Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:44, 5 November 2009

2009 Richmond High School gang rape

Keep in mind this is NOT A VOTE. Explain deletion rationale in detail. This event seems to meet WP:N/CA

2009 Richmond High School gang rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No doubt a fairly horrible event that has stirred up a lot of media attention, but I'm unconvinced that's it anything else but a WP:NOT#NEWS violation. It's also an utter BLP nightmare in waiting, although that's a secondary concern. Black Kite 14:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The "not a vote" box is not supposed to be used as a deterrent to discussion. It's something that is appropriate to add only when it appears that !votes are being solicited, not for the possibility that it might happen. Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep this article. Meets WP:N/CA Very notable event, made national news and covered extensively in local news. Gaining notability daily. Possibly as big as Kitty Genovese. Richmondian (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, was tempted to Afd it myself... ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Notnews. Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Strong support for the nominators rationale. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

huh, you have been editing it and now you now want to delete it? Richmondian (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: While it exists it has to comply with WP:BLP, hence my edits and those of Off2riorob. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. It might in future prove to be a Genovese like case but at the moment it's not notable. NtheP (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

really not notable??? where does it fail?

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
• "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Misplaced Pages is not.

• From your comment "such an article may violate what Misplaced Pages is not." It does. Hipocrite (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, so is it safe to say it meets notability, but fails another policy, "what wikipedia is not"? Richmondian (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

# News reports. Misplaced Pages considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. ... --- this case is not routine coverage of announcements, sports, tabloid journalism etc. Richmondian (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NOTNEWS should not be ignored by saying "but thsi really is news". There's no evidence of lasting wider significance.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per not news. If in the long term there proves to be enough ongoing coverage to give an article then it could be created. In the meantime however, it is a BLP issue waiting to happen. Quantpole (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

uhh guys, not news is about minor events, stories etc, "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." NOT about major events. Richmondian (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:News articles - "Many things are in the news and are reported by numerous reliable and verifiable sources that are independent of the subject, yet are not of historic or encyclopedic importance. News organizations have different criteria for their content than the criteria used by encyclopedias. A violent crime, sensationalized event or accidental death may be notable enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage in the news, but not be of encyclopedic importance. But a crime that led to a significant change in the law, an event that actually became a sensation, or a death that led to new safety practices, may have long-term encyclopedic value, and could merit an article if sufficient secondary sources were available to establish its importance." Note use of words like could merit or actually became, there is no doubt that this is an unpleasant event but there is nothing yet to suggest that it will become of encyclopedic importance. If it does then there should be an article but until that time, it would probably be better off on wikinews.org NtheP (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I started reading that but I see that it is "an essay" not a wikipedia policy, I thought we were supposed to follow policies, not essays? I looked at other essays and there was some weird stuff. Richmondian (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is an essay but one referenced by the policy WP:NOT#NEWS and gives an insight into where the policy comes from.

Why do I say this is non-notable. Basically nothing has been proved yet; it's an alleged assault and sexual assault case, allegedly committed by a gang of men in their teens and twenties and where witness are reported to have turned a blind eye to the events and to have even filmed it (note all the emphasis is from the article, not by me). So at the moment there are no facts established about the events of the night in question other than a 15 year old girl being admitted to hospital with injuries possibly commensurate with assault and rape. On that basis I'd say that on the criteria you quoted from WP:GNG this is currently failing on both Reliable and Presumed NtheP (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks VERY MUCH Nthep, I really appreciate the time and this is a very englightening debate. After going back to the article I see something another editor posted -- this meets a policy specifically designed for this case, called WP:N/CA.

The "allegedly" doesn't change much, does it? If the accused are found not guilty, it doesn't mean the incident didn't happen. No one was arrested for flying two planes into the world trade center but the incident is still described in detail. We might want to remove the accused names if/when that happens (we also have examples of names of people found not guilty -- but that's another thread).

There are many facts established, as much as most facts are established (there isn't video, but there have been many witnesses to various parts of the story). There was a dance, a girl disappeared, that some have said she got intoxicated, was beaten, robbed had sexual contact with multiple males, that police were called, found her beaten underneath a bench, flew her to a hospital, that the community was outraged, had various vigils, etc.

That the accused are guilty in a court of law is not established. But, like I said, that was never established for the 9-11 hijackers either. The standard for many statements (and article existence) isn't testimony in a court of law, it is what is outlined in the notability guidelines.

As for the essay, I believe my first point is still valid, this article meets notability guidelines; that doesn't mean it meets guidelines that are linked to but guidelines that are on that page. Wiki has a lot of linking so its important that we refer to the actually policy not something that is linked to.

When I look at "what wikipedia is not" it refers to "news" as "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", and this is far, far beyond reports of sports scores, etc. There is a link to the "news" essay, but that is only labeled "see also", not a "what this policy really means is over here". I can also guarantee that there is not just a passing interest in this story -- it will reverberate for decades. Any parent with daughters (and many with sons) in that school is considering options for how to get their children out, the school will be sued for millions of dollars, police and security policy has changed already, though in minor ways so far, and will continue to change. This is not WP:CRYSTAL -- I am not going to say this in the article, but having lived through school atrocities of an earlier generation and living in the area for decades. I know this will happen.

The event, to me anyway, is a moment symbolic of the degradation/violence in our urban neighborhoods much like Columbine illuminated the depravity that lurked in the hearts of some non-urban "children" -- and the destruction that a small number of armed students could wreak. I cannot remember a case as awful as this one and many inside (and outside) of law enforcement have said the same. I was also shocked at the no-snitching attitude and awful slang that appeared online, written by other students at the school. Its rare to get a glimpse into that microsociety. The school's pathetic test scores (0% of afr-am and 2% of latino students at grade level in mathematics) are a case study in urban failure. BTW, this is not an isolated case in all ways, as the victim's friend described a homecoming dance rape, but not a gang rape, at another Richmond school which I hadn't heard of. Richmondian (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This is clearly a notable event. I read this under World/Nations in the newspaper. How can it be a minor event when it was listed under World/Nation? Obviously people are reading this from around the world. Xqe (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)— Xqe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I guess it depends on what country your newspaper is from. Mandsford (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability of criminal acts (from WP:N/CA)

"Criminal act" includes a matter in which a crime has been established, or a matter has been deemed a likely crime by the relevant law enforcement agency or judicial authority. For example, the disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable.

Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope. Multiple, independent sources

This criterion means that multiple sources are required, not just multiple references from a single or small number of sources. It would therefore be insufficient to base an article on a series of news reports on a crime by a single newspaper or news channel. The requirement for national or global scope refers to how widespread the coverage of a topic is. In the case where a television or radio channel has several regional outlets, such as Fox News, one regional station counts as local coverage. Repeating this over multiple stations belonging to the same network that covers an entire country is considered to be a single instance of coverage with national or global scope.

Similarly, where a single news wire story or press release has been used by several news publications, this should only be counted as a single source in all notability decisions. Likewise, when reporters base their information on other news coverage (for example, "AP reported that ..."), the coverage is only a single source. Such derivative reports are not independent and so cannot be used to verify each other. However, if multiple mainstream news outlets report on a single event separately and without reference to others, these constitute multiple sources.

Finally, media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity to another widely reported incident. For example, the death of Mari Luz Cortés was compared in multiple outlets of the British tabloid press to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight the old event.

1. Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) is plainly trivial.
2. Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
3. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
4. Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
5. Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates