Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scandals with "-gate" suffix

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 01:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

=[[List of scandals with "-gate" suffix]]=

This article is unencyclopedic. --65.27.65.24 05:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unencyclopedic. --Benna 07:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep reasonable account of journalistic usage --Dave.Dunford 07:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. But I'd like to see someone go through the list and weed out terms not used by the press. - Mgm|(talk) 08:44, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unmaintainable list. Stick -gate on any word and you have a conspiracy, doesnt sound very encyclopedic. JamesBurns 08:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Explains the -gate phenomenon and then lists quite a few examples, many of which seem to have their own articles. Might well contain some phonies, but a lot of people have added to the page over 2 years.
  • Keep. This article is a good reflection of the ridiculous overuse of the "-gate" suffix. — JIP | Talk 10:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to something like scandals, and the use of the "-gate" suffix and allow it to stand as a discussion of the phenomena with a moderate list of examples. I'm just fed up with lists, when interesting articles can be created --Doc (?) 12:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Move, good articles and lists are not mutually exclusive. I agree that we should weed out any that have not been widely used by the mainstream press though. I wouldn't object to a title like Scandals suffixed with "-gate" or even just -gate which is the naming convention for suffixes and currently a redirect to this article. Thryduulf 13:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Move The first few paragraphs give the list an article to hold on to, so we can allow the list as part of a larger article. I agree with Thryduulf that lists and good articles are not mutually exclusive, since lists are part of good articles, but a list on its own is not any sort of article, and we shouldn't allow titles that suggests lists by themselves are articles, let alone good ones. The Literate Engineer 14:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Shawinigate! --Scimitar 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic. Kaibabsquirrel 15:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup; ARTICLE NEEDS CITES. It is basically useless in this form, where anyone can add anything based on no evidence. I have never heard of the vast majority of the events listed here referred to as "-gates". There needs to be a link for every item on this list proving that it was in fact referred to in this manner. Dcarrano 15:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Dcarrano here. Uncle G 17:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, me too, but whoever went through adding all those 'Googlenews gives nothing' HTML comments didn't do the job properly: Google itself gives easy-peasy hits for at least the handful at the top of the list that I tried. Googlenews is not nearly as authoritative as either Google-proper or a proper news site e.g. the BBC or ABC or CNN -Splash 01:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Google News is "Google itself", to differentiate it from "Google itself" and to say that it isn't as authoritative as the BBC, ABC, and CNN is to wholly misunderstand what it actually is. I notice that it's that very "handful at the top of the list" that you mention that don't have proper full news citations in the Wikipedia style for such things, unlike the other news citations in the article, but that instead comprise poorly labelled or even wholly unlabelled hyperlinks. I would say that doing "the job properly" is a task that that requires more thoroughness and takes longer than just slapping an unlabelled hyperlink in the article. Perhaps it is less easy-peasy than it seems. ☺ Uncle G 11:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well I'm afraid I quite disagree. I've barely used Google news, so perhaps my comment on its authoritativeness was also non-authoritative. But that does not change the fact that Google did find easy-peasy hits for the ones I labelled, and Google News, apparently, did not. Searching BBC was pretty straightforward too. I'm not sure what you're after about hyperlinks/wikilinks. I just looked a few up quickly (and easily). I presume you're critcising my rather lazy way of incorporating the information; if you don't like it, {{tl|sofixit}}. The "job" I referred to was checking the verifiability (which is what I presume was implied by the no-presence-on-google-news commetns) which has not been done properly, because they are easy to verify. The "job" you refer to is typing some words in the space after the hyperlink which probably even easier than searching properly. -Splash 13:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - article has merit including relevent content as well as the list, and many links to existing articles (albeit quite a few stubs). Agree with desirability of citations but hey, it wouldn't be the first to do without and it would certainly be possible for anyone who felt strongly enough to add these in. Naturenet | Talk 16:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- might as well call it List of political scandals since 1973, since just about everything gets a "-gate" suffix these days. --Carnildo 21:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • not all the scandals are political e.g. Hoovergate and Camilllagate. Thryduulf 17:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • keep but cleanup -- encyclopedic (it's obviously a widespread phenomenon, as we all well know), but needs to be improved as per Mgm's and Dcarrano's comments. Microtonal 21:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Another thought: I heard some of these entries used by people on the ground, but not necessarily by the media writ large ("nipplegate", in particular). I think that widespread popular usage is equally as valid as media usage is. Microtonal 21:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keepgate. Interesting list of notable scandals. Martg76 22:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - is so (encyclopedic, that is). StopTheFiling 23:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a widely used suffix, and I found the first few of those dead easy to verify. -Splash 01:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm no fan of lists, but this (often annoying) journalistic simplification is widely connected to many extremely notable events. Xoloz 03:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable list. 24.60.163.16 05:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, notable list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename. Radiantmeta:mergist 09:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Actually it is encyclopedic and it is an important and potentially useful list. Moncrief 21:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • keep: Deleting this list could cause the first Wikigate. Ombudsman 04:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • keep - The article does not condone or condemn the practice of adding '-gate' to denote a scandal; and it provides a useful explanation and a fairly comprehensive directory. Garrick92 15:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is a good reflection of the ridiculous overuse of the "-gate" suffix.

iranon

  • Keep. Media history -- and the modern lexicon -- are certainly justifiable uses for Wiki entries.
  • Keep, lest this becomes a VfDgate. --Wwwwolf 07:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

: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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.