to be jammed into his biography. 00:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Merge Seems like a fork. Significant issue but merge with Matt Lauer. WP:NOTNEWS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC).
• Merge. No cause for a content/POV fork; NOTNEWS. Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I invoke the same keep arguments that were used to on the AfD of Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations that resulted in an inappropriate snow keep after only 4 days of open discussion. Ha! 04:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Why do you believe you can invoke the keep arguments -- just the keep arguments -- of a completely seperate AFD? They are not like some master key for any other nomination, even if the contents are similar. I know, other rubbish exists on the encyclopedia but using that as a rationale is a poor way of thinking.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Because there is no convincing argument to merge - the article is notable as a standalone, and the main BLP should be focused on biographical material and not be overly weighted with the allegations and what develops from there, including lawsuits and legal issues. Keep brief mention in the main article with appropriate Wikilinks to & from the main page which is consistent with other articles of this nature...Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations, Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations, Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations, Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, and so on. I’m surprised we don’t already have stand alone articles on the same topic for Roger Ailes#Sexual harassment allegations and resignation, John Conyers and Al_Franken. I think keeping it in the BLP becomes an UNDUE distraction that should be more focused more on a living person’s life and career, and let the spin-offs handle the allegations and legal issues relevant to those allegations. 14:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Trim and merge. Unwarranted content fork per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Not all of these details are needed here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Merge with Matt Lauer. I think the contents can be summarized and merged to his main article. Agreed with Muboshgu about WP:RECENTISM and Fettlemap about context. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 21:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong keep per User:Atsme's reasons above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong keep. An scandal that brought down one of the most bankable names at NBC News is worthy of an individual article. Kiteinthewind 23:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong keep for the reasons above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:4600:7B43:B0DC:875B:E8AA:8101 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

— 2601:18D:4600:7B43:B0DC:875B:E8AA:8101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Merge Having a seperate article for these allegations from the article on the individual accused is an example of extreme presentism. There is absolutely no reason that this material cannot be covered in the article on Lauer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's already in the article John, but to expand it there creates UNDUE. It's also notable enough to be a spinoff, and there's more that will be added. 03:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Merge to Matt Lauer per WP:TOOSOON as the contents of this article fit comfortably into the Lauer article. It may be that the situation will blow up like the Weinstein situation did but we aren't a WP:CRYSTALBALL and can't know that for sure. If and when the topic becomes too big for the main article, spin it off then. Ca2james (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Checking What links here for this page, it looks like notifications about this AfD placed on the Talk pages of the Women in Red and Women projects. These notifications both read Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations - women coming forward. which appears to me to be indirectly soliciting Keep !votes (ie not coming out and saying "!vote keep" but saying "this article involves women coming forward about sexual harassment and misconduct, and this is a project about increasing content about women so... You know what to do"). I apologize if I've misinterpreted things; and I understand that my interpretation might be not at all what the poster intended but I thought it best to bring up. Ca2james (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me - you should have added it as a note, not as an allegation that I did anything wrong. Now that you've added it, there's no need for me to add it. 05:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Keep there's a WP:NOTNEWS argument to delete this, but apparently nobody believes that is policy. Ignoring that, this should clearly be kept; there's enough coverage, references, and volume of material to justify a separate article. Separately, from a purely procedural POV, a merge proposal should be at the article page, not AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Power~enwiki WP:NOTNEWS can only stay policy if editors like you have the heart to apply it. Also, you are mistaken; merge proposals are regularly discussed and agreed upon at AFD if participants believe it is the best course of action. I can provide dozens of such outcomes but you probably should have seen a few by now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've given up the fight for WP:NOTNEWS in the first two weeks after a news story breaks. If there's an appearance of a consensus to the contrary, the closing admin should discount my !vote. Barring that unlikely occurrence, this is still a clear keep. power~enwiki (π, ν)

• I agree with P-e. AfDs usually start out as delete for good reason. This AfD has no justifiable basis to delete beyond IDONTLIKEIT. Merging it into the main article creates UNDUE so that's really not an option. This should be a snow close to keep. 06:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates