Talk:Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich

Names of those convicted
So, the names of those convicted of this sexual assault have been made public but the court has a gag order protecting their identity. Does this apply to Wikipedia? The names were added to this article but then it was reverted. Liz Read! Talk! 18:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Both the criminals and the victim were 16 at the time of the crime. I therefore support removing all of their names from this article.  There's no indication that the victim qualifies for Category:Rape victims, and no indication she wants her status as a rape victim to be broadcast to the world for the rest of her life via Wikipedia.  Being named in a permanent Wikipedia article is different from being named in a fleeting newspaper article that will soon fade away.  As for the boys, it's a closer question, but similar reasoning.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, removing the name of the victim from this article will be complicated, since her name appears in the title and is generally how the case is known (unlike the Steubenville case). So should consensus emerge that the victim's name must be removed, does this become the "Louisville sexual assault case" (far too vague) or is it nominated for deletion? Even if I agree that her name should be omitted, will hate to see the article go as it raises some important legal questions and is notable for that reason alone. Dwpaul (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article should be deleted, but its title should be changed. The current title does not give any clue why the case was notable, and furthermore there is no need to name people in the title.  How about something like "Louisville Teen Sexual Assault Case"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The name of the assault victim still appears on the page, but only in the titles of the refs. How far do we need to go?  Should the name appearing in the titles be replaced with [Redacted]? Dwpaul (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction: Victim also still listed by name in the Infobox. Dwpaul (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Changing name of the article and edits
Anythingyouwant, removing all personal names and changing the name of the article was premature as the case is currently being discussions at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Consensus hasn't been determined on whether or not the names should be included. Liz Read! Talk! 12:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the usual BLPN custom is to remove controversial material until there is consensus at BLPN to include it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet even with this edit the victim's name still appears in the Infobox. Dwpaul (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Edited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:BLPN
Readers here should know there is currently a discussion about this article at BLPN. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2013

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Louisville teen sexual assault case → Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich – After extensive discussion at WP:BLP/N, every participant, including the person who originally moved the page to the new name, now agrees it should be returned to the previous name. See Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. GRuban (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support, for reasons discussed at the link in the Discussion section below. Dwpaul (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, per Dwpaul.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The discussion at WP:BLP/N was fairly good and clear that this should be reverted back to the old title. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

There was a survey on this exact issue, here at BLPN.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.