Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Richmond High School gang rape


 * 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   no consensus. Obviously this debate centred pretty heavily on NOTNEWS. The proponents of deletion followed the idea that the incident was a news story not worthy of an encyclopedia article. There was also a BLP concern, which was also articulated quite nicely. The proponents of keeping the article were mostly either saying the event was getting significant enough coverage to count, that the incident was unique enough, or that it passed our notability criteria for criminal acts. Both sides made their case well, although the insight in the comments tends to peter out once all the main points have been made; as is often the case with these sized AfDs. Given how well both sides made there case, it is quite clear there wasn't a consensus to delete or keep; although I would encourage everyone participating to add this article to their watchlists; as there are going to be ongoing BLP concerns. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 Richmond High School gang rape

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No doubt a fairly horrible event that has stirred up a lot of media attention, but I'm unconvinced that's it anything else but a WP:NOT violation. It's also an utter BLP nightmare in waiting, although that's a secondary concern. Black Kite 14:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The "not a vote" box is not supposed to be used as a deterrent to discussion. It's something that is appropriate to add only when it appears that !votes are being solicited, not for the possibility that it might happen.   Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

— Richmondian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: appears to pass WP:N/CA,  the policy guideline for articles on criminal acts. Actually, this piece is precisely what led to WP:N/CA, and passes with flying colors. In addition, CBS news, ABC News, CNN, NPR, NY Times, USA Today, Newsweek, and The View, as well as international publications as far away as India have covered the event. Gaining notability daily.   A very strong case for KEEP Richmondian (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination, was tempted to Afd it myself... ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Notnews. Hipocrite (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Strong support for the nominators rationale. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * huh, you have been editing it and now you now want to delete it?  Richmondian (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: While it exists it has to comply with WP:BLP, hence my edits and those of Off2riorob. – ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nomination. It might in future prove to be a Genovese like case but at the moment it's not notable. NtheP (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * really not notable???  where does it fail?


 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
 * "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.
 * From your comment "such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not." It does. Hipocrite (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, so is it safe to say it meets notability, but fails another policy, "what wikipedia is not"?  Richmondian (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

''# News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. ''... --- this case is not routine coverage of announcements, sports, tabloid journalism etc. Richmondian (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTNEWS should not be ignored by saying "but thsi really is news". There's no evidence of lasting wider significance.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per not news. If in the long term there proves to be enough ongoing coverage to give an article then it could be created. In the meantime however, it is a BLP issue waiting to happen. Quantpole (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * uhh guys, not news is about minor events,  stories etc,  "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article."  NOT about major events.  Richmondian (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read News articles - "Many things are in the news and are reported by numerous reliable and verifiable sources that are independent of the subject, yet are not of historic or encyclopedic importance. News organizations have different criteria for their content than the criteria used by encyclopedias. A violent crime, sensationalized event or accidental death may be notable enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage in the news, but not be of encyclopedic importance. But a crime that led to a significant change in the law, an event that actually became a sensation, or a death that led to new safety practices, may have long-term encyclopedic value, and could merit an article if sufficient secondary sources were available to establish its importance." Note use of words like could merit or actually became, there is no doubt that this is an unpleasant event but there is nothing yet to suggest that it will become of encyclopedic importance. If it does then there should be an article but until that time, it would probably be better off on wikinews.org NtheP (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I started reading that but I see that it is "an essay" not a wikipedia policy, I thought we were supposed to follow policies, not essays?  I looked at other essays and there was some weird stuff. Richmondian (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is an essay but one referenced by the policy WP:NOT and gives an insight into where the policy comes from.
 * Why do I say this is non-notable. Basically nothing has been proved yet; it's an alleged assault and sexual assault case, allegedly committed by a gang of men in their teens and twenties and where witness are reported to have turned a blind eye to the events and to have even filmed it (note all the emphasis is from the article, not by me).  So at the moment there are no facts established about the events of the night in question other than a 15 year old girl being admitted to hospital with injuries possibly commensurate with assault and rape.  On that basis I'd say that on the criteria you quoted from WP:GNG this is currently failing on both Reliable and Presumed NtheP (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks VERY MUCH Nthep, I really appreciate the time and this is a very englightening debate.   After going back to the article I see something another editor posted -- this meets a policy guideline specifically designed for criminal acts called WP:N/CA.  It is meant to settle notability debates (which apparently often come down to "not news").   I have pasted part of it below and encourage all weighing in here to read it.


 * The "allegedly" doesn't change much, does it?   If the accused are found not guilty,  it doesn't mean the incident didn't happen.    No one was arrested for flying two planes into the world trade center but the incident is still described in detail.   We might want to remove the accused names if/when that happens (we also have examples of names of people found not guilty -- but that's another thread).


 * There are many facts established, as much as most facts are established (there isn't video,  but there have been many witnesses to various parts of the story).   There was a dance,  a girl disappeared,  that some have said she got intoxicated, was beaten, robbed had sexual contact with multiple males,  that police were called,  found her beaten underneath a bench, flew her to a hospital,  that the community was outraged,  had various vigils, etc.


 * That the accused are guilty in a court of law is not established.  But, like I said,  that was never established for the 9-11 hijackers either.   The standard for many statements (and article existence) isn't testimony in a court of law,  it is what is outlined in the notability guidelines.


 * As for the essay, I believe my first point is still valid,  this article meets notability guidelines;  that doesn't mean it meets guidelines that are linked to but guidelines that are on that page.   Wiki has a lot of linking so its important that we refer to the actually policy not something that is linked to.


 * When I look at "what wikipedia is not" it refers to "news" as "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", and this is far, far beyond reports of sports scores, etc.   There is a link to the "news" essay, but that is only labeled "see also", not a "what this policy really means is over here".   I can also guarantee that there is not just a passing interest in this story -- it will reverberate for decades.  Any parent with daughters (and many with sons) in that school is considering options for how to get their children out,  the school will be sued for millions of dollars,  police and security policy has changed already,  though in minor ways so far,  and will continue to change.  This is not WP:CRYSTAL -- I am not going to say this in the article,  but having lived through school atrocities of an earlier generation and living in the area for decades.  I know this will happen.


 * The event, to me anyway, is a moment symbolic of the degradation/violence in our urban neighborhoods much like Columbine illuminated the depravity that lurked in the hearts of some non-urban "children" -- and the destruction that a small number of armed students could wreak. I cannot remember a case as awful as this one and many inside (and outside) of law enforcement have said the same.   I was also shocked at the no-snitching attitude and awful slang that appeared online, written by other students at the school.   Its rare to get a glimpse into that microsociety.   The school's pathetic test scores (0% of afr-am and 2% of latino students at grade level in mathematics) are a case study in urban failure.   BTW, this is not an isolated case in all ways,  as the victim's friend described a homecoming dance rape,  but not a gang rape, at another Richmond school which I hadn't heard of.     Richmondian (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Don't get hung up solely on notability, there are also huge BLP issues here that do not exist in the 9/11 related articles. In this case the alleged victim and the alleged attackers are alive and so the BLP policy applies to the article (hence the reminder box on the talk page). – ukexpat (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the "deletes" are saying it is non-notable, as far as I can tell it meets WP:N/CA. If BLP is the real issue it can be addressed.   I didn't know articles were pre-emptively deleted based on possible, future, BLP violations?  OJ Simpson's trial is covered even though he was only an alleged attacker.  (yes, he is a celebrity so maybe its OK to mention him but there are many other cases too where non-convictions are described) Richmondian (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

*Keep This is clearly a notable event. I read this under World/Nations in the newspaper. How can it be a minor event when it was listed under World/Nation? Obviously people are reading this from around the world. Xqe (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC) — Xqe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (blocked as sock)
 * I guess it depends on what country your newspaper is from. Mandsford (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean? It doesn't matter which country I'm from. If it says World/Nation, clearly everyone is reading about it. Xqe (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That answers my question. It sounds like you're reading an American newspaper that groups its out-of-state news into a column called "World/Nation".  All it means is that the newspaper editor felt it deserved a mention.  On page 2, I'd wager.  That doesn't mean it's in newspapers all over the world.  Mandsford (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability of criminal acts (from WP:N/CA)
 * "Criminal act" includes a matter in which a crime has been established, or a matter has been deemed a likely crime by the relevant law enforcement agency or judicial authority. For example, the disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged. If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable.


 * Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope.
 * [edit] Multiple, independent sources


 * This criterion means that multiple sources are required, not just multiple references from a single or small number of sources. It would therefore be insufficient to base an article on a series of news reports on a crime by a single newspaper or news channel. The requirement for national or global scope refers to how widespread the coverage of a topic is. In the case where a television or radio channel has several regional outlets, such as Fox News, one regional station counts as local coverage. Repeating this over multiple stations belonging to the same network that covers an entire country is considered to be a single instance of coverage with national or global scope.


 * Similarly, where a single news wire story or press release has been used by several news publications, this should only be counted as a single source in all notability decisions. Likewise, when reporters base their information on other news coverage (for example, "AP reported that ..."), the coverage is only a single source. Such derivative reports are not independent and so cannot be used to verify each other. However, if multiple mainstream news outlets report on a single event separately and without reference to others, these constitute multiple sources.


 * Finally, media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity to another widely reported incident. For example, the death of Mari Luz Cortés was compared in multiple outlets of the British tabloid press to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight the old event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmondian (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 November 2009


 * Keep per meeting notability guidelines. Very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. May be worth revisiting in the future to reassess whether it had lasting significance, but a deletion now would be very inappropriate and premature. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The event has minimal context outside of the local event. Were there significant reactions to the event elsewhere in the country (or internationally). Further, most of the story is couched in "allegedly"; as noted by other editors, there are some BLP issues as a result. This is probably an issue better left to Wikinews for now. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CBS news, ABC News, CNN,  NPR,  NY Times, USA Today,  Newsweek, have all covered the event.  I see it picked up in Spanish-speaking publications and here's an Indian(?) paper that covered it http://www.morungexpress.com/morungprofile.html Richmondian (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but currently, the article doesn't reflect that. It has a couple references to ABC News, but from perspective of the article, there is nothing asserting it is more than an event of interest to a small region. Having said that, I did hear this discussed earlier in the week on The View. However, the article doesn't at present assert it's notability. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can get more in there, actually the cnn coverage has been extensive.  Thing is it is mostly in video which is a little awkward to cite.  But holy moly I've spent hours on this thing already then people want to delete it.  Can you put something about the "view" if this survives?   I didn't catch it.  (actually there are probably enugh without that,  but may diminish some of the criticisms that it is just a news event if non-local commentors have picked it up)  Richmondian (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per C.Fred (I was writing essentially the same thing but got EC'ed). While I would not be at all surprised if this event did have the level of lasting effects required to be included per WP:NOT, we can't make that prediction now per WP:CRYSTAL.  If it weren't for the BLP issues, I'd be more on the fence... MirrorLockup (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:GNG, the baseline of what all articles are judged by. All sources meet WP:V and WP:RS. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Belongs to wikinews. No inherent notability of the event (i.e., no broader implications): just another crime duly reported by news. - Altenmann >t 19:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as yet another confusion of "what is in reliable sources?" and "what is of encyclopedic value?". WP:NOTNEWS to a T. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT. It might have sources, but I don't think it's encyclopedic. B figura  (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. A terrible attack that is being called "the worst thing I’ve heard of" by 30 year police veterans, and highlighted in both national and international media. A two-hour gang rape with seven alleged assailants and perhaps as many as two dozen spectators is not a routine crime anywhere in America. Far more notable than an average crime and easily enough sources to write responsibly about it (3500 google news hits currently ). I'd be happier if things like this never happened, but I certainly believe it meets our notability criteria when they do. Dragons flight (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. In my opinion, this is a terrible, terrible event, but not of encyclopedic notability- it is getting lots of press now because it happened recently, but I suspect that, even five years from now, there will be few people writing about it.  If I'm wrong- if this turns out to be a notable event, which has a long-term effect on the country, or affects changes in law, then it should be written about, but in my opinion, it is not possible to determine now whether or not this is going to be a notable event, or just a terrible crime, widely reported and then forgotten by the press after the trials are concluded.  I suggest that we delete the article for now, and revisit the question of whether the even turned out to be encyclopedically important or not, one year after the conclusion of the last trial. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete newsworthy and encyclopedic are not synonyms. This is a news story about a terrible thing, but still just a news story. Resolute Lest We Forget 20:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Weak keep It seems to satisfy WP:NOT and WP:N/CA, since it is not a one or two day story, and may have greater societal implications than simple crime and punishment. We do not make crystal ball forecasts of how enduring the coverage of a terrible crime will be, but I note that the coverage of this crime continues every day 2 weeks after the even, where 20 people stood by and did not notify police while a 15 year old girl was allegedly beaten and raped for a couple of hours by a number of men. The bystander apathy, more than the sheer brutality, has shocked the nation and been noted worldwide. The murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 is also notable for bystander apathy: 20 people heard her scream for help and did not call police as she was murdered in a protracted stabbing. WP:BLP is not a blanket prohibition against having articles about crimes. We follow the coverage in reliable sources like the press wire services, and do not print names which have not already been widely publicized. Edison (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Switched after reading UltraExactZZ rationale below. Neutral There is the letter of policy to consider, but I don't see any practical and pressing need to delete this. This incident seems like it has the potential to lead to some change in law too, though granted we shouldn't try to predict those things. In the end I have no strong feeling either way. Equazcion   (talk)  20:28, 5 Nov 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per C.Fred. Crafty (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Edison and Dragons Flight, who hits the high points pretty well. I add that NOTNEWS highlights that the subject of a news story is not necessarily notable, merely because he/she/it has been covered by an independent reliable source. But it also doesn't say that news events such as this are NOT notable simply because they are recent news events. Deletion is premature, here - there are sources, there is continuing interest in the story and information continues to become available. I'd wager that the article itself is vastly different now than when it was nominated, and will continue to change as we go. So long as the article is not a purely negative, unsourced article about living persons, BLP does not demand its deletion. We're expected to use judgement, and my judgement says that this horrible event will have some lasting notability. Others may disagree, which is why we debate such things here - but that's my take. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete I have covered many big-city incidents of gang-rape; none of them need an article on Wikipedia, and they don't - WP:NOT ... unless, some major Federal Act prohobiting something comes from it, it's really only locally notable. Sure, NBC nightly news might cover it as a "look at what people do at Richmond High, aren't you glad you don't live there", but what does that matter?  BLP violations galore.  Also check the WP:COI and WP:OR aspects. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see any violations of BLP, COI or OR in the current article version. Citing policies in vaguewaves isn't helpful. Also, the coverage is a little more than an aside on NBC Nightly News. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – just like with the Colorado balloon hoax, this goes past trivial news coverage, and it looks like there notability is also established. However, someone needs to keep tabs on this article, as this can be a BLP hotbed (*cough* Flagged Revisions *cough*). MuZemike 21:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - From Notability (criminal acts) - "Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope.". From: WP:NOT - "# News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:News articles".  The coverage for this event was not routine - it's been extensive, in depth, national in the US and global, and very persistent for many days after the incident.  There are introspective features and philosophical considerations as well as factual reporting.
 * The determination that an event was or was not historically notable is something that has to be made in the future. At this moment, it clearly exceeds the established notability threshold for current events.  Where it ends up in a month or six months is another question - but those are questions which must wait for the future.
 * Perhaps events of this nature happen much more often than they're widely reported - I unfortunately don't doubt that - but when they are reported this widely, that raises the particular incidents notability here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Raises questions about bystanders etc. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete In my opinion, this is a newsworthy event, but not an encyclopedic one.  Peacock (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - At least for now. We actually have a guideline Notability (criminal acts) which devotes some thought to the issue. Although Wikipedia is not a News bulletin, we can presume notability when there are multiple independent news reports, and this seems to be the case here. The only way to make sure about notability is to wait until the verdict and then count the sources again, or probably even longer (it takes a few years before books are written about criminal cases). Since we don't want to give our editors a hard time unnecessarily, I'd go in case of doubt always with inclusion. Even if this case was not notable now (which would require a closer look at the sources) it is very likely to become notable by the time the process takes place, and then Wikipedia would have to do without an article on the issue. Zara1709 (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wikinews and DELETE - Typical WP:NOTNEWS. SirFozzie (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't transwiki due to license incompatibility, see WP:Wikinews. Also, this is "stale" for Wikinews as more than three days has passed since the first reports. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —Cunard (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Edison and Georgewilliamherbert. The subject meets the general notability guideline, but I understand the WP:NOTNEWS argument. Nevertheless, this is not your everyday police blotter story, as evidenced by the national – in fact, international – media coverage. This is on par with the Central Park jogger rape case, in my opinion. Like that article, this subject absolutely meets the specific notability guideline for criminal acts. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikinews is thataway >  Guy (Help!) 23:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Gang rape of a teenager outside a school with none of the witnesses phoning the police or trying to intervene - indeed, some joining in - isn't run-of-the-mill. There have been vigils held in the local community, showing an impact beyond the immediate trauma to the girl. Those simply citing WP:NOTNEWS have to realise that it does not give carte blanche to delete all events reporting in the media; NOTNEWS is intended to avoid having articles on minor events, but this isn't minor and the reporting of this event is far from routine. It has been reported internationally, and the reporting has not diminished after a fortnight. Notability (criminal acts) is a guideline that applies to this kind of event and the coverage meets the criteria laid out there. There is no doubt that a gang rape occurred, so deletion on BLP grounds seems bizarre. BLP sensitivities have gone too far when Wikipedia treads on eggshells over having articles on crimes while thousands of news reports exist. WP:BLP is not whitewash. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per ChildofMidnight, Georgewilliamherbert and Fences and windows. Notability is established by the many reliable sources covering the event. There is nothing here that hasn't been said in many many other news sources. AfD is not for cleanup: If the article needs to be improved please do so. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete seems a clearcut NOTNEWS issue as demonstrated above. People trying to demonstrate facts from the case somehow make this a big event are missing the point. Those details aren't for us to decide; we go with what is reported and whether that meets the threshold we've set for news. This doesn't. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an ongoing criminal matter involving minors. Let's use our common sense here and not create an article about an alleged rape of a fifteen-year-old. In the strictest sense, does it meet Notability? Yes, it probably does. But let's, for a moment, think of something other than Wikipedia. There is absolutely no reason why this article should exist. It is merely a news story. Furthermore, we should keep the victims in mind here. We have nothing to gain from this article. We would do well to keep Hippocrates's adage in mind here and do no harm. faithless   (speak)  02:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused about what harm could come of it. The news story has been picked up worldwide, and we're not reporting any personal information on the victim, at least no more than any news source is; even her name seems to be absent from the article. Equazcion   (talk)  03:09, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't see how an in-depth discussion of the most traumatic experience of a fifteen-year-old girl's life posted on one of the most popular and widely-viewed websites in the world could be damaging? Aside from the potential psychological damage to the victim, this article is a BLP nightmare. Combine that with the fact that having this article in no way benefits Wikipedia, I think this is a pretty easy call. faithless   (speak)  18:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "having this article in no way benefits Wikipedia". Eh? The article gives reliably sourced information on a notable incident. Isn't that what Wikipedia does? Doesn't each additional sourced article on a notable topic add to the encyclopedia? Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. Every crime has a victim, and if they're notable we report on them, whether the victim is 15 or 80 or 7. It could be debated philisophically what the costs and benefits are to making public the details of violent crimes, but currently, Wikipedia arrives at the same conclusion that the media of the world does -- that bad things get reported. Equazcion   (talk)  01:44, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep obviously notable, more than just news like all other sensational items and MUCH more notable than much of what's kept around here (minor turbulence konking someone on the head but not killing them or pieces like blue ice falling out of planes, etc.) If it's a BLP problem, then there seems to be lots of eyes to be kept on it - if we tank articles because of possible BLP issues, we should rename this the Archaeopedia and deal with people dead before the 1500s or so, so that some distant descendant doesn't complain we've maligned his 20X-great-grand ma or pa. Get over it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Notnews doesn't apply since this has been a continuing event with international coverage. Notnews is for flash in the pan, not events that have wideranging impact and are resulting in serious discussions about school policies nationwide. There's no BLP concern since the material is all well-sourced. We may want to keep names out but that's a decision that doesn't require deletion of the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The event has received extensive news media coverage (thus, it passes GNG). There are unusual aspects to the event -- it's not a "run of the mill" criminal act, but rather is a criminal event that is likely to be remembered for a long time. --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOT. As Peacock said, it is newsworthy but not encyclopedic. Warrah (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Stong Keep. This was just on the Jim Lehrer News Hour, hardly a bastion of sensationalistic crime reporting.  Coverage is focusing on why bystanders didn't do anything to stop this, and whether there's a "stop snitching" culture in the neighborhood.  Way beyond a simple crime story.  We could delete this, maybe we could delete Kitty Genovese too. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong comment - There's not really any point in continuing this. There won't be a consensus. Equazcion   (talk)  05:33, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Creator of the article. It's a story with a huge amount of coverage on local sites, and has had the attention of CNN for quite a while, on the front page and whatnot. Cyanidethistles (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - the event only happened a few weeks ago has nothing more than temporal "notability" and will only achieve real notability if the most serious allegations turn out to be true. This is wikinews for now.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically you're proposing that Wikipedia should have a blackout on current events to see whether they become notable? I'd have to say that's not policy, and current events are much easier to write about when still current, as Google News will have many articles in its current index and they won't be hidden behind a paywall. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In cases where there is a strong likelihood of harm, and it is not clear whether something will be notable in the long term, then I would think that it is the sensible thing to do. Bear in mind that vandalism doesn't have to be there for long for google to pick up on it. If someone decides to put the girl's name into the article, even if quickly reverted, there is a chance of serious long term harm. Names of the accused have already been put into the article, and are still in the history for all to see, whether they end up being found guilty or not. Even if this article is deleted later, it will be picked up by wikipedia mirrors. I strongly think that the 'inconvenience' of not having an article on a subject that may indeed prove notable in the long term is outweighed by the potential risks in this particular instance. Quantpole (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible future vandalism/content additions is not valid grounds for deletion. Richmondian (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The arguments you've made sound more like arguments for semiprotection ( and revision hiding if unsourced speculation about the victim's name is added ). And I would not consider seeing our potential sources dwindle from thousands to a few regional papers in Google Archives, or having to spend a fortune on LEXIS/NEXIS fees to get a decent article, an "inconvenience". Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentThe article can be semiprotected, or fully protected, with any proposed changes done after there is consensus on the talk page. There are precedents for doing that. Any blabbermouth vandal/original research edits with names inappropriately inserted, whether the actual victim/perpetrators or not, can be removed from the history by the oversight process. The names of adult and juvenile suspects charged as adults have been published by the Associated Press, in Time magazine and by various newspapers. We cannot "unring a bell" and whether the names of those charged are printed in Wikipedia will not prevent others from finding them. Widespread coverage continues, with these Gogle News articles from the past 24 hours: . The New York Times, LA Times, AP, USA Today, and CBS had new coverage a couple of weeks after the incident. This shows it is far more than a news splash of a couple of days about a routine crime. Edison (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, that isn't what I'm proposing, I'm saying WP:N and this doesn't meet it.