Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Andrew Kelly
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -Splash - tk 19:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Alex Andrew Kelly
Alex Kelly skipped a very large bail (something like $1 million) and was on the lam in Europe for some time before he was eventually found quite a few years later. He was then tried and convicted for two rapes. His case made headlines nationwide, and his trial was covered by nationwide media. In a few weeks, his sentence is up. Although the case was unusual and got a lot of coverage at the time, I see nothing encyclopedic about it and its notability is in the nature of a passing news story (albeit one that took a long time to pass). Now it's passed. There's nothing encyclopedic here. I am from the same area, by the way and have nothing but sympathy for his victims, but I'm not a friend of anyone involved and I have no personal interest in seeing this article deleted. Added comment: I think this falls under WP:BLP1E since the drawn out case should be considered essentially one event.Noroton 01:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (addition Noroton 01:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC))
- Keep - I agree that someone is who is notable for one event does not have a wikipedia article, particularly if all the sources are news. Given through that a Telemovie (Crime in Connecticut: The Story of Alex Kelly) was made on the subject, a book (Saint Of Circumstance: The Untold Story Behind the Alex Kelly Rape Case ISBN 0671014374), some coverage in another book (How Can You Defend Those People? By Mickey Sherman) and there are considerable reviews of the Telemovie I think that the notoriety of the case has made it permanently notable. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Even with 500 channels there still are not that many crimes that get TV movies made about them. --Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There is no reason for deletion here. This man was the subject of a book and a film. Nick mallory 07:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Nom is misreading WP:BLP1E, I believe. "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves ... If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event ..." plainly refer to a (notable) event in which the person has no notability beyond being a participant; X random 9-11 passenger, for instance. Here we do not have an "event" in which Kelly was a casual, non-notable participant; he was the convicted perpetrator and fugitive from justice in several felonies, and received considerably publicity for them. The article itself is poorly written, but that's not an AfD matter. RGTraynor 08:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I think all of the editors above make good points. Here's what I think are wrong with those points:
- I interpret "one event" in WP:BLP1E to be a series of strongly related events. Any crime that becomes newsworthy will often have an arrest and trial associated with it, and that should not generally be considered multiple "events" in this sense. "Event" in WP:BLP really seems to mean "continuing news story", doesn't it?
- RGTraynor quotes WP:BLP1E, which applies to Kelly in that he "has no notability beyond being a participant" (perpetrator) in two rapes and every single other newsworthy thing about him revolves around his arrest on those rapes (I'm pretty sure he was [first] arrested at the same time for both). His flight stemmed from that arrest, as did his trials, as did every single thing written, broadcast or turned into a movie or books about him. He has done nothing before or since that is in any way noteworthy. Do we want every multiple felon to have an article in Wikipedia? I don't interpret WP:BLP1E as affecting only people with a minor involvement in one event, and I think this interpretation fits in well with WP:NOT#NEWS (see below).
- Of course, not every mulitple felon has had books and TV movies made about his exploits. But the closer you look at this stuff, the weaker it is as a justification for an article. Mickey Sherman, a prominent legal commentator on TV, initially became famous because of this case, and so Kelly is mentioned in Sherman's book, but that's information for the Sherman article. There are something like 80,000 books published every year, and the book Saint of Circumstance is barely more than a recounting of what was in the news (it also contains some opinionating -- I don't think you could call it analysis). Neither the book nor the TV movie would meet Wikipedia notability standards. I guess it's just my opinion, but I find it impossible to believe that the book will be read or the movie watched or broadcast even a year from now because the interest (in fact, the sole value) in either of them derives from the event. If a Truman Capote made an In Cold Blood out of this case, it would be a different story. The stuff that came out of this case, however, is dreck.
- This is essentially an article about an event, not a person, and it should be judged that way as essentially unencyclopedic. This is a subject that no one but the participants is going to care about at all in the near future. If the Kelly case illustrated something about a larger subject, then it would have encyclopedic value as an example. But what made it so newsworthy at the time was precisely that it did NOT represent anything more than a lurid tabloid tale: It tells us nothing new about rape, wealthy people, law enforcement or any other aspect of society. It was interesting because it was unusual: the perp's family had the money to let him skip bail. From WP:NOT#NEWS:
-
-
- Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as [...] tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for Wikinews.
