Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
their opinions on Wikipedia policy via essays. Shortcuts WP:NOTSCANDALWP:NOTSCANDAL WP:NOTDRAMAWP:NOTDRAMA Scandalmongering, promoting things "heard through...
Click to read more »Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTSCANDAL Hkfilmbuff (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Keep, WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTSCANDAL are not the excuses to delete...
Click to read more »Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Comment This person...
Click to read more »self-evident, uses biased sources using loaded language themselves, infringes WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:SOAP, uses loaded quotes from random people who have no relevance...
Click to read more »been difficult to find much encyclopedic content that is more than WP:NOTSCANDAL about Ali or related to her various allegations against a variety of other...
Click to read more »the politician's article is the most coverage it should get with RS. WP:NOTSCANDAL applies here. Article written based on gossip and "scandal" of a person's...
Click to read more »Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56...
Click to read more »Ovinus (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Delete, per WP:BLP and WP:NOTSCANDAL, e.g. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of...
Click to read more »person. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC) Speedy Delete WP:NOTSCANDAL — Maile (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC) Delete per nom. Also agree...
Click to read more »long lasting effects, have a place on Wikipedia. See WP:CRIME and WP:NOTSCANDAL. As such, I think deletion may be in order. Note that I created this article...
Click to read more »America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC) Delete Per WP:NOTSCANDAL. This is nothing more than childish name calling. — Maile (talk) 02:48...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Wikipedia is WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Per the WP:EVENT guideline, notability for this event...
Click to read more »content is centered on her divorce. On the note of the divorce, see WP:NOTSCANDAL. The only thing it doesn't have is notability. --Mpen320 (talk) 16:12...
Click to read more »Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC) Speedy Delete - WP:NOTSCANDAL "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially...
Click to read more »problematic behaviors that need to be monitered more closely such as WP:NOTSCANDAL; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:LIBEL and due to the limited and identical...
Click to read more »premise of "look how awful foo are behaving" are simply violations of WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:SOAPBOX. Having this as a standalone article is also a breach of...
Click to read more »(talk) 15:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:TABLOID and WP:NOTSCANDAL. No way this event meets the criteria at WP:Notability (events). Referencing...
Click to read more »articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTSCANDAL, part of WP:NOT, one of Wikipedia's core policies, which states that Wikipedia...
Click to read more »UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:NRVE and WP:NOTSCANDAL. A search on Google yields results of mainly netizen opinion and gossip...
Click to read more »think you need to redirect this. See WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NTEMP, WP:1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL. This woman had sex with a royal and had a child out of wedlock. There...
Click to read more »commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. WP:NOTSCANDAL Scandal mongering, promoting things "…Articles and content about living...
Click to read more »"WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL") 22:02, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL") 22:05, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "WP:NOT#NEWS WP:NOTSCANDAL") 22:08...
Click to read more »legit article. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTSCANDAL. The article is a WP:POVFORK of several other articles and serves no apparent...
Click to read more »yer-in-legal-services-for-sex-scandal-probed-for-mishandling-money WP:NOTSCANDAL says that we should not promote things heard through the grapevine. The...
Click to read more »07:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Comment How do those sources overcome WP:NOTSCANDAL? There does appear to be WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability without an WP:UNDUE...
Click to read more »Wikipedia is being used as a grapevine broadcast vehicle contrary to WP:NOTSCANDAL. Whether those inserting the inappropriate material are working in concert...
Click to read more »which is falsely presenting itself as a college...") fails WP:OR and WP:NOTSCANDAL, rather than editing it in this way it would have been better, IMO, to...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSCANDAL the news paper citations comes under one time event as per WP:BLP1E Shrikanthv...
Click to read more »WP:SENSATION--Ben Ben (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Comment: Forgot to mention WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:ADVOCACY--Ben Ben (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Comment' WP:JUSTAPOLICY...
Click to read more »events which never happened don't give subject an encyclopedic value. WP:NOTSCANDAL also applies here. Hitro talk 05:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Delete This...
Click to read more »Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTSCANDAL, — Maile (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC) @Maile66 That says "promoting...
Click to read more »Delete Per WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:RECENTISM Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC) At a minimum, there's no way that WP:NOTSCANDAL can apply. It's...
Click to read more »(UTC) Strong Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SENSATION, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTSCANDAL. This is Wikipedia, not the Encyclopedia of Sensationalist News. To those...
Click to read more »news coverage could later cause the article to skew towards failing WP:NOTSCANDAL. I suppose this concern of mine could be putting the cart before the horse;...
Click to read more »scandal related to him and low-profile living people, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTSCANDAL, which is what I attempted to link to above in the first WP:NOT policy...
Click to read more »that is clearly not going to happen. I would suggest a review of WP:NOTSCANDAL. --Leatherstocking (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Comment Wrong. As...
Click to read more »written purely to attack the reputation of another person.” ---WP:NOTSCANDAL ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Keep He has played...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTSCANDAL This article lacks any verifiable biographical information because it...
Click to read more »covered at all. James500 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC) Delete - WP:NOTSCANDAL - Not sure why Wikipedia should have an article that details sexual offences...
Click to read more »violates WP:NPA, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTANARCHY, WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:DISRUPT because it undermines the needed atmosphere of civility...
Click to read more »contentious content in the article appears to be based on scandal or gossip. WP:NOTSCANDAL The user who created this article was invited to gain consensus for new...
Click to read more »violates WP:NPA, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTANARCHY, WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:DISRUPT because it undermines the needed atmosphere of civility...
Click to read more »notability as well as a neutral and balanced article according to WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP policies support deletion at this time. Beccaynr...
Click to read more »and this appears to be an article that should be excluded per e.g. WP:NOTSCANDAL (which links to BLP policy), and WP:PROMO (what seems to remain after...
Click to read more »no neutral academic discourse on the subject, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, WP:NOTSCANDAL --Armatura (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »pointed that out. You cited WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOTSCANDAL. When is the last time you re-read NOTSCANDAL? It has five numbered points. So which of those...
Click to read more »Cullen328 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL. The allegations are well-sourced, so I don't know that this demands speedy...
Click to read more »to SPEEDY DELETE: WP:ATTACK PAGE, and at minimum fails WP:COATRACK, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NEGATIVESPIN. The following diffs support the aforementioned...
Click to read more »utterly forgotten 2012 memoir"). I have also reviewed sources with WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLP policies in mind, and it does not seem possible to write a...
Click to read more »for and in addition: (10) Violates WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTANARCHY and WP:NOTSCANDAL undermining the needed atmosphere of civility and co-operation. And talk...
Click to read more »always vying for an interview with Modi's "secret" wife. Wikipedia is WP:NOTSCANDAL Redtigerxyz Talk 14:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »this is WP:NOTNEWS. Sionk (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Merge - WP:NOTSCANDAL - Certainly not worthy of a stand-alone article. A big uproar so both...
Click to read more »attack against a living person. WP:NOTSCANDAL. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC) WP:NOTSCANDAL seeks to prohibit the use of Wikipedia...
Click to read more »supported by brief bursts of tabloid-style coverage, but in a BLP, WP:NOTSCANDAL requires us to meet an especially high standard. I mentioned WP:MINORASPECT...
Click to read more »claims not being reflected with WP:NPOV in the body. (2) Violates WP:NOTSCANDAL / WP:NOTOPINION, giving undue weight and rehash upon rehash of the topic...
Click to read more »John_Edwards_extramarital_affair and tell me that this scandal passes WP:NOTSCANDAL. John Edwards was just indicted by a federal grand jury. His name yields...
Click to read more »movement website. Is not really a "controversy" we have to remember WP:NOTSCANDAL. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC) I see...
Click to read more »important legal precedent, but was sadly a routine application of the law. WP:NOTSCANDAL/WP:NOTNEWS applies here. 4meter4 (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC) To...
Click to read more »WP:DUEWEIGHT suggests that some mention should be given in the biography, but WP:NOTSCANDAL suggests that this type of content falls short of our goal of being a...
Click to read more »Hasteur (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I think WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSCANDAL apply. Any attempt to add these allegations to Obama's article would fall...
Click to read more »expansion on the talk page. Resolute 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC) WP:NOTSCANDAL applies here. Note that the policy for avoiding scandal mongering specifically...
Click to read more »Policies and guidelines that are violated in these diffs: WP:POV, WP:LR, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NEWSBLOG, and WP:TEND. It is evident that Loomspicker's purpose here...
Click to read more »reliable source, and such material is anyway inappropriate per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLP. Don't repeat such edits. Fences&Windows 00:29, 8 March 2010...
Click to read more »policies such as WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:NOTSCANDAL to turn this clickbait material into Wikipedia articles. Crabtree's article...
Click to read more »policies? is that content meets WP:NPOV, WP:CRIT, WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NOTSCANDAL? Is that acceptable to accusing the whole project's volunteers that they...
Click to read more »Wikipedia policies: [183] - WP:GRAVEDANCING [184] & [185] - WP:BLP(?), WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK I am mainly bringing this here to determine if there...
Click to read more »supposedly thought I was violating BLP. MrX had mentioned: Removed per WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLP. Heavy.com is not a reliable source and you can't use Wikipedia...
Click to read more »remotest resemblance to sensationalism or scandal mongering or gossip WP:NOTSCANDAL. It is neither 'infotainment' nor 'churnalism'. It is not the least bit...
Click to read more »from Alexandermcnabb) of BLP policy; and whether according to NOTNEWS, NOTSCANDAL, or NOTPROMO, the short burst of attention, the basis for that attention...
Click to read more »have these types of detail-laden articles per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTSCANDAL, but since this is the norm that has been embraced by the Wikipedia community...
Click to read more »Newspapers write information that is often subjective in nature (often WP:NOTSCANDAL - in the manner of how the candidate evaluations are presented in the...
Click to read more »content contrary to our policies and guidelines. The application of WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTGOSSIP may also help trim content, and WP:NOTNEWS and its relationship...
Click to read more »and recruitment WP:NOTADVOCATE The promotion of a subject Scandals WP:NOTSCANDAL Scandals or gossip Scientific journal, not a WP:NOT PAPER WP:NOT PAPERS...
Click to read more »Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTSCANDAL. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC) I don't think the article...
Click to read more »cosmetically re-named "Death of Jeremiah Duggan" article runs afoul of WP:NOTSCANDAL. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »pointed that out. You cited WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOTSCANDAL. When is the last time you re-read NOTSCANDAL? It has five numbered points. So which of those...
Click to read more »articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTSCANDAL, part of WP:NOT, one of Wikipedia's core policies, which states that Wikipedia...
Click to read more »difficult: the article as it is written violates both WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTSCANDAL and to a lesser extent WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. While she's been well-covered...
Click to read more »draft article, and find it to be precisely the sort of violation of WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:SENSATION that are disparaged by Wikipedia guidelines. I continue...
Click to read more »commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. WP:NOTSCANDAL Scandal mongering, promoting things "…Articles and content about living...
Click to read more »Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Comment This person...
Click to read more »scandal related to him and low-profile living people, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTSCANDAL, which is what I attempted to link to above in the first WP:NOT policy...
Click to read more »Delete Per WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:RECENTISM Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC) At a minimum, there's no way that WP:NOTSCANDAL can apply. It's...
Click to read more »edit summary: "remove rumors, anonymous allegations, and innuendo per WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:REDFLAG and WP:BLP" [90] The question here is whether the text is...
Click to read more »been difficult to find much encyclopedic content that is more than WP:NOTSCANDAL about Ali or related to her various allegations against a variety of other...
Click to read more »Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:NOTSCANDAL Hkfilmbuff (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Keep, WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NOTSCANDAL are not the excuses to delete...
Click to read more »present a negative POV. It smells strongly like WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Furthermore, the act of excluding information and presenting an article...
Click to read more »(UTC) Strong Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SENSATION, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTSCANDAL. This is Wikipedia, not the Encyclopedia of Sensationalist News. To those...
Click to read more »anything but things Wikipedia is not, including: WP:NOTOPINION, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and I would also look at WP:NEWSORG to get a better understanding of...
Click to read more »events which never happened don't give subject an encyclopedic value. WP:NOTSCANDAL also applies here. Hitro talk 05:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Delete This...
Click to read more »cosmetically re-named "Death of Jeremiah Duggan" article runs afoul of WP:NOTSCANDAL. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Note: This debate...
Click to read more »Wikipedia is being used as a grapevine broadcast vehicle contrary to WP:NOTSCANDAL. Whether those inserting the inappropriate material are working in concert...
Click to read more »being used for blatant character assassination contrary to WP:BLP and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Comment Your article was...
Click to read more »(talk) 15:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:TABLOID and WP:NOTSCANDAL. No way this event meets the criteria at WP:Notability (events). Referencing...
Click to read more »content contrary to our policies and guidelines. The application of WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTGOSSIP may also help trim content, and WP:NOTNEWS and its relationship...
Click to read more »self-evident, uses biased sources using loaded language themselves, infringes WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:SOAP, uses loaded quotes from random people who have no relevance...
Click to read more »premise of "look how awful foo are behaving" are simply violations of WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:SOAPBOX. Having this as a standalone article is also a breach of...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:NOTSCANDAL This article lacks any verifiable biographical information because it...
Click to read more »UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:NRVE and WP:NOTSCANDAL. A search on Google yields results of mainly netizen opinion and gossip...
Click to read more »07:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC) Comment How do those sources overcome WP:NOTSCANDAL? There does appear to be WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability without an WP:UNDUE...
Click to read more »written purely to attack the reputation of another person.” ---WP:NOTSCANDAL ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Keep He has played...
Click to read more »John_Edwards_extramarital_affair and tell me that this scandal passes WP:NOTSCANDAL. John Edwards was just indicted by a federal grand jury. His name yields...
Click to read more »way. Polemics are contrary to WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Andrew D. (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC) @Andrew Davidson: So am I right...
Click to read more »self-evident, uses biased sources using loaded language themselves, infringes WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:SOAP, uses loaded quotes from random people who have no relevance...
Click to read more »WP:DUEWEIGHT suggests that some mention should be given in the biography, but WP:NOTSCANDAL suggests that this type of content falls short of our goal of being a...
Click to read more »anything but things Wikipedia is not, including: WP:NOTOPINION, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and I would also look at WP:NEWSORG to get a better understanding of...
Click to read more »Cullen328 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL. The allegations are well-sourced, so I don't know that this demands speedy...
Click to read more »to SPEEDY DELETE: WP:ATTACK PAGE, and at minimum fails WP:COATRACK, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NEGATIVESPIN. The following diffs support the aforementioned...
Click to read more »movement website. Is not really a "controversy" we have to remember WP:NOTSCANDAL. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC) I see...
Click to read more »gossip column (wp:notgossip) or in the business of scandal mongering (wp:notscandal) to garner an audience. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)...
Click to read more »think you need to redirect this. See WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NTEMP, WP:1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL. This woman had sex with a royal and had a child out of wedlock. There...
Click to read more »problematic behaviors that need to be monitered more closely such as WP:NOTSCANDAL; WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:LIBEL and due to the limited and identical...
Click to read more »Ovinus (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Delete, per WP:BLP and WP:NOTSCANDAL, e.g. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of...
Click to read more »important legal precedent, but was sadly a routine application of the law. WP:NOTSCANDAL/WP:NOTNEWS applies here. 4meter4 (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC) To...
Click to read more »person’s notoriety is due to recent terrorist activity: This violates WP:NOTSCANDAL. Additionally, the only reason for this article seems to be current events...
Click to read more »being used for blatant character assassination contrary to WP:BLP and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC) Comment Your article was...
Click to read more »which is falsely presenting itself as a college...") fails WP:OR and WP:NOTSCANDAL, rather than editing it in this way it would have been better, IMO, to...
Click to read more »attack against a living person. WP:NOTSCANDAL. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC) WP:NOTSCANDAL seeks to prohibit the use of Wikipedia...
Click to read more »Newspapers write information that is often subjective in nature (often WP:NOTSCANDAL - in the manner of how the candidate evaluations are presented in the...
Click to read more »policies such as WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:NOTSCANDAL to turn this clickbait material into Wikipedia articles. Crabtree's article...
Click to read more »effectively speculates what three individuals discussed over dinner WP:NOTSCANDAL - unless there's some radical story development that makes the content...
Click to read more »draft article, and find it to be precisely the sort of violation of WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:SENSATION that are disparaged by Wikipedia guidelines. I continue...
Click to read more »Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Delete per WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56...
Click to read more »developing an article, particularly with sensationalized news coverage, the WP:NOTSCANDAL policy should be considered, because content about living people are required...
Click to read more »long lasting effects, have a place on Wikipedia. See WP:CRIME and WP:NOTSCANDAL. As such, I think deletion may be in order. Note that I created this article...
Click to read more »WP:SENSATION--Ben Ben (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Comment: Forgot to mention WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:ADVOCACY--Ben Ben (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Comment' WP:JUSTAPOLICY...
Click to read more »gossip column (wp:notgossip) or in the business of scandal mongering (wp:notscandal) to garner an audience. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)...
Click to read more »supported by brief bursts of tabloid-style coverage, but in a BLP, WP:NOTSCANDAL requires us to meet an especially high standard. I mentioned WP:MINORASPECT...
Click to read more »have these types of detail-laden articles per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTSCANDAL, but since this is the norm that has been embraced by the Wikipedia community...
Click to read more »example). ౪ Santa ౪99° 20:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Delete — WP:BADIDEA WP:NOTSCANDAL inconsistent garbage with WP:BLPGOSSIP specious purpose to defame or denigrate...
Click to read more »remotest resemblance to sensationalism or scandal mongering or gossip WP:NOTSCANDAL. It is neither 'infotainment' nor 'churnalism'. It is not the least bit...
Click to read more »no neutral academic discourse on the subject, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, WP:NOTSCANDAL --Armatura (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Note: This discussion has...
Click to read more »free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSCANDAL the news paper citations comes under one time event as per WP:BLP1E Shrikanthv...
Click to read more »person’s notoriety is due to recent terrorist activity: This violates WP:NOTSCANDAL. Additionally, the only reason for this article seems to be current events...
Click to read more »difficult: the article as it is written violates both WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTSCANDAL and to a lesser extent WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. While she's been well-covered...
Click to read more »contentious content in the article appears to be based on scandal or gossip. WP:NOTSCANDAL The user who created this article was invited to gain consensus for new...
Click to read more »from biased sources. Wikipedia is not the place to air grievances WP:NOTSCANDAL, even if those involved are part of a class with the clout to have articles...
Click to read more »legit article. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTSCANDAL. The article is a WP:POVFORK of several other articles and serves no apparent...
Click to read more »the politician's article is the most coverage it should get with RS. WP:NOTSCANDAL applies here. Article written based on gossip and "scandal" of a person's...
Click to read more »news coverage could later cause the article to skew towards failing WP:NOTSCANDAL. I suppose this concern of mine could be putting the cart before the horse;...
Click to read more »always vying for an interview with Modi's "secret" wife. Wikipedia is WP:NOTSCANDAL Redtigerxyz Talk 14:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been...
Click to read more »from biased sources. Wikipedia is not the place to air grievances WP:NOTSCANDAL, even if those involved are part of a class with the clout to have articles...
Click to read more »effectively speculates what three individuals discussed over dinner WP:NOTSCANDAL - unless there's some radical story development that makes the content...