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A major event that will likely become historical in the future. Mr. jones999 (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I tend to agree with the feeling that this is a Kitty Genovese story for a generation that has never heard of Kitty Genovese (whose murder was more than 40 years ago). Years after her murder, Ms. Genovese's story was a talking point in schools about the morality of standing by and doing nothing, and I think it's likely that people will be reminded of this incident for many years to come.  Not everything that is the news or that is recent is going to be a violation of WP:NEWS or WP:RECENT.  I am concerned about WP:BLP.  Who's to say that there isn't a Wiki-idiot who goes to Richmond High or who lives nearby, and who wants to share his or her knowledge about the identity of the victim?  On the other hand, that could happen just as easily in the article about Richmond High, even if this article is deleted. Mandsford (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. We do not yet know what the lasting impact of this incident will be. Those who believe it will become a huge Kitty Genovese story can recreate the article later if that crystal ball prediction comes true. For now the article does not belong here, as FisherQueen's argument has convinced me. ~YellowFives 15:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletionists love to bring up "crystal ball" in afd's for current events. But go ahead and read WP:CRYSTAL.  That policy is about articles on future events, not talk page discussions and not current events.  In AFD there is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion about the utility of an article.  I'm also not impressed by FisherQueen's bizarre suggestion that we wait a year after the conclusion of the last trial to beign writing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying delete doesn't make me a "deletionist." The crystal ball policy speaks generally of expected future notability, and that is what I refer to. We do not know if this is going to be notable in the long run. At the moment it is just a news story and does not belong here. It may become historically notable, but we cannot rely on our speculation to say so. ~YellowFives 20:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's a judgment call that people have to make all the time in deciding which events should have articles and which shouldn't, since the alternative would be to have a one-month waiting period before an article could be created. I think that most people would agree that the Fort Hood shootings of yesterday are historically notable.  Although it is still speculation, it's a conclusion people would base upon past experience.  On the other end of the spectrum, I think most people would agree that | "NJ jurors convict Fla. man in 'fat defense' trial" would not be historically notable, but for all we know, it will be in bathroom readers for years to come.  Fortunately, articles where the consensus was split are usually revisited later.  Mandsford (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that this story has not demonstrated long term notability. Shooting sprees at military bases happen rarely. Thousands of rapes happen every single day. ~YellowFives 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the only facts are "2009" and "Richmond High". Every thing else is a matter of opinion.  I think that you, and others, have made some very good points, and people will decide with what they agree.  Mandsford (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why bother to reply only to say "people will decide with what they agree"? It goes without saying. ~YellowFives 01:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I just like to bother. Putting it another way (and breaking my rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition), "people will decide what they agree with".  "The fact remains that..." often means "My opinion remains that..." Mandsford (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is a fact that this story has not demonstrated long term notability, like it is a fact that it is not yet the year 2010. This is not in dispute. Everyone saying "it will have long term notability" or "it won't have long term notability" is speculating. I am not speculating. It might have long term notability, but we don't know yet. ~YellowFives 12:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL is for article content, not talk pages. We're not supposed to add speculation to our encyclopedia articles.  Our own judgement and speculation is just fine on talk pages.  You're allowed to use your brain. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And the very existence of this article is the article content in dispute here. The crystal ball policy speaks generally of expected future notability, and that is what I refer to. We do not know if this is going to have long term notability. We can undelete the article later if it turns out that it does. ~YellowFives 15:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, although I won't shed a tear if it is deleted. The split between NOTNEWS !votes and N/CA !votes is stark, but in reality people are talking across each other rather than engaging the issue. The NOTNEWS camp holds that this article, irrespective of verifiability, NPOV, and notability of the material, is not appropriate, and cannot be made appropriate. The N/CA folk are essentially saying that there is plenty of coverage from which an article can be written. In other words, one group asks "could we" while the other asks "should we". I come down moderately as saying "we should". There all ready is coverage that addresses the larger context of this event, see here for example, or listen to the audio coverage here (notice both of the opining professors are blue links). Since notability, in the sense of independant coverage in reliable sources cannot reasonably be challenged, I think that an article treating the event is appropriate. I will confess to reservations about BLP issues, which I encountered early on with this article, and eventually prompted me to list it on the BLP noticeboard, but I think that there are enough sets of eyes to keep things under control. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm leaning towards a merge to School violence, but there doesn't appear to be a way to add it there that would improve the article while giving this horrible incident its proper degree of attention. Can anyone think of an article that would work? -- llywrch (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as it easily passes our criteria for inclusion. BLP concerns are certainly an issue but deletion is not the answer. --John (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Richmond, California is a city of over 100,000 people. It is rated "mid-importance" in WikiProject Cities.  I'm convinced of "keep" not only by the national news coverage of the incident, but that the incident seems to be an important event in the history of this major U.S. city.  The fact that the article is notable enough to have been placed in WikiProject California is telling.  Regarding the other concerns with the article, it's certainly possible to write articles about crime that respect individuals' privacy and are NPOV.  --AFriedman (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I wouldn't read too much into the WikiProject California tag. The event occurred within a City in the San Francisco Bay Area, in the state of Califonia, which is why it got the California/SFBA tag. We(WP:CAL) have 21,046 articles in our scope at the moment, including several other events which may or may not warrant deletion. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was looking for an article that this one might be merged into, as Llywrch asked, but didn't find anything. But roughly a sixth of the articles in Category:Rape are mostly or largely about gang rape or some aspect of it: CATEGORY:War rape (six articles), Ashfield gang rapes, Sydney gang rapes, 2007 De Anza rape investigation, Anjana Mishra rape case, Sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (not now listed in the "War rape" category; appears to be largely gang rape, but maybe not), The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo, Chiong murder case, Land, Gold and Women, Denis Mukwege, Murder of Junko Furuta, Eudy Simelane, Shopian rape and murder case, May 2009, Dans l'enfer des tournantes, Super Free, Suryanelli sex scandal, Vilina Vlas, Megan Williams case, and Subic rape case. I was surprised that there were this many articles, and this article seems to fit in with the rest of them, although at this point I'm not sure whether it should be kept. Some of the articles (the last two listed) are about allegations of gang rape that were later dropped (to allegations of a single rape). I do agree that a gang-rape allegation in a high school with students and local people who have abundant Internet access is a nightmare for BLP concerns. And we can expect that a case like this may not be resolved for more than a year. That's a lot of policing. We need to think about the harm Wikipedia can do by having articles like this. The other articles, at least, aren't now current and most don't deal with kids, and many are in poor countries where fewer people will edit. The notability guideline should be stiffened beyond WP:GNG standards for these kinds of cases. JohnWBarber (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Search function for "gang rape" comes up with these other articles not in Category:Rape: Bulldogs gang rape allegation, Mount Rennie rape case, Sarathambal, Mukhtaran Bibi, Kunan Poshpora incident, Jamie Leigh Jones, Ida Carmelitta, Cheryl Araujo, The Accused (1988 film), I Spit on Your Grave, Nanking Massacre, Henrik Holappa, Bilal Skaf, Bilkis Bano, FannyAnn Eddy, FannyAnn Eddy, Margaret Cunneen, Charlie Walker Middle School, Rape and revenge films, Nazi Love Camp 27. This is a total of 44 articles entirely or largely about gang rape, or where gang rape has a lot to do with the notability of the subject. Quite a few are fiction and there are a few video games. Several manga comics and soap operas that have gang rape in a significant episode or plot section aren't included. Gang rape (now a redirect) certainly seems like a subject worth a Wikipedia article (there are many serious subjects Wikipedia doesn't have articles on, still). If it existed, it might be the right article to merge this one into. Would the article on this incident give readers some insight into the subject of gang rape as an encyclopedia article should be expected to? JohnWBarber (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Definitely violates WP:NOTNEWS. --Manway (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Those arguing that this violates WP:NOTNEWS need to re-read the policy is question. The policy does not forbid articles for notable current events, it just emphasizes that not everything that gets reported automatically warrants an article. As such, we have to consider this not in the context of WP:NOT but WP:N and specifically Notability (criminal acts) which clearly says that a criminal act is notable if it "receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope". The N/CA guideline specifically was created as a result of the arguments that this debate reflects, i.e. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E vs. coverage satisfying WP:GNG. But if the guideline reflects consensus on how to deal with exactly this kind of article, then this means it's also the most (or even only) relevant guideline to apply here. N/CA requires "multiple, independent sources" that discuss the subject in question (stricter than WP:N) but we have them. We even have an event here that, tragic as it is, has sparked massive discussions on different subjects, like people not helping a crime victim and peer pressure leading to horrible crimes. It meets thus the relevant guideline for inclusion and WP:BLP problems can be addressed by editing. Regards  So Why  10:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to note that some editors have stated an intention to keep adding the names of those involved, even though several keep votes here have been predicated on the names staying out. If the article is not deleted, people who have participated in this discussion are the first who should stay involved with the article to address BLP issues. ~YellowFives 12:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP doesn't specifically prohibit republishing the names of people accused of a crime. I am also leery of including such information in articles, but some editors are waving BLP around as though it prohibits something it really doesn't. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP is there to give living people a higher degree of protection, this article was an awful mess to begin with and names of anyone and anyone were included, someone was named who was arrested and released without charge, this is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid magazine, we can happily afford to give a little time to see who is actually charged and write a decent article when details stabilize, this is the kind of BLP problem that arises when we write a story that is actually day by day news and day by day changing. Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The question of whether to include those names or not is not relevant to the question whether the article should be kept. I would suggest you take that discussion to the talk page of the article or the BLP noticeboard instead. Regards  So Why  15:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment regarding the names is in relation to support for delete, and as such belongs here. This adding and removing of names is reflective of the problems and affect on living people that arise when you create an article that is a news report. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's irrelevant for this decision. Whether the article should include the names or not is only relevant to the article's content, not to the article's existence. The names are not essential for the article's existence and as such the discussion about their inclusion should be held at the appropriate places instead. If you want to successfully argue in favor of deletion then you have to make your argument about the article itself, not parts of it that can be removed without problems (if needed). Else the correct solution per WP:ATD is to edit the article (if needed) to comply with policy rather than to delete it. Regards  So Why  16:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is were we will have to disagree then, the names have been in and out already more than once, this is due to the simple fact that it is a current hot developing news topic, and as this is an encyclopaedia and not a chip wrapper, articles that are like this as I have seen here at wiki are very emotive, usually a huge worthless mess, and after all that hurrah has died down..they finally get totally rewritten to a decent standard. I just don't think there is a encyclopaedic benefit to all that news drama style, hot off the press, adding of every new googled citation reporting. Two such recent drama fests...the beer summit, the arrest of the professor (whatshisname) for breaking into his own house and the polanski arrest. Off2riorob (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All that you have described are reasons for editorial control (possibly semi-protection) but not for deletion of the article. Neither the inclusion of those names nor constant changes in content is a reason for deletion if the article itself is encyclopedic. Regards  So Why  16:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have said, imo, the article at this time has no chance of being encyclopaedic, with or without control whilst it is a hot off the press, daily changing news report. Added to my thought regarding this is also that whilst one set of editors fights to add this or that newly googled citation and the other side struggles to add their position and the talk page is littered with BLP violations, this is the time of high traffic, this is what the public get to see. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * SoWhy is correct, BLP is not a valid reason to delete this article.   First,  because there are no BLP violations in the article and second, because article can simply be edited should any BLP violations arise.   The idea of "delete now, recreate after the trial" is bizarre and is not described in any wiki policy I've seen.  Richmondian (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not bizarre at all, you have your opinion as to interpretation of policy guidelines and I have mine. No one is claiming BLP protection is a valid reason for deletion. My feelings as I have clearly commented is that the article is a news story, and as such is not encyclopeadic and has no chance of being such whilst the daily changes and retractions added by rampant googling of news sources, these alterations and hot off the press tabloidese citations do naturally create BLP issues. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think we have enough coverage of this event to justify an article. I see AFD's start for many of these kinds of events. while its awkward in the first few days or hours after an event to determine if its notable, and i fully understand the desire to stop articles from growing that are on nonnotable news events, i think its clear this was potentially notable from the beginning, considering all the different subjects touched on by the events. Ooff2riorob, are you suggesting that this story has NO chance of being encyclopedic? if so, you are showing an untoward bias. even if consensus is that at this time its not notable, it could easily become notable at any time between now and the conclusion of any trial, or even afterward. and you seem to be saying that "the article is a news story, and as such is not encyclopedic". that sentence doesnt make any sense, unless you mean the article itself is written exactly like a news story. the quote seems to imply that no news story is ever encyclopedic, which you cant possibly mean. could you clarify?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have commented enough but just for you and then I will remove this from my watchlist, . to me, an article needs a degree of stability to be encyclopaedic, that is one of the conditions of a wp good article, stability, this article will one day be ok, I am not disputing the general notability of the story but it is at present a news report and changing daily creating instability and BLP issues as the story changes. Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete – In my personal judgment the story does not rise to encyclopedic notability until there is a jury verdict.  In a case like this, I feel that a jury verdict is the only evidence I have to establish truth, and I cannot have verifiablity until I have truth.  I hope this makes sense.  Since jury verdicts are always a matter of public record (though details of a trial may be redacted), I can be patient enough with an encyclopedia to wait for the appropriate (or even inappropriate) verdict(s) to come back, and at that time cite them in an article which may exist then.  Until then, I feel strongly that the article should be deleted.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and per WP:NOTNEWS. FWIW, I've already been called upon to deal with edits which needed oversight on that article. I also have concerns that such an article 1) is a BLP nightmare, at least prior to verdict and 2) it could easily be used in evidence that the jury was prejudiced and that due to the coverage, etc, that the defendants could not receive a fair trial, etc. Not the first time this kind of thing has happened - A l is o n  ❤ 09:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out, the BLP "nightmare" concerns are very weak since all names of those charged are published in several other places.   Pre-emptively deleting articles because of possible, future, policy violations is just not something wikipedia does, AFAIK.
 * The "no fair trial" claim is just plain weird.  If I'm on a jury and Joe Lee is before me,  and I go home and read on wikipedia that Joe Lee has been charged with a crime,  well,  that's hardly biasing since he's sitting right there in front of me in court and a prosecutor has given me many more details than are in our reliable sources.  There's also ample precedent for articles like this,  e.g. the Fort Hood shooting,  which includes name of suspect.  Richmondian (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, Richmondian. The BLP nightmare that Alison had to oversight was the name of the girl who was raped. This article is going to continually become a violation of her privacy, and we are required to do whatever it takes to protect her privacy, up to and including deletion of an article that will constantly be a violation. The BLP issues here are very different from Fort Hood, and this is yet another reason why the article must be deleted. ~YellowFives 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "we are required to do whatever it takes to protect her privacy"? Really? What policy does it say that in? BLP is about being careful to not post anything false about living individuals. It has nothing to do with privacy. We post victims' names all the time. We post things that people might not want stated publicly all the time. If it's true and verifiable, it doesn't violate BLP. A crime occurred here and the name of the victim is not in dispute, only whether or not the alleged perpetrators actually did it. I don't know why the name of the victim has been left out of this particular article; I see no grounds to do that, let alone delete the article for fear that people would continue to include it. Equazcion   (talk)  19:55, 8 Nov 2009 (UTC)
 * The name of the victim has not been published in the press. In any case the "BLP nightmare" has not materialized.   It isn't keeping me up at night anyway, if something that violates BLP goes in,  we simply delete it.  Richmondian (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not bothering you because you're not one of the admins who has to watch and perform the oversight, and it wouldn't bother you anyway, as you're happy to add citations blaming the victim for her own rape. ~YellowFives 23:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fives, if you're referring to the quote I think you are, you're probably the only one who came away with that impression. I thought it was implying what an awful place this must be if students are actually blaming the victim. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Equazcion, I'm looking at BLP right now and it very clearly does require us to take care for the victim's privacy. Emphasis mine: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment. ... This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."
 * So yes, our primary concern is the victim's privacy. Something can be both true and verifiable and still violate BLP, especially so when "they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy." Read the policy instead of assuming what it says, please. Your suggestion that we should include the victim's name is both disgusting and outrageous, and the fact that any editors believe as you do is yet another reason why the article must be deleted. ~YellowFives 23:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Consistent with professional standards of journalism, responsible media sources generally do not publish the names of victims of sexual assaults (except when they voluntarily come forward, or in unusual circumstances), and, per WP:BLP, neither should we. In no case should we ever publish the name of the victim of a sexual assault when not released by a respected journalist, but merely obtained from a primary source such as court documents. The solution to users' insistence on editing in violation of WP:BLP, however, is to warn and block them, and to protect the article if necessary. Deletion of the article is neither necessary nor sufficient in this instance to prevent the on-wiki disclosure of the victim's name, since it could always be added to Richmond, California, or another non-deletable article. More generally, permitting users to destroy notable articles through editing them in violation of WP:BLP or other core policies sets a rather bad precedent. Andrea105 (talk) 23:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would just like to note as a followup to my earlier comment that the event has continued to receive very substantial coverage across the nation. There will also be a trial related to the events. This was a disturbing event and it's not a pleasant subject, but it's clearly notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A trial is pretty standard; it is a criminal case after all. Neither a trial nor current coverage demonstrates long term notability though. ~YellowFives 18:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a tragic and ugly incident with almost no factual content. The article reads like a newspaper report and is full of supposition: alleged, believed, reportedly proliferate without much, if any, attribution as to whom, exactly, is doing the alleging, believing and reporting. (The remark about people at the school who "believe" the minor victim is herself responsible for the events certainly ought to be stricken on the grounds that there will be neanderthals everywhere who will hold idiotic opinions; their ignornace should not be immortalised in an encyclopedia.) Everyone involved appears to be a minor; that alone could be grounds for awaiting verifiable facts despite media feeding frenzies over anything prurient. "Notable", even if true beyond the needs of a voracious 24-hour-news station hunger, is not sufficient when minors are the BLP-related subjects. As an aside, Richmondian, who suggests in his/her defense of the article above that he/she has insider information through confessions of a prosecutor, appears also to have a conflict. He/she began his/her Wikipedia career on November 4 with this article and has been entirely single-minded about it since then, displaying all the attributes of a WP:SPA with a mission. Bielle  (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points, Bielle. The lack of information is well worth considering as a reason to delete. We need enough verifiable information from reliable sources to even write an article. What we have is a stub that will remain a stub and a bunch of opinion pieces. ~YellowFives 18:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bielle's arguments don't hold water. There's plenty of factual content as well as opinion that was published in the newspapers.  And any qualifiers such as "alleged", "believed" and so forth are coming from the press or the agencies involved because in the real world, news outlets have to be careful with biographies too.  Any lack of attribution of who is doing the alleging and believing can be fixed with more precise citations.  And if the media reported that a certain proportion of the high school holds unfortunate opinions about the matter, then we may cover that.  I don't know what Bielle is referring to when suggesting that Richmondian has inside information, but he/she would do well to read the no personal attacks policy before calling someone an SPA.  There's nothing wrong with someone beginning as a Wikipedia editor when something major hits close to home, and there's nothing wrong with someone with personal knowledge being an editor so long as they only contribute material that has been previously published.  Wikipedia editing isn't a double-blind process. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "inside information" suggestion came from a statement made above by Richmondian: "and a prosecutor has given me many more details than are in our reliable sources." I did not say he was using such information, merely that he appeared to have unusual access which might mean a conflict of interest. There is no personal attack in noting that Richmondian is "displaying all the attributes of a WP:SPA with a mission". It is just a fact. This is a tragic event turned into a circus; an encyclopedia should not be one of the acts. Bielle (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that came across wrong, that was a hypothetical situation,  I'm trying to determine how putting defendants name in an article would taint a jury, which was an earlier persons claim.  I do not know any prosecutor or law enforcement officer working on the case,  or know the victim or any of the accused or their families or even anyone associated with Richmond High.
 * If I were on a jury where hypothetical defendant Joe was before me, and I went home and googled Joe's name and found this article,  I don't see how it would bias me,  because,  being on that hypothetical jury,  I would already know Joe's name, and would have had far more information presented to me by the hypothetical prosecutor than is in the article.  Richmondian (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Richmondian, but I have to disagree with you on a point of fact. If, as a jury member in a trial you went home and googled the hypothetical "Joe", you'd probably end up with something like the case being thrown out.  Let me give you an example:
 * "Sixth, do not do any research or make any investigation on your own about any matter involved in this case. By way of examples, that means you must not read from a dictionary or a text book or an encyclopedia or talk with a person you consider knowledgeable or go to the Internet for information about some issue in this case. In fairness, learn about this case from the evidence you receive here at the trial and apply it to the law as I give it to you."
 * This example of what I mean comes from Manual Of Model Criminal Jury Instructions, § 1.08, a court district in your own state. (Note, I was easily able to find the quote using a little reference called WP.)  I don't mean to "lawyer" on you, because I am not one.  But my lay understanding of the law is that the above quote is highly typical of instructions given to juries in criminal cases.  Going home and googling "Joe", I believe, would get me in a lot of trouble with a judge were I a juror.
 * To get back to the topic of the AfD, there are many things about an "accusation" that don't rise to a "conviction", that I find personally disturbing within the scope of an "encyclopedia article" as opposed to a "news article". A misunderstanding, such as yours, as to how the information may or may not be used is fundamental to my own "delete" vote in this AfD.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * in a nutshell, you're saying that in this case having the defendant's names in an article wouldn't taint a jury, which was my claim.  i guess we agree on that so....huh?  Richmondian (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- major news with extensive coverage of national scope -- clearly not the sort of "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" that fails WP:NOT. Statements that certain (unnamed) individuals have been arrested for the crime do not violate WP:BLP -- such excessive concern for the interests of the alleged rapists is highly misguided. If oversightable edits, such as the name of the victim, become a problem, the article can be protected; deletion is neither necessary nor sufficient for preventing such edits, since they could always be made to an article that won't be deleted, such as Richmond, California. Editing of the article by a disruptive SPA, if established, can and should be remedied by blocking. Andrea105 (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate it, but I think we should keep it for the time being. HOWEVER!, Everyone who voted keep, should add this to their watchlist and be extra vigilant on the blp question, and Richmondian should be very very careful about it, lest editing restrictions end up being applied. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Andrea and Georgewilliam herbert.-- SKATER  Speak. 18:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per WP:NOT, WP:BLP, and a little common decency. Any salacious stories like this will have a spurt of news coverage initially. Sorry to say, despite some's remarks above, this is not that unusual. The only thing unusual about it is that the speed of information available (right or wrong) thanks to the internet and cell phones. Its extremely common for mob mentality to take over, even in raping some poor girl. Its a well documented phenomenon. At best, a very brief, nameless mention in the appropriate article about that phenomenon might be appropriate, but otherwise, leave it for Wikinews. While this AfD is on-going, I hope admins will continue to be vigilant in oversighting the downright despicable attempts to post the victim's name.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per WP:NOT, WP:BLP, two weeks later and nobody is talking about this. As for this being an such an unusually violent or otherwise unique event, you're just fooling yourselves. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the NY times online yesterday  Richmondian (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

— Richmondian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. We aren't a news blotter, but precedent has been set, and there's plenty of precedent for this type of article. Gamaliel (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's pretty clear that the event raises many issues in a variety of subject areas, and is of lasting (so far) notability. The arguments against seem to be rote recitals of NOT#NEWS and some other things, without looking at the specific issues here.  With many thousands of major news articles this clearly passes the general notability guidelines so the only question is whether it's an ephemeral news event.  Even the quickest perusal of the sources shows that it is not.  It is not yet another rape, but one that has raised a lot of issues about school security, bystanders, good samaritan issues, and so on, that reach back before the event and after as well.  An encyclopedic treatment of school rape incidents, or gang rape, in America, naturally includes this as one of the various cases.  To be silent on this one would be an omission and would lead the reader to an incomplete understanding.  - Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - A very notable current event which continues to receive media coverage. We can renominate for deletion in a few months if it fades from notability by then. Edrigu (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article is about an important current event that already seems as if it might be catalyst for social change. It involves issues of violence against women, sexualization of children, desensitization to violence, religion, and racial issues. In a vacuum this would not be grounds for an article, but the amount of publicity it has generated and the way it has started to mobilize the Richmond community is truly noteworthy. Maybe in a year if it proves not to have staying power it should be deleted, but to be safe it should be left up as a resource to anyone who wants to learn the general facts of the case.Ericsean (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * " . . . a catalyst for social change"? If it does become that in the future, then that is the time to have an article about it, in context, and not now. Bielle (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree more. It is of social consequence NOW. If it turns out to be of no social consequence, then delete it. However as Gamaliel said, there is plenty of precedent of articles like this. I do not see people trying to delete the others. Why this one. BTW, I have a full argument on the main talk page if you want to respond to that too. Ericsean (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. As other have said, this is newsworthy but not encyclopedic. Sadly, I do not see the lasting significance or anything that lift this above other violent crimes. Kevin (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Child.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable based on press coverage. Everyking (talk) 08:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and take out and shoot the male editors who just dismiss this as a "news event". Rebecca (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oh yes, that's a very constructive comment... – ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I also don't support Rebecca's comment, she clearly has a COI. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll explain my reasoning, Rebecca. It is unacceptable when rapes are ignored and not taken seriously. But I do not see how a Wikipedia article which is at times full of undue weight to red herrings, and which has been used to leak the victim's name, is more informative to the public than those news articles written by professional journalists. My primary concern is that having an encyclopedia article that anyone can edit will make the victim's life worse rather than better—I'm shocked by those who claim our BLP policy does not mean we should consider her privacy and quality of life, when it so plainly does—and if this cost to her comes at little or no gain to the reader who can just as easily read the news, then the balance of interests is in favor of deletion. ~YellowFives 16:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lemme explain about the red herring of the victim's name being "leaked". SOME name was inserted, uncited, into the article.   I do not know if it was the victim's name.   Multiple people jumped on it and the name was removed almost within a minute, and wiped from the records:
 * 23:33, 7 November 2009 Diegusjaimes (talk | contribs) (13,869 bytes) (Reverted to revision 324545519 by Dragons flight. (TW))
 * 23:32, 7 November 2009 Regisfugit (talk | contribs)
 * Richmondian (talk)
 * Yellowfives, While I agree with much of what you said about the victim, deleting an article because 'anyone can edit it' is, in my opinion, against the spirit of Wikipedia. If someone is post problematic information, then it should be reported to a administrator who can lock or partially lock the article after the information is removed. To take your logic to the extreme would render completely undermine the purpose of this wiki. For instance, if the article were collapsed into the entry for Richmond High School, anyone could put the victim's name on that page. Thus, that page would have to be removed as well. I've been wondering why people are so dead set against this article being on Wikipedia. I have gotten some reasonable answers, but with all due respect your rational is not one of them. Sincerely, Ericsean (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, and Ericsean says it better than I could. I share Y-5's concern that information about the victim might be posted on the article, but that could happen in any article where this is described.  This article definitely needs to be write-protected, if it isn't already, so that only established users can work on it.   Mandsford (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The spirit of Wikipedia is not to have an article on every damn incident that we possibly can. It is to build an encyclopedia. I ask again, what is gained by having this article that is not available to a reader of Google News? Nothing. Now, the same may be said for many other articles on Wikipedia, but most of those articles don't also have this inherent BLP issue, so the presumptive default for those other articles may be to keep them. What is the merit to an encyclopedia of immortalizing this girl's victimization? Yes, her name may be leaked again on another article, but this article still has no affirmative reason for existing and acts like a big blinking neon sign that says "LEAK HER NAME HERE" in a way that other articles don't. ~YellowFives 18:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One minute YellowFives.  The name was there for one minute before being removed.  Have a little faith in wikipedia's immune system?   Richmondian (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 43 minutes, you mean. From 23:20, 7 November 2009 until oversight at 00:03, 8 November 2009. ~YellowFives 21:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the only edits with the victim's name were the 23:30 and 23:32 edits and that was gone from the live article by 23:33. Oversight removed it from the history about 30 minutes later but there were only about two minutes when the name could have been seen by a casual visitor.  The earlier edits that were also oversighted involved names of the accused.  Arguably that was unnecessary since the accused names have been in the papers, but Alison chose to remove both.  Dragons flight (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 33 minutes. Thank you for the correction. ~YellowFives 01:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yellowfives, First, I do not like the tone you are striking. I see you are obviously angry and emotionally invested in the story and or subject. Trust me, many of the rest of us are. Many of us know women and/or men who have been victims of rape. Many of us know people's lives that have been destroyed. However, Wikipedia is not a center for a activism, be it by creating or deleting pages. So, do not take the tone you are taking with me or anyone else who believes that this already is a noteworthy story.
 * I have yet to see anyone tell me where an inherent BLP violation is in this article. No names are mentioned at this point. At times they have been, but were promptly removed. This includes the name of person who called 911, who gave a video interview to CNN and has stated that she wanted to go public. If you want to see BLP violations, I suggest you look at the edit log for the Mark Levin page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin). Some of the information on there was considered by many to be very unfair and even harmful to Mr. Levin. However, after weeks of editing and discussion, consensus was reached and BLP issues were confronted. I am not advocating leaving information about names up there for that long, but they were taken care of very quickly.
 * I would also like you to address the comment I made below about how this situation is leading to an unprecedented expansion of mandatory reporting laws. Simply because the law will be proposed, makes this wikipedia worthy. Ericsean (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yellowfives, though were are all armatures at this, we should behave professionally. Please assume we are operating in good faith, as we will do for you.
 * Ericsean, first, I do not like the condescending tone you are striking. I see you are obviously invested in poisoning the well by implying some sort of irrationality on my part. I ask that you cease commenting about me and start talking about the content. I am interested in our approach to the WP:BLP policy here, which I quote: "Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. ... This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." I ask yet again, what is gained by having this article that is not available to a reader of Google News? Nothing. No one has answered this. We can leave this to professional journalists instead of immortalizing her victimization here in an encyclopedia article that will be freely editable for all time.
 * This situation is not leading to an unprecedented expansion of mandatory reporting laws. It is a proposed bill, and we do not know what will come of it. There are tens of thousands of proposed bills every year. They are not inherently notable. ~YellowFives 21:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fives, I would respectfully suggest that you are not paying attention to what other people have said. People have answered your question, but it is not the answer you want, so you are not listening. Several people have already said that just because something is on Google News does not mean that it cannot be on here as well. THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
 * As to your comment that the article is not allowed because it further prolongs the victimization, your standard would prevent almost all crimes from not being reported. I refer you to the page for Mumia abu Jamal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu_Jamal) and Daniel Faulkner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Faulkner). Faulkner's widow is on record as saying that every time Abu Jamal files and appeal it reopens the wounds of her late husband's murder, especially when unsubstantiated claims are made against him. By your overly conservative standard, at least the latter page should be deleted to prevent further victimization to the late officer's wife. Ericsean (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "I would respectfully suggest that you are not paying attention to what other people have said. People have answered your question, but it is not the answer you want, so you are not listening. Several people have already said that just because something is on Google News does not mean that it cannot be on here as well."