-
-
- What's the point of an encyclopedia article on this subject? Where is its value as something other than a passing news event? We can certainly have an encyclopedia with loads of articles on multiple felons with bizarre exploits. There are lots of them. Or do we want articles on all felons that have been the subject of TV movies or true-crime books? There are tons of those, too. Some notable crimes certainly should have articles here, but do you want to set the bar this low? Its essentially a judgment call.Noroton 20:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Another comment: It goes against my case, but Google Scholar has a few citations and Google Books a few more. These don't convince me that this case is noteworthy for Wikipedia, but editors might want to consider it as we do our part to advance human knowledge. Noroton 20:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply: The only criterion upon which we can, and should, pass judgment is whether Kelly passes the WP:BIO bar. Much of your argument, by contrast, rests upon subjective irrelevancies. Whether convicted felons deserve articles or to be the subject of widespread media coverage, TV movies and books, the degree to which books about subjects repeat the media coverage or whether people other than the participants care about the subject are outside the scope of this AFD. There are more appropriate venues to discuss whether WP:BIO is too loose. RGTraynor 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: Rather than disparage, you might want to address my arguments. More subjective irrelevancies: WP:BIO, third paragraph: "For articles on living people, the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies, and must be consulted." See also WP:BIO "Basic Criteria" section, point #2, which repeats the point, saying WP:BLP "must be followed". Go to WP:BLP. Wait a minute -- I already did that. I already discussed how my interpretation of WP:BLP#1E differs from yours. I already said this article is really not about a person's life but about an arrest and all that went into it and all that followed -- and nothing else. Since your arguments are based on technicalities and your incorrect interpretation of policy, I turned to the obvious spirit of the policy to show you where your interpretation is flat wrong. Doing so is neither subjective nor irrelevant. Other editors seem to think that a TV movie and book are evidence of notability. While the book is an independent, reliable source, neither it nor the movie addresses the fact that the subject of the article is known for one tabloid event, and Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Is WP:NOT#NEWS a subjective irrelevancy?Noroton 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, it isn't, but when all is said and done, your position turns on your private interpretation of WP:BLP, and your circular argument concerning "tabloid journalism." Obviously, you believe you're right, but so far, unanimous consensus is against you, and once again, this isn't the proper forum to push your POV on these policies. It isn't that we don't understand your position. It's that we don't agree with your position. RGTraynor 08:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- They call them deletion discussions for a reason. See the first sentence (that's not in the box) of WP:AFD. Objecting to someone stating their reasons in a forum for discussion as "push[ing] your POV" is ... interesting. Other people can explain why they disagree. That you can't or won't is contrary to the whole point of this forum. Noroton 20:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, it isn't, but when all is said and done, your position turns on your private interpretation of WP:BLP, and your circular argument concerning "tabloid journalism." Obviously, you believe you're right, but so far, unanimous consensus is against you, and once again, this isn't the proper forum to push your POV on these policies. It isn't that we don't understand your position. It's that we don't agree with your position. RGTraynor 08:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Central figures in notable events are notable.This was covered internationally, and numerous different aspects were involved. It's not a passing news event, this is a number of years since, and its still important. I thank Noroton for his refs -- one of them is a book entirely about the case, which is certainly enough to show notability. If criminals have been subjects of movies or books, yes, there should be a WP article. DGG (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A notable crime case that was covered no less than 135 times in articles in The New York Times. A film based on the case cements notability. Alansohn 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- none of which is in dispute, none of which meets any of my objections. Noroton 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whether it's Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan, we're going to have biographies of people who are famous for only one event that no one in their right mind would push for deletion. There are articles about news subjects ("guy stuck in tree for three days") that may receive wide coverage, but that are not wikiworthy. WP:NOT#NEWS draws a line that states that "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.", which is defined in a footnote as "The briefer the appearance of a subject in the news, the lower the likelihood of creating an acceptably comprehensive encyclopedic biography.". Kelly has not only appeared in numerous articles, he has been news since 1987, with heavy coverage in 1995, 1996 and 1997, a decline in 1998 and regular updates (appeals, parole hearings, etc.) every few months since then. This not a flash-in-the-pan, here-today-gone-tomorrow story, but an enduring newsworthy subject. This is not someone who has made "a brief appearance in the news". Alansohn 03:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for the response. You make a good case. Despite the language you quote, I think the greater point behind that policy is to keep out of Wikipedia subjects of little or no value. Is there another reason to have such a policy? I see a subject of little or no value because all that coverage was basically because this was someone whose family had a lot of money and was apparently able to take the economic hit when he fled. Once he returned and was tried, convicted and sentenced and now, within weeks apparently, is let loose, where's the continuing interest? More important, where's the continuing value? We could gin up a lot of articles about a lot of criminals who have received some coverage over more than just a brief time. But to what end? Noroton 19:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Additional comment: Note that one of your quotes mentions "lower the likelihood", meaning it's basically a rule of thumb. Also note that the same paragraph you quote from talks about "matters lacking encyclopedic substance" and then gives examples, which are not necessarily comprehensive. My whole point is that this subject lacks "encyclopedic substance". Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan changed history. If they didn't, what would be the point of an article on them? What's the point here? Noroton 20:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Both Oswald and Sirhan fail WP:BLP1E and belong in John F. Kennedy assassination and Robert F. Kennedy assassination respectively by the letter of the policy. That there is a "changed history" exception is probably true, but it isn't addressed in WP:BLP1E as they are both "biographies on people with no independent notability". I understand your concerns, but there needs to be a broader description of the many cases (including this one) where these is clear consensus that articles should exist, despite what seem to be violations of the letter of WP:BLP1E. Alansohn 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Additional comment: Note that one of your quotes mentions "lower the likelihood", meaning it's basically a rule of thumb. Also note that the same paragraph you quote from talks about "matters lacking encyclopedic substance" and then gives examples, which are not necessarily comprehensive. My whole point is that this subject lacks "encyclopedic substance". Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan changed history. If they didn't, what would be the point of an article on them? What's the point here? Noroton 20:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. You make a good case. Despite the language you quote, I think the greater point behind that policy is to keep out of Wikipedia subjects of little or no value. Is there another reason to have such a policy? I see a subject of little or no value because all that coverage was basically because this was someone whose family had a lot of money and was apparently able to take the economic hit when he fled. Once he returned and was tried, convicted and sentenced and now, within weeks apparently, is let loose, where's the continuing interest? More important, where's the continuing value? We could gin up a lot of articles about a lot of criminals who have received some coverage over more than just a brief time. But to what end? Noroton 19:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- none of which is in dispute, none of which meets any of my objections. Noroton 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Maybe we should keep all Wikipedia tabloid-type articles and change WP:NOT#NEWS instead, because we obviously have no intention of following this passage of it: matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article Clearly this isn't anything but tabloid journalism and editors so far have no intention of deleting it despite that fact. If there's no consensus for enforcing it, the policy should be changed to reflect the actual consensus.Noroton 00:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, NOT NEWS may need clarifying, to make more evident the distinction between the sort of news which is (1) routine daily occurrences (2) human interest stories, and (3) the sort of news which is of long-term general interest, We all agree that the first class of material does not belong. (2) is is a grey area, because if the reason for the human interest is significant, we are not really agreed on whether the people can become noteworthy. But really major criminal trials with widespread coverage, just like political scandals and natural disasters is clearly in the third category. The NYT may not be as strict as it ought to be, but it does not write over 100 stories for an item properly relegated "tabloid journalism". DGG (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- The New York Times does cover most trials that have already gotten a lot of buzz in the New York City metropolitan area, but New York metro buzz doesn't mean that the story is not tabloid journalism. To get beyond tabloid journalism, the story needs to be about (1) an event or situation that affects the lives of readers (or other large numbers of people) or at least (2) illuminates something about society or the world to advance the understanding of readers. Otherwise it's a human interest story or tabloid journalism, also known as lurid, sensationalism, a type of junk food news. It seems to me (maybe I'm wrong) that this is precisely why Wikipedia policy (WP:NOT#NEWS, referred to in WP:BLP1E) mentions tabloid stories as something we don't want here -- we're not in the business of providing readers with the pleasure of the shocking but with information that will illuminate the world around them (political scandals, natural disasters and quite a few major trials do just that). I read the book, saw the movie, read the vast majority of the Times articles and coverage elsewhere. I never found anything that illuminated anything about rape, wealth, society, bail -- not one thing. So what's the reason for the article other than prurience? There are plenty of events about which 1,000 stories are written, including plenty in the Times, that don't belong in Wikipedia because they are valueless in terms of encyclopedic content. This was one. Noroton 03:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- You read this article, and you didn't find anything of value? You didn't learn anything? Well, I read the article, and I did learn something new. I am interested in extraordinary rendition and extradition. I learned that Alex Andrew Kelly couldn't be tried for lesser charges that weren't listed on his extradition order. That is valuable information, thank you very much. And, if you have your way, it would not have been available to me.
- I think you really have to re-assess the extent to which your judgment of the value of this article is based on your POV, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- The New York Times does cover most trials that have already gotten a lot of buzz in the New York City metropolitan area, but New York metro buzz doesn't mean that the story is not tabloid journalism. To get beyond tabloid journalism, the story needs to be about (1) an event or situation that affects the lives of readers (or other large numbers of people) or at least (2) illuminates something about society or the world to advance the understanding of readers. Otherwise it's a human interest story or tabloid journalism, also known as lurid, sensationalism, a type of junk food news. It seems to me (maybe I'm wrong) that this is precisely why Wikipedia policy (WP:NOT#NEWS, referred to in WP:BLP1E) mentions tabloid stories as something we don't want here -- we're not in the business of providing readers with the pleasure of the shocking but with information that will illuminate the world around them (political scandals, natural disasters and quite a few major trials do just that). I read the book, saw the movie, read the vast majority of the Times articles and coverage elsewhere. I never found anything that illuminated anything about rape, wealth, society, bail -- not one thing. So what's the reason for the article other than prurience? There are plenty of events about which 1,000 stories are written, including plenty in the Times, that don't belong in Wikipedia because they are valueless in terms of encyclopedic content. This was one. Noroton 03:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, NOT NEWS may need clarifying, to make more evident the distinction between the sort of news which is (1) routine daily occurrences (2) human interest stories, and (3) the sort of news which is of long-term general interest, We all agree that the first class of material does not belong. (2) is is a grey area, because if the reason for the human interest is significant, we are not really agreed on whether the people can become noteworthy. But really major criminal trials with widespread coverage, just like political scandals and natural disasters is clearly in the third category. The NYT may not be as strict as it ought to be, but it does not write over 100 stories for an item properly relegated "tabloid journalism". DGG (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- keep While I agree with Noroton that far too many minor incidents get coverage. THis individual did have a movie made of his crime. Which creates notability for me. Mbisanz 02:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep following above. Jakerforever 14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- No offense, but I find this interpretation of WP:BLP1E odd. Surely this portion of the policy is aimed at individuals who no one is going to write about, or want to read about, once they have been rescued? If an individual has ongoing press coverage, if there are ongoing updates, after the first week or so of sensational coverage of a singular event, then surely they no longer meet the criteria of "one event". Further updates show there is likely to be an ongoing need for the wikipedia to cover the topic. Even if, for the sake of argument, that ongoing press coverage is largely sensational, there is likely to be some central core to the story that can be covered from a neutral point of view and cite reliable sources. Readers who read a sensational story might want to look to the wikipedia to see whether there is any central non-sensational aspect behind sensational headlines. Suppressing coverage of material based on this interpretation of WP:BLP1E seems to me to be a serious disservice to our readership. Geo Swan 15:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- No offense taken. Why do you believe there's some kind of "need" to know about this individual or this case? We have biographical notability standards for a reason -- because there is no need to know about individuals in all cases. Any person who's arrested twice and is the subject of a newspaper article could have a Wikipedia article -- or perhaps once if the court appearance is covered in a second article. I don't think neutrality and reliability of sources are the only issues with sensationalism. Really, we ought to have a reason for a Wikipedia article on a criminal other than prurience. Although, you know, maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe prurience is just fine with Wikipedia. I see nothing in WP:BLP1E that indicates it doesn't cover criminals or even major actors in events. Would you really feel comfortable with an article that's just about a rape, arrest for rape and trial for rape? Because that's all we have here, and for all that's been written, that's all we're ever going to have here. And I'm not so much complaining that all or even most of the coverage was sensational -- it was an inherently sensational story -- but that its simply not important enough for us to cover, whether or not various responsible news organizatons decided to cover it. Not every snowstorm that gets a lot of coverage, even with banner headlines on all the front pages, is worth a Wikipedia article either. Maybe one day we'll have a clearer standard on this when, some years from now, someone will point to a slew of useless articles about criminals or or subjects of human-interest articles that no one cares about. Noroton 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think we've agreed that WP:NOT#NEWS does NOT apply here. All we have left is WP:BLP1E, which in turn is a summary of WP:NOT#NEWS. I think that there is agreement that there are many cases where an article is not justified. But cases where there is widespread public interest (as evidenced by media coverage) combined with broad, non-trivial coverage beyond the initial event (in this case, heavy coverage for years and sporadic coverage 18 years later), a biography would be justified. I think it's clear that this article passes WP:BIO and uses reliable and verifiable sources to establish that fact. The issues of "prurience" and "sensationalism" about "a lurid tabloid tale" are so utterly subjective as to be impossible to differentiate in any meaningful fashion. There is a dividing line, but I think that the overwhelming consensus here is that this article does not violate WP:BLP1E, which needs to be clarified, and almost certainly broadened to include articles such as this one. Alansohn 19:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- The "heavy coverage for years" was certainly heavy, but the coverage over time is a standard meant to keep us from having articles on subjects that are not trivial themselves, so that we don't have a lot of articles on subjects that have no encyclopedic value. We can all think of subjects that have generated numerous news stories over time but that just aren't worth an encyclopedia article. The issues of "prurience" and "sensationalism" about "a lurid tabloid tale" are so utterly subjective as to be impossible to differentiate in any meaningful fashion. With respect, that's just not true. We can distinguish between subjects that are simply in newspapers for their human-interest value and stories that are worth reading because they are more than just interesting. And that's not at all utterly subjective, although it does call for judgment, which is something we're capable of having. After all, it's partly what deletion discussions are all about. Noroton 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- The wikipedia is experiencing a creep of policy interpretation. This creep of interpretation over {{blp}} is the one that represents the most serious danger to the wikipedia's future.
