Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy


 * 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

2006 Melbourne teenage DVD controversy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

News article that has had no developments in thirteen months except for the boys being sentenced Will (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks pretty useful to me. Just because there are no new developments, doesn't mean that it should be deleted. Tavix 00:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOT and WP:BLP1E. Will (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Except, this is not a biographical article so only WP:NOT applys.Garrie 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable incident with plenty of sources. The article needs a bit of work but the nominator provides no reason why this article should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 00:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have. It's a news article, and the main subjects are notable for only one event. Will (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   —Capitalistroadster 00:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The controversy is certainly interesting. I'm not Australian but will this have influence beyond the shock value and backlash caused by this incident? There aren't any hard and fast rules but it seems like a scandal that received national scandal only for a short time and has been forgotten. mirageinred 04:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:N with the various sources stated in the article. Twenty Years 06:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename I think it should be Cunt: The Movie or something that doesn't sound like a news article. But it is notable  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZyMOS (talk • contribs) 06:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I do find the subject matter saddening, I do believe that it passes our tests for encyclopedic notability.  RFerreira 08:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep no problem of notability exists and no there is no question of a "routine" incident. Nor is there a suitable article to merge this into. Policy rationales are being cited with no indication of how they apply; NOTNEWS tells us to consider the historical notability of news events and BLP1E tells us not to write biographical articles about persons notable only for one event. Article passes both. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep with the number of sources cited it's clearly notable. We won't have articles on all 15+ people involved (12 teens plus the girl and her father plus the homeless person ....) so keep the whole thing in one article is the best approach. I pretty much agree with ZyMOS about the redirect, but I don't know if that's the right title - I was aware of the controversy but not the name of the dvd till this article.Garrie 22:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this incident was heavily covered in the Australian press, and the light sentences given to the offenders has led to much criticism. You never know, laws might end up changing because of it. I think that's notable. Lenky 13:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this got a lot of coverage in Australia and lots of tut-tutting from politicians. The avalanche of sources should be an indication that this was indeed notable.  Plus, since when has "no new updates" been a valid rationale for deleting an article?  Lankiveil (talk) 08:32, 5 December 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.