Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 De Anza baseball players rape case


 * 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The result was Keep, nom withdrawn, and a re-write/stubification done that satisfied BLP concerns. Well done, all. Pastordavid (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 De Anza baseball players rape case

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

unsalvageable WP:BLP violation; tabloid-style account of unproven rape allegations is unsuitable for Wikipedia Wikidemo (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Note - the article has been completely rewritten since the version nominated for deletion. Please consider that when interpreting the following discussion. Thx. Wikidemo (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Further note - I am now withdrawing the nomination. The article as rewritten satisfies any notability and BLP concerns, in my opinion, and seems to be stable. Would someone neutral please care to close this? We still need to think of a new title, something like the new lead "The 2007 De Anza College baseball investigation", but we do not need an AfD to do so. Thanks to everyone for all your thoughtful contributions. This little part of Wikipedia is that much better for our efforts. - Wikidemo (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator, without prejudice to re-creation as a proper article. I struggled with this because if you remove all the inappropriate news coverage and BLP violation there is possibly a notable subject in there.  However, the article is so rife with BLP violations, and in such poor organizaiton as an encyclopedia article, that it would take a major effort if not complete blanking/stubbification.  Even the title is a BLP violation.  It asserts that a rape occurred and that the baseball players were involved, yet they were never even charged and there are no reliable sources that say either.  They say only that an accusation was made.  Further, the article describes the rape of an identifiable underage girl, and claims she was intoxicated.  It then accuses onlookers (similarly, with reliable sources only that the accusation was made, not that it happened) of facilitating the rape and refusing to cooperate with police.  And all that's just in the WP:LEAD!  The rest of the article includes a "timeline" full of unreliable statements and naming of names.  That requires extreme care but instead we have a mess of an article.  The whole thing is so wrong I would not know where to begin.  So unless anyone is ready to rewrite the article from the ground up, the best thing to do is to delete.  It could probably simply be blanked as a BLP matter without AfD, but that would probably create a dispute.  This has already been mentioned at WP:BLP/N, and via a WP:PROD tag that was removed.  So I thought the best next step is to work through the issue here.  Thanks,  Wikidemo (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - the rewritten version as of today is acceptable from my point of view. If it or something like it sticks and does not get reverted I will withdraw this nomination.  I think we should wait another day or two, though, to make sure this gets settled rather than dropping the AfD prematurely.  Wikidemo (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not certain of whether this article will have lasting notability or not, which was mentioned in the original prod as a reason for deletion. There doesn't appear to be a lack of verifiability (the article has 92 separate references, though some, such as, appear to be duplicated as different refs, rather than using "ref name"), but there is certainly an issue with the quality of the article. Indeed, my only involvement in the article prior to notification of this AfD was adding a tone tag. Pretty much the entire article, in general, from its tone, to the wording of the headlines, appears to be more reminiscent of the free tabloid that anyone can edit. The timeline section, for example, quickly stops being a timeline of the case itself, and becomes a timeline of all news stories about the case, with the story headlines provided after the date, which is misleading. However, I also realise that poor quality is not really a good reason for deletion, so I am relatively neutral on whether the article should be kept or deleted. If it is kept, however, it would probably need stubbing temporarily while being rewritten. --Dreaded Walrus t c 11:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment - most of my concerns have been addressed in the current version of the article. Dreaded Walrus t c 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * DeleteI think we've agreed before that not every news event is worthy of an encyclopedia article and this is no different. We do not have an article on every alleged rape happening worldwide; its unfeasible and not in line with the goals of this project.  This incident had no lasting significance that would indicate needing an article here and in its current state is little more than a coatrack for maligning the players and prosecutor.  I believe that WP:BLP also falls in here as we are obviously doing harm to several living people as Wikidemo illustrated above.  Should consensus be that there should be an article on this topic at a title elsewhere, the current article will still need to be deleted as there is no salvageable history. Shell babelfish 14:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This alleged rape has received widespread coverage over an extended period. It has implications beyond the average alleged rape in that it has occasioned widespread comment about the handling of the case by the prosecutor, and because of the notoreity before the incident on the part of the college baseball team which is alleged to have had involvement. The 90 plus dozens of references appear to offer the basis for satisfying the requirements for compliance with WP:BLP policy, in that there are enough reliable sources to back up statements in a coherent account of the event and its aftermath. That said, there is clearly room for improvement in the tone and exposition of the article, which is not in itself a basis for deletion. Also, such a contentious case requires ongoing editorial supervision. Those two facts are not a basis for deletion. {{WP:N]] is  satisfied. Edison (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article provides dozens of independent reliable sources and there are dozens more. The incident is treated as an incident (not an article with an involved individual as a title) and provides clear evidence that this is a subject that has been deemed a notable subject of news coverage for an extended period of time. The prose could use some work, but notability has been established. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as a notabilty problem nearly as much as a WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issue. I think most of the commentors are willing to grant notability. Xymmax (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree, a proper article could be written, but WP:BLP considerations are to my mind so paramount that this should be deleted, or at least returned to a stub w/ the references intact, and start over. First, the title "rape case" has to go. There are is no charge of rape (only the prosecutor can do that) and there is no "case." We should not associate that term with any identifiable group of people. The NPOV problems are significant as well, as there appears to be an underlying assumption that the assault occurred (as it very well may have, but it isn't WP's place to make that case). For this type of article to work, each and every line needs to be sourced, and someone needs to watch to make certain that the sources state exactly what the article claims they do. This is bad enough t that I plan to try to spend some time fixing it when I get off work. Xymmax (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your vote to delete is inconsistent with your statement above; if notability is established, and there really are WP:NPOV or WP:BLP issues here, they should be properly addressed, rather than swept under the rug via deletion. I cannot ascertain the truth of this incident, but I can certainly verify that the presumption of notability has been amply demonstrated by the extensive and ongoing media coverage documented in the article. Alansohn (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. WP:BLP provides for immediate deletion of improperly sourced biographical material, and by extension, if the article is made up solely of such material, the entire article could be deleted. The nominator clearly has similiar concerns, as you can see from the discussion of this article on the BLP noticeboard [here]. Still, I am not interested in deleting this article if it can be salvaged, and I will take a stab at it tonight. If it seems salvagable I happily will change my vote. Hopefully someone will address the articles problems in the meantime. Xymmax (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: Notability has clearly been established but the article needs a very serious rewrite to cover the WP:NPOV problems. Give the article a chance to address the issues it has, relist at a later date if they aren't.  Justin  {{sup| chat }} 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as there are enough BLP problems as to render the article unsalvageable. We need a new title anyway, so I would propose starting from scratch with these references and a proper title. ZZ {{sup| Claims }}~ Evidence 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep though it certainly needs some editing. (I deprodded it, thinking it needed a discussion at least before deleting). The article is careful to omit the names of all the directly involved parties, except one who was charged in a not directly-connected felony, and the DA is a public figure.   I am not sure there are actually any BLP violations (except probably the other felony) --nothing is reported beyond what is in the newspaper accounts. But the detail is otherwise altogether excessive. rightly or wrongly, accusations of such matters involving college athletes are always major news stories--and all the more so because of the developments in cases elsewhere. There is therefore extensive newspaper coverage, and there is probably more by now, and the article also needs updating. I think the title is probably suitable--what would be a better? It would be clearly inappropriate to use the names of the parties. I look forward to seeing what Xymmax makes of it. I should have started the trimming when I deprodded. I will help by removing the section on the hit-and-run case, which is clearly prejudicial. DGG (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that omitting the names solves the BLP problem because they are all identifiable individuals. The newspaper accounts are (variously) dead links, unreliable sources (editorials, blogs, etc), mischaracterized (a newspaper's account of what a single witness said, or of what police claim a witness said, is reported as fact or as what all of the witnesses said), or impertinent salacious details that provide a narrative of a rape rather than encyclopedic content that is relevant to the notability of the event.  The notability, if any, is not that a rape occurred but that an apparent rape by a college team was not prosecuted, leading to criticism and protests.  For that issue the age, appearance, etc., of the victim and perpetrators, the alleged cheering of bystandards, the girls' team breaking down the door, the details of her drunkenness, etc., are unnecessary.  Excessive detail in an article would simply be a style matter fit for clean-up.  Excessive derogatory detail about living people is a BLP issue, particularly when poorly sourced, repeated as hearsay, etc.  I think your pruning helped a bit but in my opinion the article needs something much more drastic.  I just deconstructed the lead paragraph in the talk page, and my conclusion is that only 1/4 or less of the lead paragraph is salvageable.  If that gets done it could leave a short, but arguably notable and properly sourced article that does not violate BLP, so perhaps something can be saved and the article kept.  However, if it does not happen it is better to delete the article than to leave a BLP violation.  We shouldn't just leave the article sitting around in hopes that someday someone fixes it.  That's what AfD is all about.  Articles either get fixed and kept, or not fixed and possibly deleted.Wikidemo (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've completely blanked and rewritten the article into a stub. I ended up resourcing most of the article, because San Diego Mercury Observer doesn't allow free access to its archived material. As a result, I couldn't access large portions of the orginal citations. Please note that I did this only as a stop-gap measure, because I agree w/ Wikidemo that the thing should go. However, I did give it a good faith effort to write something less problematic. I did not alter the title, something that I feel must be done, because I was afraid that I would interfere w/ the Afd.  I also went into far less detail, because at this stage the facts are too unclear for us to give the matter proper encyclopediac treatment.  Please feel free to criticize here or further edit. I do hope no one will feel it necessary to outright revert. :) Xymmax (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that's an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. I'm still concerned that the older revisions should be deleted per WP:BLP; the problem existed from the first edit  and the majority of contributions were made by that same editor.  Since a good argument has been made for the encyclopedic worth of the subject, moving this to a different title using Xymmax's start would be appropriate.  Excellent writing Xymmax! Shell babelfish 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree entirely. We delete articles when they violate WP:BLP, we don't delete articles that at one time violated WP:BLP but no longer does.  Justin  {{sup| chat }} 03:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The proposal was to delete that part of the article record that contained BLP violations, not the article itself. We often delete or de-link things from the article history that are so problematic that we don't even want people reading the history - privacy violations, copyright violations, apparent defamation, etc.  I don't see a problem with doing that but I don't think it's necessary.  There was nothing in the article that isn't already in newspapers or all over the web.  I think it was inappropriate for a Wikipedia article because we don't want to add to the noise, but the noise is already there so deleting our history won't really help anything.  Wikidemo (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies I misread that. But it seems that those actions are taken in extreme circumstances, which this doesn't seem to qualify (as stated above).  Justin  {{sup| chat }} 06:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Deleting history would be appropriate only if it did contain names, or material that had not been widely disseminated, which does not seem to be the case. DGG (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete This article is somewhat at the borderline of lasting notability for keep/delete to me. I'm leaning to delete with no bias against recreation if something comes out of this. Also no bias against including a very short section in e.g. the De Anza baseball team article Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 16 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.