- So, the judgment as to whether something has "encyclopedic value" -- how do we guard against succumbing to WP:IDONTLIKEIT?
- If you think a tabloid is offering coverage of material for "purely human-interest value", that you don't think has "encyclopedic value" isn't that sensational tabloid coverage built around some core true material that has encyclopedic value? If so, is it that difficult to restrict what we cover to material that has does encyclopedic value? In the unlikely event that tabloids keep inventing sensational material, from whole cloth, that have zero encyclopedic value, then doesn't the repeated sensational tabloid coverage, with no substantive material, merit coverage in the wikipedia?
- Thought experiment: Suppose some nitwit finds a piece of burnt toast that they say has an image of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, the virgin Mary, of the Dalia Llama, and they get tabloic coverage because they convince a bunch of other nitwits this is some kind of miracle -- does this merit coverage on the wikipedia? No. I think this is the kind of phenom your WP:BLP1E is meant to address. But, if the story has legs, if the tabloids don't drop it after a week, if the first nitwit causes riots, or sells the toast on eBay for a million bucks, or runs for office -- then isn't there some core of real material that does merit coverage?
- Tabloids, like the National Enquirer, aren't a total waste of paper. They do occasionally cover stories of real value. Sometimes they do cover stories of real value that are not also covered in the MSM. In those cases, IMO, the portions of the stories that can be backed up by reliable sources and written from a neutral, non-sensational point of view, do merit coverage in the wikipedia.
- Newsflash. People with bad judgment are not restricted to outside the wikipedia. Sometimes the judgment of our fellow wikipedia contributors, and your judgment and my judgment, proves unreliable. Wikipedia contributors bring their unexamined preconceptions to their judgments of what has value. Geo Swan 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- The "heavy coverage for years" was certainly heavy, but the coverage over time is a standard meant to keep us from having articles on subjects that are not trivial themselves, so that we don't have a lot of articles on subjects that have no encyclopedic value. We can all think of subjects that have generated numerous news stories over time but that just aren't worth an encyclopedia article. The issues of "prurience" and "sensationalism" about "a lurid tabloid tale" are so utterly subjective as to be impossible to differentiate in any meaningful fashion. With respect, that's just not true. We can distinguish between subjects that are simply in newspapers for their human-interest value and stories that are worth reading because they are more than just interesting. And that's not at all utterly subjective, although it does call for judgment, which is something we're capable of having. After all, it's partly what deletion discussions are all about. Noroton 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Responding to Noroton's first reply to my note here. Why do I assume there is a need to know? Because I believe people who read, or hear about this guy might look to the wikipedia for reliable, non-sensational coverage. Maybe Noroton can tell, from a tabloid headline, whether there is anything worth knowing about a story? I can't. I'd like to be able to look up the characters behind the headline, and learn if there was a real story there.
- Note: Although you keep repeating we should keep sensational tabloid material from the wikipedia this particular article you nominated for deletion is not sensational. No serious person could claim this article, in its current state, is sensational. Doesn't it cite sources, and address the material from a non-sensational, neutral point of view?
- Let me suggest that, even if someone were to expand this article, using non-neutral language, so that that it could then be described as a prurient, sensational article, that this would not be grounds for deletion.
- This existence of this version of the article -- which is non-prurient, non-sensational -- shows that those with a concern over other potential versions that are prurient or sensational should rein in their impulse to nominate for deletion, and should instead trim or tone down the prurient additions, or raise their concern on the talk page.
- Similarly, let me suggest that this version of this article should cause you and those who share your interpretation of WP:BLP1E to be less willing to jump to a nomination to deletion when you come across similar articles that are prurient and sensational. That this article is non-prurient and non-sensational proves that other articles that weren't written as carefully could and should be trimmed back to a neutral, non-sensational core -- not deleted.
- Nominator asks: "Would you really feel comfortable with an article that's just about a rape, arrest for rape and trial for rape?" I wouldn't defend an article was solely about a rape, or a rapist, where there was nothing else to cover. Why, because rape is a topic that is sufficiently well understood that it can be covered in a single article about rape. Nominator seems to be claiming that this article is solely about a rapist, with nothing of any interest beyond that -- ignoring the interesting extradition aspect, ignoring the years of exile aspect, ignoring that the event triggered the writing of a movie. Nominator is free to find these aspects uninteresting. No one would dream of forcing the nominator to read material they find uninteresting or otherwise valueless. But we have to protect the wikipedia from contributors who try to suppress material that in their subjective judgment is not of value from the rest of us who do find that material of value.
- Some people argue that rape can be a political act. That was Eldridge Cleaver's argument in Soul on Ice. Some might argue that there should be room for a separate article addressing what reliable sources have to say about the theory that rape can be a political act. They might argue that this would include hundreds of thousands of rapes in Darfur, Kosovo, and other war zones, where the men were killed and the women raped, as part of a campaign of genocide. IMO, in addition to covering rape as a political act in the article about rape, or an article specifically about rape as a political act, the wikipedia would be best served if specific instances of rape survivors, who survived rapes as political acts, for whom there is a wealth of reliable sources, had articles of their own.
- There was a young woman in South Asia a few years ago, who was brutally gang-raped in retaliation for something her brother did. IIRC, the brother was involved in a "Romeo and Juliet" story. He was a "Romeo" who earned the love of a "Juliet" who was a member some other faction. And a tribal or village council had ruled that the way to wash away the dishonor her brother had triggered was to gang-rape his sister. Everyone expected the young woman in question to commit suicide, because she would not be able to endure her own feeling of dishonor. Instead she laid charges, even though the local police were uncooperative. Her courage and efforts attracted international scrutiny. Money was donated, and she, in turn, used the money donated to her to start a school to educate local girls. The young woman in question was herself illiterate, and her illiteracy, and the reduced choices it brought, were part of the reason why her abusers thought she would commit suicide.
- By nominator's reasoning this young woman would not merit an article of her own, because everything I wrote about above was triggered by an act of rape.
- I think nominator may be failing to understand how humans learn new things. We hear something, we seize on one aspect, like a name, and we make a mental note to look up the story later. IMO nominator is doing us a vast disservice through his or her overenthusiastic attempt to suppress material they don't like. As I wrote above I might hear about this story, make a mental note to look up the details, because I wanted to read more about the extradition aspect of the story -- and be unable to do so because the nominator succeeded in suppressing the whole story based on their subjective judgment that the whole story was based on prurience. Geo Swan 15:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think the technical name for your stance is "sore winner". You're not content to discuss my arguments, you have to discuss my motivations. You might want to think about that and about the possibility that not everyone thinks that the truth as you see it is so obvious.Noroton 01:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sound advice to which I commend you. RGTraynor 06:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- No offense taken. Why do you believe there's some kind of "need" to know about this individual or this case? We have biographical notability standards for a reason -- because there is no need to know about individuals in all cases. Any person who's arrested twice and is the subject of a newspaper article could have a Wikipedia article -- or perhaps once if the court appearance is covered in a second article. I don't think neutrality and reliability of sources are the only issues with sensationalism. Really, we ought to have a reason for a Wikipedia article on a criminal other than prurience. Although, you know, maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe prurience is just fine with Wikipedia. I see nothing in WP:BLP1E that indicates it doesn't cover criminals or even major actors in events. Would you really feel comfortable with an article that's just about a rape, arrest for rape and trial for rape? Because that's all we have here, and for all that's been written, that's all we're ever going to have here. And I'm not so much complaining that all or even most of the coverage was sensational -- it was an inherently sensational story -- but that its simply not important enough for us to cover, whether or not various responsible news organizatons decided to cover it. Not every snowstorm that gets a lot of coverage, even with banner headlines on all the front pages, is worth a Wikipedia article either. Maybe one day we'll have a clearer standard on this when, some years from now, someone will point to a slew of useless articles about criminals or or subjects of human-interest articles that no one cares about. Noroton 19:32, 8 November 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
