Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scandals with "-gate" suffix (2nd nomination)

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.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

Unencyclopedic listcruft. KMF (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's no case to answer -- see
  WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Andrew D. (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - Per Andrew Davidson. Article itself is also well-sourced (286 in total). 47.208.20.130 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As majority of the list entries have their own articles (and can safely assume as notable events) this passes
  WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This list's criteria are clear and in keeping with NLIST. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep WP:NPASR  Like the first respondent says, there is no case to answer.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is actually a useful list and better sourced than most of the articles I have seen written in a similar format.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The suffix is very widely known in the English-speaking world and is certainly notable enough for track-keeping. Most seperate articles don't mention the nickname, and non-articles about the seperate entries deserves recognition. Even if the article is still deleted (which it won't, clear consensus above), we need a category listing the same thing I'd say.
  talk) 15:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: the topic is clearly notable.
  Independent, reliable sources show this, just the first page of a Google search shows that the phenomenon of naming scandals "-gate" is a practice notable enough for Wikipedia. This, this, this, this, this all cover the actual naming phenomenon in-depth and "-gate" scandals receive significant coverage in their own right, such as this, this and this. DrStrauss talk 09:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Appropriate for stand-alone list per Ajf773 and DrStrauss. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 23:41, 12 September 2017 (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.