Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sporting scandals

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. east.718 at 09:45, November 25, 2007

List of sporting scandals

Utterly unreferenced, unmaintainable list, made redundant by Category:Sports scandals Doc^g 13:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Category doesn't hold red links (there are a couple in the article). It's unreferenced, but it links to each and every article, which should be referenced. How is this unmaintainable? Are there dozens and dozens of notable sporting scandals every day? Lugnuts (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its clearly notable, parent article (A category?) of scandals, providing valuable crosslinking of related Wikipedia articles. I also can't see How its unmaintainable. There is perhaps half a dozen of these types of scandals a year at major sporting events, easy to add to the list. scope_creep (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- The Scandals hold merit, a Top 25 List (as shown at the bottom) of these scandals does not and is purely subjective.---Iconoclast Horizon 00:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)
Weak keep It is a notable topic, and the article does make an effort to keep a global and historical viewpoint. Moreover, it is concise, summarizing a scandal in a sentence or two. However, it could use some major rewrite to take out the subjective and POV stuff. The Top 25 list doesn't detract from the article one iota-- it's simply a link that someone may click onto. Mandsford (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced, several doesn't seem like "scandals", the most notable of the sports scandals already got articles, two of the three redlinks in the article seems unneeded. This is a Secret ^account 01:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is kept, every unreferenced mention of a living person will be removed. That won't leave much.--Doc^g 01:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also looking at the articles, a few of them are violations of WP:NOT#NEWS, especially Minnesota Vikings boat party scandal This is a Secret ^account 03:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't at all hard to find reliable references for the Pete Rose betting scandal, or any of the numerous instances listed where players failed drug tests. As for the Black Sox Scandal, books and films have been made about that and all the participants are dead anyway. 76.97.163.77 (talk) 06:03, 23 November 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.