Click to read more »being a section concerning them and the event in another article. WP:NOTSCANDAL, which refers to BLP, is also relevant to some articles nominated for...
Click to read more »way. Polemics are contrary to WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTPROPAGANDA and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Andrew D. (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC) @Andrew Davidson: So am I right...
Click to read more »have been made, as in "operation mop-up," those should be included. WP:NOTSCANDAL applies here. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC) I'd...
Click to read more »problems. Collect (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Endorse closure - WP:NOTSCANDAL (this is policy, not an essay like WP:SOLDIER) says "Articles must not...
Click to read more »of being featured in the WP:RS by name, with the exception of the WP:NOTSCANDAL stuff directly related to the identity theft of the human from New York...
Click to read more »(talk) 12:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC) To anyone else, the material is WP:NOTSCANDAL, scandal mongering section, about named people. How is it not a BLP violation...
Click to read more »censorship on the BAPS article [139][140] citing reasons such as "WP:NOTSCANDAL"[141] or claiming the source to be a paid news service in order to censor...
Click to read more »value to the BLP and should probably be removed per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSCANDAL. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Its a bit backwards...
Click to read more »ungovernable nature of the victims". As such, I have pointed the account to WP:NOTSCANDAL, which states that "articles and content about living people are required...
Click to read more »This might have big consequences if it is confirmed [31]. However, WP:NOTSCANDAL. wumbolo ^^^ 18:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Weak oppose on quality only;...
Click to read more »inaccurate, the section is not not written from a neutral POV and violates WP:NOTSCANDAL, the section has undue weight, and that there is existing consensus to...
Click to read more »reverted. Please compare the versions and judge which best complies with WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:BLP and other policies. With focus on the scandal vs Minimal coverage...
Click to read more »(Help!) 12:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Massive issues with WP:NPOV and WP:NOTSCANDAL violation and a concerted effort by multiple editors to turn it into a...
Click to read more »problems. Collect (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Endorse closure - WP:NOTSCANDAL (this is policy, not an essay like WP:SOLDIER) says "Articles must not...
Click to read more »covered at all. James500 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC) Delete - WP:NOTSCANDAL - Not sure why Wikipedia should have an article that details sexual offences...
Click to read more »from Alexandermcnabb) of BLP policy; and whether according to NOTNEWS, NOTSCANDAL, or NOTPROMO, the short burst of attention, the basis for that attention...
Click to read more »troll tweet notable enough for an article, and when does it violate WP:NOTSCANDAL? This is probably more notable in Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk...
Click to read more »no hard facts only rumors and gossip. I am reverting both them per WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLP. I have also posted to the editor's talk explaining all of...
Click to read more »WP:BLP policy trumps GNG in this case and WP:BLPCRIME (and more broadly WP:NOTSCANDAL) makes the language at CRIME more prescient even than that of GNG.4meter4...
Click to read more »to WP:UNDUE, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:NOTWEBHOST and possibly WP:LIVING & WP:NOTSCANDAL According to RS, the "subject matter" in Hersh's blog post includes unsubstantiated...
Click to read more »controversy 16:45, 3 October 2010 Senis (Removed tabloid gossip pieces under WP:NOTSCANDAL as they were not objective.) [14] 18:03, 3 October 2010 HiLo48 (Reverted...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Wikipedia is WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Per the WP:EVENT guideline, notability for this event...
Click to read more »content is centered on her divorce. On the note of the divorce, see WP:NOTSCANDAL. The only thing it doesn't have is notability. --Mpen320 (talk) 16:12...
Click to read more »WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:CRACKPOT, WP:TABLOID, WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:NOTSCANDAL. I'm not sure why this wasn't Speedied. Nfitz (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2024...
Click to read more »yer-in-legal-services-for-sex-scandal-probed-for-mishandling-money WP:NOTSCANDAL says that we should not promote things heard through the grapevine. The...
Click to read more »reliable source whether it applies to BLPs, dead people or corporations. WP:NOTSCANDAL. Pilaz (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC) This error wasn't present or...
