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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gropegate[edit]

Gropegate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Recounts the whole sordid story of allegations made during Gov Schwarzenegger's gubenatorial campaign. Was tempted to go ahead and honor the speedy tag, but I feel the events surrounding are notable enough to bring it here. It's a notable subject, and perhaps the article could be improved to have balance rather than just deleted Dlohcierekim 00:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I debulked the article to remove the contents form general view. Dlohcierekim 00:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This actually does seem to be a term used by the media, but not solely in connection with Arnold. While news stories related to him do show up in a Google search for "Gropegate" (#2, after Wikipedia, is this, but the actual article does not use the term, so I'm not sure why it is showing as a #2 result for the term), and these news reports: [1] [2], as well as those "subscription only" URLs, but the term does come up quite a bit in a news archive search. However, it is also associated with other public figures, as seen here. I think the bigger issue, would be the obvious WP:BLP concerns, and that if the article remains, it must be exceedingly well sourced, and very carefully written for neutrality and BLP issues. Ariel♥Gold 00:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect I think it's a borderline CSD G10 candidate, as the only well-sourced part is the Schwarzenegger quote. Another source is a dead link. But it's probably moot as the main article Arnold Schwarzenegger#Allegations_of_sexual_and_personal_misconduct already covers most if not all info that seems redeemable here, with sources. Avb 00:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Allegations of sexual and personal misconduct, because it's the obvious thing to do. -Halo (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there's room for more details. There's currently no mention of the allegations made against Schwarzenegger by Gail Escobar. Andjam (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Already listed here [3] in Wikipedia.. Shoessss |  Chat  02:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentHmmm, I don't think United_States_journalism_scandals#.22Gropegate.22.2C_The_Los_Angeles_Times_.282003.29 quite covers it. Maybe redirect to Arnold Schwarzenegger#Allegations_of_sexual_and_personal_misconduct unless this article can be expanded without violating BLP. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect as suggested by Halo. Gropegate? I think we're scraping the bottom of the barrel made of old broken gates here. Nick mallory (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect or rename. There was a lot of coverage of this stuff at the time, including Schwarzenegger's statements on the subject and commentary that his wife helped neutralize some of the criticism by standing by him. Gropegate probably isn't the best article title, though. Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect if anyone has ever used it independently of Arnie. Is a POV fork IMHO to enable them to discuss this more than would happenn in the main Arnie article.Merkinsmum 15:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why do we need someone using a term "independently of Arnie" when it's a term primarily associated with him? Are you suggesting we have a generic article for every time someone applies the term "gropegate" to a sexual scandal? --Dhartung | Talk 17:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There already is such an article: List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. EvilCouch (talk) 11:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as above. Currently the AS article has four sourced, roughly NPOV paragraphs. I could see a sourced article going into more detail than that, but what we have is either a stub or an unsourced leaning-POV mess. If the material in the main article is ever expanded it could go here, and this is definitely a plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 17:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, it should at least be a redirect. Sarsaparilla (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article clearly meets the WP:N threshold to justify existence, even with book coverage[4], this is notable. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See my !vote. The problem is that this is a poor article, and the section in the AS article is better. I don't see the point unless this is both as good/better than that section AND longer to the point that it would violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight in the AS article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, neologism, character assassination, etc. -RiverHockey (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix As ArielGold pointed it, the term is generic and has been applied to a variety of celebrities.[5] EvilCouch (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, no need for a redirect for this silly neologisms, and it is covered in the mans main article. Greswik (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2007 (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.