 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 April 25. The result of the deletion review was closure endorsed. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 no consensus. Numerically we're at 18 delete to 37 keep, which is clearly no consensus to delete but also not quite a consensus to keep. Because this discussion is not a vote, however, I also need to look at the arguments that are being made on both sides and scrutinize them in the light of our relevant policies and guidelines.
The "keep" side points to the media coverage and, as a result, the notability this topic has obtained, whereas the "delete" side thinks this is a WP:NOTNEWS issue and a POV fork. Both of these lines of argument are in principle valid in that they are based on our policies and guidelines, but both also have their weak points: With respect to the "keep" side, just because something has coverage in reliable sources does not mean we have to cover it in a separate article, but we can make an editorial judgment about whether coverage in existing articles is sufficient. On the "delete" side, it's a bit difficult for me to understand how exactly this is supposed to be a (non-neutral) POV fork of an existing article, or how it is supposed to be a WP:BLP violation, or merely an aggregation of news reports (we normally use WP:NOTNEWS to dismiss routine media coverage of unimportant events). Under these circumstances, I cannot dismiss the "delete" arguments entirely and find a "keep" consensus, but I certainly cannot give the "delete" arguments decisive weight and override the "keep" majority.
Ultimately, I suspect the distribution of opinions here reflects (in addition to possible political preferences) a disagreement about whether we give these allegations due weight in light of their political and societal importance and credibility, as reflected in reliable sources, by covering them in a separate article. That is a point made by several people mostly on the "delete" side, and to me it is the core of the policy issue here, which is why I regret that discussion has not focused more on this question. But it is something that we as Wikipedians need to make a collective editorial judgment about, not something that I can decide as closer of the discussion. As things are now, the balance of opinion is about 2:1 in favor of treating this topic separately, and this means that under our rules the article is for now kept by default for lack of a consensus to delete it. This does not prevent continued discussion of the question of due weight, such as in the course of an RfC or a merger discussion. Sandstein 08:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)