Talk:Roast Busters scandal

DYK nomination
Roast Busters

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --CTF (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's currently a matter of great nation importance in New Zealand, and the Roast Busters group is mentioned in several other Wikipedia pages.


 * This topic is not of great importance in New Zealand. It is a trivial case. Furthermore the description is incorrect. This gang did not set out to intoxicate woman so they could rape them. They set out to intoxicate women so that they would be more likely to agree to sex. The main reason why police have not laid charges is that the women actually did consent. The problem was that this consent is questionable due to the extent of intoxication. However men (or women for that matter) plying others with alcohol in order to increase the chance of having sex is pretty common, and not rape, in most cases. This article should be deleted.101.98.169.98 (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If that is what you believe, have a read of the notability guideline, and then see at deletion policy what to do next.  Schwede 66  02:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Name suppression?
I've just reverted edits that were done to comply with alleged name suppression. Is that correct that there is now name suppression in place? If so, that is a bit of a problem as, amongst other things, some of the references used in the article have the names of guys as part of the file name. Obviously, we can't just remove names from a reference URL without breaking things...  Schwede 66  05:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've tidied the IP edit and added a ref for the name suppression. We can't do anything much about the urls, but I've changed titles as necessary to say [redacted] where a name appears.- gadfium 05:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh oh. Firstly, you've removed a name from the URL that's currently #28. That breaks the link. I didn't want to undo in case it was deliberate. Secondly, I note that their names are all over the internet, including in New Zealand news outlets. Thirdly, should we be asking for legal advice from the Wikimedia Foundation? There is, for example, the issue of the page history.  Schwede 66  06:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The name was removed by the IP, and I failed to restore it in my earlier edit. I've fixed it now. I don't think we need to remove the article history. The old versions of the article were written before the suppression took place.
 * My aim is to not have any suppressed name appear in the visible text of the article. The URLs of references are not visible text. When and if suppression is lifted, I expect we will restore the article to its earlier state, and then re-apply updates and improvements.- gadfium 07:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Second sentence
Doesn’t make sense. 2A02:C7C:BC33:EC00:A9F4:2A06:5AAD:9BEE (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've taken out the part that doesn't go with the rest.- gadfium 22:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)