Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies

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 delete, per WP:SNOW--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Clinton Controversies

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

Articles for Creation needs to be scrutinized if this is the kind of drek being accepted these days. This is one large laundry list of "criticisms" and "controversies" that have been thrown at Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton over the years, most of the salient ones are already covered i nthe main articles or sub-articles. One single-purpose account seeks to synthesize all the disparate & sundry right-wing talking points, conspiracy theories, and whatnot into an overreaching grand conspiracy of "The Clintons" plural as a monolithic, singular entity. All in all, a large coatrack to allege what the fringes of conservative American politics have wanted to allege for years, the dreaded "Clinton Conspiracy". Hell, the article title alone and what it begins with should inform one on what shaky ground the material is on here. Tarc (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Textbook WP:COATRACK, WP:NOT, you name it. We don't have an Alleged Bush Controversies, an Alleged Nixon Controversies, an Alleged Roosevelt Controversies or an Alleged Lincoln Controversies either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: WP:COATRACK is not really a valid problem here, as responses are included from the Clinton's, and other sources, disputing those issues that have been disputed; others, of course, have been publicly admitted to by the Clinton's under oath, or otherwise. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a compilation of partisan hitjobs and has no place on Wikipedia. I would be saying the same for any of the above articles, all of which could theoretically be written. We aren't a compendium of conspiracy theories, guilt-by-association smear tactics and outright falsehoods about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section I removed neatly demonstrates all the problems with this article. It went on at length about one of Hillary Clinton's aides, noted that she had been employed in the State Department by Hillary, and that she was married to someone who did something untoward. Absolutely none of that is an "alleged Clinton controversy," even if such a thing were to exist. There were literally half a dozen citations to articles about her husband's sexting misdeeds, which has absolutely nothing to do with either Abedin or the Clintons, making it a twice-removed guilt-by-association smear, and I have removed it. This article quite simply does not belong on the encyclopedia. There may be a place to accumulate all the partisan attacks on one candidate or the other; Wikipedia should not be that place, lest we wind up with Alleged Trump Controversies, Alleged Cruz Controversies, Alleged Walker Controversies and so on and so forth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - There are no comparable articles for other past presidents. WP:COAT problems as well. Alexander Levian (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexanderLevian: Hardly meets the WP:COATRACK test, as opposing views are included vis-a-vis every controversy, and responses from the Clinton people disputing those that they have disputed. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:COATRACK; throwing "Alleged" into an article title is pretty much thumbing your nose at every single policy we have to prevent these obnoxious articles from taking root here. Also questioning how anyone could accept an AfC request at like this at all here. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Doesn't really meet the WP:COATRACK test, as opposing views are included vis-a-vis every controversy, and responses from the Clinton people countering those that they have taken issue with; some of the allegations made they have admitted to. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not everything here has an alternate POV, and I wouldn't expect it to either. Plus innocent people are dragged in here just to attack them for how they wish to pursue charity (Petra Němcová can do whatever she wants with her money); this just completely reads as something you'd read on a fringe wiki and beyond that, is really poorly written (summary of the article in the open; we have tables of contents for that reason, along with just paraphrases of ledes in existing 'see also's). Please read the AfD for the near-equivalent Allegations of Bias in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation article; we simply don't write hit pieces about subjects here, period, and I stand by my comments that getting this through AfC is why that process needs a serious re-examination if editors there let items like this get through. Nate • (chatter) 12:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this really made it past Articles for Creation? —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: Yes. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Professor JR:, I wondered not only for the content but for the junk at the top, with the symbols, etc. Why is there a personal message from anyone at the top of an article? This is OK for a draft, not a legit article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSCANDAL. The article is a WP:POVFORK of several other articles and serves no apparent purpose other than to advance a point of view that the Clinton's are mired in controversy.- Mr X 00:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: Are you suggesting that they are not? (i.e., mired in contorversy). Check out the NYT or the Washington Post, or virtually any recent television news broadcast in the U.S. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm stating it outright. I have no idea why you think providing links to our articles about two newspapers would be helpful.- Mr X 14:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and convert to list format i.e. List of Bushisms or break off into more dedicated space like George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies . --DHeyward (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: A list format or navigation list might be acceptable, as an alternative, although don't really see much in the was of any valid reasons articulated here for deletion of article, other than to meet the agenda or particular bias of those proposing deletion. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushisms article (which is really low-grade quality IMO, this isn't Cracked.com) is a chronicle of his rhetorical butcherings, not controversies. Much of what is listed here already have their own standalone articles, while some of it is outright fraudulent, e.g. the header "Alleged "Enemies List" which make sit look like there is an actual article about it, but rather the "main article" link points to a partisan book, HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton. Tarc (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with all the different articles. If there is enough, a navigation list is the normal course per WP:LIST. It shouldn't a coatrack of material that isn't notable though. --DHeyward (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:NOT, WP:BLPCRIME. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & others. Clearly runs afoul of WP:COATRACK and likely WP:BLP.--JayJasper (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JayJasper: WP:COATRACK is not really a valid problem here, as responses are included from the Clinton's, and other sources, disputing those issues that have been disputed; others, of course, have been publicly admitted to by the Clinton's under oath, or otherwise. --- Professor JR (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - My, my! -- there seem to a few folks not very worried about their POV Freudian slips as advocates for someone or something showing here, in their comments above. This article is not intended to provide any particular POV, or to present a detailed or exhaustive discussions on the various alleged incidents and matters included. It is intended as a simple research-tool compendium of Clinton controversies, interest in which having significantly resurfaced recently in light of Mrs. Clinton's candidacy for the presidency. It was prepared, and accepted for creation, to assist Wikipedia users and researchers in locating sources for more comprehensive discussions of a particular issue in this regard. Only brief discussions are provided in this entry for each topic, along with various references and external links, and links to Wikipedia Main Article entries, to facilitate user access for those seeking more comprehensive treatment(s), and opposing points of view on the respective matters. Additionally, I might remind you that before leaping to submitting an article for deletion just because one may not like it perhaps, or based on any personal biases on the subject, Wikipedia users are asked by Wikipedia policy to consider whether a more efficient alternative might be appropriate (although, granted, that requires some work and constructive effort). Many perceived problems (such as a number of those thrown out as rationale for deletion above) do not warrant deletion. And, if a user such as User:Tarc determines that an article needs improvement, or has what that user perceives as potential POV problems, Wikipedia policy encourages that you be bold, and fix the problem, or tag sentences or sections of the article appropriately, not to simply submit it, or argue for its proposed deletion.Professor JR (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around since 2006, but you act like you are new on Wikipedia. I don't see a single person who thinks this article is acceptable. Are you not familiar with the guidelines at WP:BLP? —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Log/Professor JR shows a creation date of 26 May 2015. Sure acts like someone who has been around the block a few times, though. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a project-wide attention given to U.S. presidential candidates in 2007, which viewed separate, catch-all "controversies" pages and sections as a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. All of these were gotten rid of, Democrat Republican or otherwise, by merging any such sourced material into the relevant biographical sections they belong in. Look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 2#Status of "controversies" pages. Since then the same has been done when needed for 2012 and 2016 presidential candidates. This practice has made these articles better and this no time to be going backward. Additionally this particular article is in violation of WP:BLP's prohibition of guilt by association. It assumes that the supposed sins of one Clinton should always be visited on the other. And it's especially a BLP violation for other people mentioned – for example the whole paragraph and photo about Cheryl Mills – what scandals is she accused of? She's worked for the Clintons in several settings and she represented Bill during his impeachment trial. Well, she's a lawyer and that's what lawyers do, they represent people in legal proceedings. Professor JR's justification that this article is needed as a "research tool" is a novel theory but one that does not hold water; WP articles are researched from solid, mainstream published sources, not from each other. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is a compilation that has no basis as an independent article. The material might belong in other articles, but not as an independent article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A big no-no. Clear violation of WP:COAT, WP:NPOV and WP:BLPCRIME, to name a few. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy delete - as a sometime AFC reviewer I am astonished that this BLP nightmare was ever "approved". It needs to be nuked now. ukexpat (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Just the word alleged should have been enough for it not to have made it on to mainspace (IMO). But then again some pages seem to escape any sort of review procedure! This is not a gossip rag. Eagleash (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the reviewer, I felt it necessary to post this response for reference that I already gave on my talk page: Not to defend my decision (as I see now it was an egregious error) but instead to explain it...1) It was incredibly biased before and edits were made, I think seeing such a large improvement tricked my mind into thinking it was acceptable 2) If it did have continuing issues it would be caught by other editors and sent to AfD (the system worked fwiw). 3) Edits would be made other editors to counter or defend accusations in time. I did believe there was worth for convenience of research to compile the controversies, but obviously there was a better way to go about it. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a Coatrack, and for all of the reasons others have discussed above. Seems to be a clear consensus here, I'd advocate speedy-ing this pronto. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:COAT, WP:NPOV, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and others. This page looks like it was set up as a go-to reference for the Republican candidates in the 2016 election to keep their hit points straight. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:COAT, and WP:BLUDGEON. Also, suggest some review of contributions here: Special:Contributions/Professor_JR JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt add WP:SPECULATION to the numerous other policies and guidelines already mentioned. MarnetteD|Talk 18:27, 29 July 2015 (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.

Other stuff that exists

Relocated to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Alleged Clinton Controversies#Other stuff that exists Tarc (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]