Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 U.S. Senate sex tape 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 U.S. Senate sex tape scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is a good test of notability principles like WP:BREAKING and WP:LASTING. Enduring notability is unlikely (WP:NOTNEWS). This story is quite salacious, and so naturally it was picked up by major media outlets and produced enough copy to create a Wiki article. But, the actual impact of this is minimal, presumably leading to nothing but the staffer's unemployment. All sources in the article are dated December 15-20 and there is no further coverage of this, so I question how "in-depth" the coverage really is, beyond noting what was filmed and that the staffer lost his job. The article's status as an orphan also shows the lack of notability, as there aren't articles that link here, though I suppose it could be added to the see also link. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would suggest a merge, but I can't think of anything more than a line that would be relevant in the relevant politician's page; in addition, it's so slight that folding it into List of federal political sex scandals in the United States seems improper too. I think this is a case of SUSTAINED not being met; I raised the question of later sourcing than the immediate timeframe on the talk page, and that along with my own searching turned up only stray mentions such as [1] or even more slight than that; in short, nothing that demonstrates this had any significant fallout versus the sex scandals we do cover, which sway races, prompt resignations of elected officials (versus just an aide or staffer.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only marginal notability and obvious BLP concerns. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with the points raised in the nomination and the preceding comment by @Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs. I also want to note the multiple and varied BLP concerns raised by myself and several other editors on the talk page. I think its a testament to the lack of notability of the article topic that the staffer concerned arguably qualifies as a low-profile individual by every single criterion. While I hadn't considered the idea of folding it into the List of federal political sex scandals, I agree that its probably much slighter than other incidents mentioned. In any case, that article is supposedly about scandals involving elected and/or senatorially confirmed individuals; this incident does not qualify. Going through the list, I see only once such list item from 2005, involving a regular participant in the White House press pool, which seems to me distinguishable. Arcendeight (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was a little surprised at the lack of continuing coverage, but as it is this is a pretty clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. I'd merge/redirect if there was a good target, but I don't think there is (it's not significant enough for List of federal political sex scandals in the United States). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly Salt. It's not news anymore, people involved are low profile (as far as anyone can be sure, no one has admitted being in the video or been definitively identified, I believe), if anything it's just a salacious news story. Paris1127 (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the existing section Hart Senate Office Building#Sex tape scandal. (This also disproves the assertion that the article is an orphan.) The level of material could be vastly reduced, perhaps to only a sentence or two. Einsof (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scratched the orphan remark. I neglected to notice the page moves that meant no articles were directly linked to the current title, but rather to the redirects. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It was always clickbait but never substantial news. 1101 (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested above. Bduke (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Perhaps we can get the WP:SNOW moving? NM 07:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested above. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested above. I think using the title "2023 U.S. Senate sex tape scandal" would be good to redirect to the Hart Senate building article and its appropriate section. Also, can someone please tell me how this was clickbait and not substantial news? Not to get political, but if this were a staffer for a Republican senator, the media would never stop talking about it. Unknown0124 (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the actions of a 24 year old kid with bad judgement who should not have a wikipedia article about his poor judgement. He is not notable apart from this incident and shouldn't have a wikipedia article since he standing alone is not notable. There are no significant sources with sustained coverage on the matter, and people are only drawn to it because of its salacious nature. It fails notability and is just salacious tabloid clickbait. There are also no good sources which identify him by name. Merging makes no sense because of the lack of reliable sources, and it would just be edited out of the other article since his identity cannot be confirmed with reputable sources. All of the sources currently discussing this are borderline for inclusion anyway. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, do not Merge It appears that someone has (rightfully IMO) removed the section at the Hart building article, so atm there is nothing to merge to. People caught having sex in a building has nothing to do with the history of the building itself, it doesn't warrant its own section. This isn't the the The Dakota and the Murder of John Lennon, and even there, the latter only gets a few mentions in the history, not its own dedicated section. Zaathras (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without merge or at least don't merge to the Hart building. Having a section header for this was certainly undue weight there, though a sentence could be appropriate if there were a general history section. Reywas92^Talk 14:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete: This is a culturally significant event, probably one of America's biggest news stories since the Uvalde shooting. SpiralSource (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  /s? Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 17 January 2024 (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.