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. Given the BLP issues involved, I'm going ahead and WP:SNOW-ing this. As JPL notes, this might be a notable topic, but as a properly-referenced article, not a BLP-violation-bait list. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities accused of sexual misconduct after Harvey Weinstein[edit]

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

This is getting a bit out of hand. Wikipedia is not news and not a directory. Not only are the names included due to synth and original research but also...why this content fork? As in, why are allegations after the Weinstein case listed when this has gone on for the past year? Are the politicians a part of this broadening scope? Editors are falling too deeply for recentism without considering if this is appropriate for an encyclopedia. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all the reasons stated by the nominator. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I moved the article to the current title, but that was by no means an endorsement. I don't think that a list of this description is appropriate for Wikipedia. It is a bit of synth... also where would the list end? would nit just be any allegations from now onward? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm an advocate of Wikipedia having a role to play in current events, I think this is a pretty good example of a situation the full significance of which is not going to become apparent until after the fact. It's clear that the "Me too" campaign has empowered some women to go public with accusations that they had withheld before, but completely unclear at this time what that trend means. An article on this period of time will probably be in the encyclopedia someday, but only after the sociology and psychology of the events is evaluated in retrospect. Thus, a simple list is not really encyclopedic at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)\[reply]

See Weinstein effect for an article that we already seem to have on the topic. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Goes against the grain of BLP policy to use Weinstein as a starting point in the title and content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a tabloid newspaper. We have a BLP policy for a reason. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lost of problems in this. BLP problems in putting people on a list for some indefinite "accused" and I have issues with "sexual misconduct". Offering job promotions if someone gives you sexual favors is a differt sort of behavior than forcing them to have sex with you. Weinstein has been accused of both. Another factor is the Weinstein accusations have been building for years. Also, Weinstein was not the first celebrity to fall due to such accusations. Accusations of sexual harrasment have been going around for years, treated in different ways in different situations due to a whole slew of factors. Roman Polanski and Bill Cosby come to mind as people accused long before Weinstein, but there are others. Weinstein and his company had actually apparently settled some of the cases related to some of these accusations in the past, so dating the accusation of Weinstein is an issue. One might argue we could rename to "List of celebrities accused of sexual misconduct after Harvey Weinstein was accused in an article in the New York Times". However I am not sure an amorphouse term like "sexual misconduct" is what is needed here. There might be a potential Fall 2017 accusations of sexual harrasment and assault against media executives and actors or something along those lines, but it should be more than just a list, it should be a substantive article, flowing out of reliable source writing on the subject, and I do not think the reliable source writing has coalesced enough to make an article under that title. On the other hand, we may even have articles some what related to this topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times does have this article [1] but while I can see including any information not yet present in the related articles, I am not convinced it justifies a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2017 (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.