Click to read more »and this appears to be an article that should be excluded per e.g. WP:NOTSCANDAL (which links to BLP policy), and WP:PROMO (what seems to remain after...
Click to read more »13:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [44] Is this addition unreliable per WP:NOTSCANDAL? It is sourced to an interview from the 1990's with a Sikh separatist...
Click to read more »this is WP:NOTNEWS. Sionk (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC) Merge - WP:NOTSCANDAL - Certainly not worthy of a stand-alone article. A big uproar so both...
Click to read more »Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTSCANDAL, — Maile (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC) @Maile66 That says "promoting...
Click to read more »November 2025 (UTC) What I'm also seeing are borderline violations of WP:NOTSCANDAL Scandalmongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping...
Click to read more »Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC) Speedy Delete - WP:NOTSCANDAL "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially...
Click to read more »claims not being reflected with WP:NPOV in the body. (2) Violates WP:NOTSCANDAL / WP:NOTOPINION, giving undue weight and rehash upon rehash of the topic...
Click to read more »02:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC) [3] Does this addition violate BLP per WP:NOTSCANDAL? It is sourced to an interview from the 1990's with a Sikh separatist...
Click to read more »America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC) Delete Per WP:NOTSCANDAL. This is nothing more than childish name calling. — Maile (talk) 02:48...
Click to read more »utterly forgotten 2012 memoir"). I have also reviewed sources with WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLP policies in mind, and it does not seem possible to write a...
Click to read more »have driven coverage around an otherwise routine recovery action; WP:NOTSCANDAL applies, and while some sources may be generally reliable, I think it...
Click to read more »previously discussed at the List of Scientologists article Talk page. Also, WP:NOTSCANDAL seems to be relevant in the context of this article - reproducing contentious...
Click to read more »because it’s published? Could this be viewed as a case of WP:SOAP and WP:NOTSCANDAL? While I understand that WP:FRUIT is an essay, does this imply that PR-driven...
Click to read more »person. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC) Speedy Delete WP:NOTSCANDAL — Maile (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC) Delete per nom. Also agree...
Click to read more »notability as well as a neutral and balanced article according to WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP policies support deletion at this time. Beccaynr...
Click to read more »not in the references provided (WP:OR), and surrounding chat rooms (WP:NOTSCANDAL). The issue over libel, surrounds references appearing to contain libelous...
Click to read more »Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC) Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTSCANDAL. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC) I don't think the article...
Click to read more »developing an article, particularly with sensationalized news coverage, the WP:NOTSCANDAL policy should be considered, because content about living people are required...
Click to read more »WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:CRACKPOT, WP:TABLOID, WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:NOTSCANDAL. I'm not sure why this wasn't Speedied. Nfitz (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2024...
Click to read more »unless it affects our userbase directly, it shouldn't be. After all, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and we shouldn't be creating one, either. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:40...
Click to read more »indicates that we should wait on the outcome of court cases. The policy WP:NOTSCANDAL also applies. And it's far from clear that this is any more significant...
Click to read more »WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:CRACKPOT, WP:TABLOID, WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:NOTSCANDAL. I'm not sure what's to be gained here. At the same time - not here? Look...
Click to read more »news for example. As these are just allegations from many years ago, WP:NOTSCANDAL applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC) Comment: I have started...
Click to read more »article. Until then, Wikipedia articles are not a place for gossip, WP:NOTSCANDAL. TurboSuperA+(connect) 12:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC) Despite my disagreement...
Click to read more »WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:CRACKPOT, WP:TABLOID, WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:NOTSCANDAL, Nfitz (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Could you clarify if you are...
Click to read more »/ un-cited information being added and runs the risk of violating WP:NOTSCANDAL and/or WP:NOTNEWS. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)...
Click to read more »WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:CRACKPOT, WP:TABLOID, WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:NOTSCANDAL, Nfitz (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Could you clarify if you are...
Click to read more »