Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal

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. No prejudice towards moving or a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Rob Ford video scandal

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

In my opinion, the very existence of this article is completely UNDUE. It seems to attempt to list every single source related to this scandal, and that's not what we're supposed to be doing here--especially not if it concerns BLP matters. In relation to the Rob Ford article, it's completely over the top--this timeline is half the size of that article, where this already takes up an enormous amount of space. Basically, what we have here is a shit magnet that invites the inclusion of every single thing. Delete as UNDUE. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets Notability (events): "event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." The news media have determined that all the events reported relate to the on-going scandal. The story has received almost daily coverage in major Canadian media, and to a lesser extent in foreign media, for three months and has even been spoofed on Leno, Jon Stewart, Jimmy Kimmel and the Taiwanese animators. Note also that major media, including the Toronto Star and the Huffington Post have timelines too. TFD (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That they have it doesn't mean we have to. After well, we're WP:NOTNEWS. "Almost daily coverage" is a bit of an overstatement and, at any rate, the kind of coverage it gets is just typical for the celebrity-obsessed media, in print and online. Being spoofed on Leno means, as you know of course, nothing besides that it's being covered in said media, after which the media can report the spoofing on Leno, after which we can report that--and all of that's trivial. Is there any indication that this is having a lasting influence on anyone but the subject? Are policies being adjusted? New measures announced? You're confusing gossipy celebrity coverage with real coverage. Point to one thing here, just one, that is of "historical significance". "Politician gets caught doing something bad is, of course, not one of those things". Drmies (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TFD, but monitor carefully for WP:BLP concerns. If it were in the main article, it would definitely be WP:UNDUE, but it's not. Ansh6 6 6 22:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Rob Ford video scandal and restructure. The very existence of a timeline article violates WP:NPOV. Why can't this information be included in an article summarizing the topic, like the ones on scandals involving other politicians? If there's no summary article, piling this info into a timeline makes the issue seem very drawn-out and complicated (sure, it is, but this structure makes it seem more so), causing undue weight to be focused on the topic. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a drawn out and complicated issue. Each news report brings new information about different people involved and the roles they may have played. Listen to the clip in today's Toronto Star ("The Story So Far"), which says it is one of the most complicated and difficult stories they have covered in 30 years.[1] A timeline approach seems like the simplest, most straightforward approach until the story is ultimately told. TFD (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep per tfd. The article is completely sourced. The article will be controversial until the story comes to its conclusion. Moving the content out of the Rob Ford article was done to satisfy blp concerns. This timeline article alleviated a lot of debate about it being undue weight within the rob ford article. This article should not be closed for the same criticism. Alaney2k (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep per tfd. Article represents and documents important information which will be of lasting historical significance, regardless of the outcome. It also represents information which will prove valuable to future researchers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieworton (talk • contribs) 10:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Very well sourced. Similar articles have appeared in major media publications. Not sure what the issue is here, Rob Ford's alcohol and drug abuse, and the existence of this video have been very well documented by multiple very good sources. Nfitz (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is quite simple: spelling out every detail of a "scandal" as reported in the media is overkill. That this would be UNDUE in the article, as said above by Ansh666, is actually an indication that this is UNDUE in the first place. If a specific timeline pertaining to a BLP is too long to be placed in that article, it's simply too long--and splitting it off is basically coatracking. "Lasting historical significance" is a bunch of humbug appropriate for tweeted headlines, not for an encyclopedia. You're talking about a mayor with a possible drug issue whose picture was taken while he was holding a crack pipe or whatever--there is no "lasting historical significance", and if you think so, you don't know what the word "history" means. Napolean going into Russia, that's historic. A coup d'etat in Egypt, that's possibly historic. This? It's a spot of fly poop, nothing more. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TFD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Watch for WP:BLP concerns. Kimera757 (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While this content was very much undue weight in his own standalone biographical article, spinning it off into its own separate article is not "resolving" undueness — it's piling even more undue weight on top, because the burden of weight is higher, not lower, on a standalone article than it is on a subsection of another one. I'm no fan of Rob Ford and think he's one of the worst things ever to happen to this city, trust me, but it's inarguable that the guy is a perennial drama magnet whose article is unusually prone to agenda-oriented editing and bias issues which are incompatible with Wikipedia's purpose and mission, and which need to be very carefully monitored for BLP compliance. Accordingly, I've always been of the view that we should just avoid writing about any controversy that doesn't have meaningful and concrete long-term consequences for him (i.e. the impeachment/unimpeachment yes, Sarah Thomson's ass no.) So until such time as the video actually gets out to the public, such that it can actually be properly verified what's true and what isn't and what effect it is or isn't actually going to have on his career, this stuff is still WP:UNDUE, and a WP:BLP violation, no matter where you put it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If as you state, he is a 'drama magnet', then any responsible/respectable article on Ford will include sections on those things. So, it would be wrong to not include that. So, going from there, how much is too much? This we must judge according to every article. I think we must simply judge inclusion in the Timeline article on its merit. While it would be great to get larger, complete articles on say, every mayor in Toronto's history, we are nowhere near able to do so, while with Ford, the ability to find content is easy. But that doesn't mean that this mayoralty is not notable beyond past mayors. I think we can examine this past few years as exposing a lot about the politics of Toronto, and historians will be referring to this period. Anyway, to the crack video scandal. It is definitely not over. We don't know either way it will go. But that also means it is difficult to judge its notability as a whole. I would at least let it ride until the conclusion in the coming months. There will be some criminal trials coming up. That will put an end to it, because not long after that, there will be a municipal election. If Ford is re-elected, I think the video becomes irrelevant. This scandal is also notable and instructive in the process of media coverage in this time period. A lot of people are surprised that Ford did not resign. That, I think a lot of people expected, would have been the more likely outcome by now. But Ford is staying on. The political strategy of that, and how it is handled, is notable. Alaney2k (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2013 (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.