Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spygate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. John254 01:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spygate

Spygate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article functions as a POV fork for an issue already sufficiently addressed in the article 2007 New England Patriots season. It functions as a sink for criticism of the team over a relatively minor incident that is sufficiently covered in the main article. This article is not necessary. Eleven Special (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Also covered in article Bill Belichick. Eleven Special (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Hmm....I don't think this should be "swept under the rug". It's a good article, and it details the incident much better than the entry in the season article. As a major issue involving cheating in the NFL, I'd say this merits inclusion. Mastrchf91 (t/c) 22:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • speedy keep - This just survived an AfD under the name Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spygate_incident_(American_football) less than two weeks ago. The article must have been moved and renominated. Torc2 (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It was all over the news, and now Goodell will testify before the Senate. As much as the hurt Patriot fans would like it to go away, Spygate is about to expand. There is no reason to delete, no exclude it from the "Culture" section of the Patriots template. Zeality (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Look at the references—clearly this article has enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Kakofonous (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The last two sentances make me question, is this a WP:POINT nomination? This article is not necessary if we wish to bury truth and justice. seems like someone has another motive. Forgive me if i'm mistaken. (Full disclosure I voted delete on the first AFD, but I understand conensus went the other way and I respect the community's choice.)--Cube lurker (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I noticed that too after voting. Seems like a bad joke. Torc2 (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • My original nomination text was maliciously vandalized by an anon before anyone else commented.[1] I've restored my original text. Eleven Special (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • That explains it. Didn't think to check the history.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to be notable independently of the single season in which it occurred. Maxamegalon2000 06:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep per discussion two weeks ago. You can't just nominate and nominate and nominate until you get the result you want. I'm surprised this was even discussed once...much less twice. --SmashvilleBONK! 15:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Typically notice is posted on the talk page that the article was reviewed under AfD. There is no template there and I was unaware of the previous AfD discussion. If there was I probably would not have nominated it a second time. While I still stand by my position that I feel this article on this topic is redundant due to the topic's inclusion in two other articles, and only serves as a sink for negative criticism and bashers of the New England Patriots, I would not oppose an admin speedy closing this. Eleven Special (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I apologize...my response definitely wasn't too WP:CIVIL...which is why you don't get on WP first thing in the morning after sitting up most of the night with tornado warnings...but I stand by the speedy close... --SmashvilleBONK! 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Although I originally wrote this article, I do not see any anti-Patriots POV. I think the article is well-sourced, and it also presents an overview of the Jets' involvement. Please offer proof that this article is a "sink for criticism" of the New England Patriots. I will make necessary changes, but I do not think this article should be deleted. Spygate is noteworthy; the Patriots were not the only team involved in the scandal. By the way, your characterization of Spygate as "relatively minor" is definitely POV: it is not supported by the facts. I'm not against the Patriots, but this incident has become exceptionally notable in sports and the NFL. CVW (Talk) 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You may consider the opinion that the incident was relatively minor as POV, but when weighing the worthyness of an article it is perfectly acceptable to express your POV. In defense of my view I have to ask: have there been any major changes to the way the NFL does business or conducts its rules because of this incident? Would it be on par with other sports incidents like the Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens doping scandals? Or the Black Sox scandal? I think the attention this has gotten in the media is out of proportion with the consequences of the actual event. If there are Congressional hearings on this matter and there are overarching rule changes or laws enacted, then I would say that there would be a place for a separate article. But just because the sports media and bloggers get hot and bothered about something doesn't mean that we have to regurgitate it in the encyclopedia. As for a rationale for deletion, there was already consensus on avoiding "Criticism of X" articles. IMO, this article is just another version of that beast. Eleven Special (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Not going to rehash what went on in the previous AfD. However, I can see where the nominator is coming from. This article was originally created to centralize and expand information dealing with the specific instance. But when every Tom, Dick, and Harry weighs in on this article with a published quote, and when other "rumors" and "development" of varying substance gets thrown in, it does become a "sink for criticism." If any prominent figure has something to say about this, it goes into this article. If there are more accusations, rumblings, and affects (i.e. opinion on what it means to legacies, etc.), it goes into this article. There is certainly a tendency for this article to drift away from encyclopedic into the realm of blog or message board, or "log" of opinions and rumors. Pats1 T/C 22:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I think this is significant enough a topic that it should be kept separate, especially because its timeline is sufficiently long enough not to be easily covered within the aforementioned 2007 New England Patriots season article, at least without losing some of the content. I agree that there are some POV issues, but the article and subject seem significant enough--especially given Congress' new interest in the matter--to warrant keeping the article. Kevin Smith (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep this page. Deleting this page would be like a member of the RNC deleting the Watergate page. Just stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.6.154.8 (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC) — 129.6.154.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Article is valid and should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.96.226 (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC) — 96.226.96.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep but create a link in the Bill Belechick bio to a seperate chapter on "Spygate" linking to the page in question. NoseNuggets (talk)10:51 AM US EST Feb 8 2008
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.