Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 De Anza rape investigation


 * 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 04:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

2007 De Anza rape investigation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Considering a better-written version of this article is technically on the Brock Turner article, I think this could be a good opportunity to have this article deleted, as it's poorly written and now redundant. I understand that the investigation is now notable again because of the Turner case, but like I said, everything's perfectly covered in the Turner article. Parsley Man (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - the only reason the two cases are connected is because of the judge. The article meets the general notability guidelines.  --211.30.17.74 (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just so you know, the merged version in the Turner article is right here. Parsley Man (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It was not done per the guidelines at WP:CWW, and attribution has been broken. The prior deletion discussion for this article, Articles_for_deletion/2007_De_Anza_baseball_players_rape_case, resulted in a keep.  --211.30.17.74 (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability can still be judged further down the road. Also, you're going to have to talk to about the WP:CWW violation, because he/she was the one who did that merge and rewrite. Parsley Man (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic was notable at the time, and it has been revisited due to the Turner case. Copying and pasting the 2007 case into an article on Turner gives too much weight to the 2007 case, when the Turner article is about Turner and the sentencing controversy.  Additionally, because of the CWW error, this article cannot be deleted, as it must be preserved to provide attribution.  --211.30.17.74 (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, talk to . Parsley Man (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, the coverage (including a television documentary), most of which predates the Stanford case, would indicate this is an independently notable event. That's not to say that the present text couldn't be improved, but I don't really understand the rationale for deleting this because just another article contains related material.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep, the event is notable on its own. And actually before I realized this conversation was going on I took out a lot of duplicate material out of the Brock Turner article and added a link back to the 2007 De Anza rape investigation article. I think this is how it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnordware (talk • contribs) 20:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Highly notable event on its own with tons and tons of coverage. Toddst1 (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve The article also provides some of the basis for retention of the Lauren Chief Elk article where it is cited. Activist (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article has gotten almost 12,000 views in the past year, with almost 10,000 in the last ten days, since the sentencing. It had been nominated for deletion in 2007, but consensus then was to keep. Activist (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 *  Keep or merge - Article should be either kept, or merged with history in tact to Aaron Persky or Brock Turner. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A merge is not appropriate, as it would give too much weight to the De Anza case in either Persky or Turner's articles. Persky was only associated with the case in the later stages of the civil trial.  --211.30.17.74 (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2016 (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.