 * This is untrue. No one has answered the question. If you believe they have, then I'm sure you can provide diffs of the answer. I did not say that simply because something is in the news that it shouldn't be here. I did not say they were mutually exclusive. What I said was: "I ask again, what is gained by having this article that is not available to a reader of Google News? Nothing. Now, the same may be said for many other articles on Wikipedia, but most of those articles don't also have this inherent BLP issue, so the presumptive default for those other articles may be to keep them. What is the merit to an encyclopedia of immortalizing this girl's victimization?" When there is no additional merit to having an encyclopedia article in addition to the news, and there is the issue of prolonging the victimization, then it's a reasonable case that we should not have the article. My words about this are limited to this article. We draw different conclusions about different articles, and that's okay. It doesn't necessarily imply anything about Daniel Faulkner. Actually I don't see anything exceptionally meritable about that article either, but we take these issues one at a time and what matters here may not matter there. Here we are talking about the victimization of an underage girl. ~YellowFives 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yellow, it is my belief that this is already a significant event for the reasons that I have stated below. So in my opinion if one of the most used websites in the world has an article giving the bare facts of the case, it is appropriate. Having all of the information together is, in my opinion, encyclopedic. In terms of victimization, how is simply reporting the facts prolonging the victimization from your perspective. Ericsean (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is plainly not an answer to my questions, what is gained by having this article that is not available to a reader of Google News? What is the merit to an encyclopedia of immortalizing this girl's victimization? Using this girl's rape as a political football, as a "catalyst for social change" or to advance discussion of Yee's bill, is taking advantage of her. If Yee's bill becomes separately notable in its own right, then by all means make an article for it, but don't use this article as a coatrack or a soapbox or a catalyst for social change. It's just a rape, no less and no more. It isn't social commentary on religion and race relations. Let's not make it into everything we want it to be. ~YellowFives 01:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment California State Senator Leland Yee said November 8 he is proposing a change to state law in the wake of this crime to require reporting of such a crime against a minor. Present law requires reporting if the victim is 13 or under. He will introduce the bill in the next state legislative session in January. This is an indicator of a crime having a larger effect than one splash of news coverage. Edison (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Edison, this is an excellent point. In effect, his bill would expand who was a mandatory reporter to an unprecedented level. I think that is notable in and of itself. Ericsean (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment As per Edison's comment above, I feel that any discussion of whether this crime has long lasting effects is now mute. The proposed bill by Sen. Yee would in affect make every person a mandatory reporter of a rape of a minor. This is an unprecedented expansion of laws that originally applied to only professionals such as teachers, social workers, and doctors. Whether or not the law passes, this crosses a new line in how society is expected to react to sexual abuse of a minor. In addition, there are very few crimes that someone MUST report if they are a witness. This expansion of mandatory reporting is definitely a sign of social developments coming from this story. Ericsean (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Proposed bill." Nothing more to say about that. It's not as though nothing like this has ever been proposed before. Bills are proposed all the time. They aren't inherently notable. ~YellowFives 21:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yellow, the ERA did not pass but the fact that it was proposed is still worth mentioning. If a law this far reaching has been proposed, tell me. Where and when? What was the bill number? I can't find any. Ericsean (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * False analogies do not help your argument, Ericsean. If Senator Yee's current interest turns into a proposed amendment to the  US consitution with the same weight of social and historical significance as had the proposed  Equal Rights Amendment, I give you my solemn pledge I will not only vote "Keep", but I will help write the article. Currently, it's no more than a politician talking to the media. Bielle  (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bielle, I suppose it is a streatch of an annology, though definately not a straw man, but you ignore the other part of my request. Show me where something this drastic has been proposed. Just in the fact that it is so far reaching makes it noteworthy. Ericsean (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I wasn't clear. I had no intention of ignoring any part of your comparison. The very definition, in my view, of "not noteworthy" is "no more than a politician talking to the media". Bielle (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bielle, here's what he said: you ignore the other part of my request. Show me where something this drastic has been proposed.
 * To which you said I had no intention of ignoring any part of your comparison.
 * But then you ignore it again, where are these many laws are proposed in response to non-notable criminal acts?  Richmondian (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies again. That part was purely rhetorical, I thought. What else was anyone to make of "Show me where something this drastic has been proposed?" Every law that has ever passed has been first "proposed" and I am sure those of you living in the U.S. can name a law or two that has had drastic consequences. (The initial claim was that "Bills are proposed all the time", which I thought was also rhetorical.) Now Richmondian appears to have changed the question and specified laws proposed in respect of non-notable criminal acts. I don't have a clue. If a proposal becomes law, then, by definition I would think the related criminal act becomes notable and extends beyond the tragedy of the event itself. I think that is what I have been supporting: if Yee's proposal were to go beyond being "a politician talking to the media" and to emerge in the appropriate legislature as a draft bill, it may then be notable in an encyclopedic sense. Bielle (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Request Can some levelheaded administrator end this discussion?  Consensus is looking very unlikely and it is just an energy sap now.  Richmondian (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there any reason why that can't wait until the full seven days are up? This article was first brought to AfD on Nov. 5 and it's only Nov. 10... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody is forcing you to participate, Richmondian. ~YellowFives 01:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Yellow, no one is forcing Richmondian to participate, but he has been participating in good faith--just like you have been. So please don't try to knock his participation. Though you do not mean it to be so, some could interpret it as bullying him. Ericsean (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Luckily, only a day and a half left. The last 30 comments (including this one) have simply been one person responding to another.  I think I saw some keeps and deletes yesterday, but today's been all icing, no cake.  Mandsford (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * D'accord, Mandsford!: buttercream, with roses, :-) Bielle (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The significant and lasting reliable source coverage, thus far, makes it appear as though this article survives wp:notnews.  We can review this in the future should hindsight become clearer.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clear Delete as WP:NOT. Send it to Wikinews and if anything notable emerges from this (a la Kitty Genovese), an article can be written then. By way of substantiating my position, and as a suggestion to the closer to at least consider the issue more generally, a quick note about the disagreement between the two camps: it seems to me this is a classic example of the systematic, US-slanted bias in en.wiki. This regional issue is trumpeted as Most Important Event Ever by (willing to bet almost exclusively) US editors watching US news caught up in classic intense-then-forgotten US media cycle. They are being sucked into the magnifying effect of the style of US news coverage (not to single out the US b/c other countries are just as bad, but I note that we don't get these kind of knee-jerk, NotNews-violating "articles" about big events in Bulgaria, which I would also vote to delete.) This article from Der Spiegel provides something of the perspective we should maintain with respect to the events that get caught up in the news cycle. Eusebeus (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting opinion Eusebeus. I'm glad to hear you are in favor of removing similar pages. Shall I give you a list of pages and sections of which you should get rid?Ericsean (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eusebus, I'm sorry for the sarcasm. I am afraid I let my frustration with the this discussion get the better of me. Ericsean (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I just counted over 900 articles from major media organizations about this event. The sheer weight of such massive media coverage is obviously enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The biggest outlets in the US have given it ongoing coveage (eg NY Times, CBS Evening News etc). That shows its not just a local issue. Even SKY News in Britain covers it. People are kidding themselves if they think this is a non-notable school prank that just happened to make the news that night 'cause there was nothing else happening.-- Lester  08:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That small piece on sky which is actually an American news service that was not followed up or reported widely or even at all in the uk does not show global notability, this is actually a local issue. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Global coverage. Actually, Sky News is in the UK: "11:43am UK, Friday October 30, 2009". Also reported in The Guardian, Daily Telegraph,, Edinburgh Evening News, The Voice, Daily Mail,. Also in other countries, e.g. France Soir, Metro Canada several times, Brisbane Times, WA Today twice, BBC Brasil, Terra several times, Il Messagero, Nettavisen, Visão, Sol, Blick, Wirtualna Polska, China Daily, Cooperativa. There's more too. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Off2riorob, you will be updating the article on British Sky Broadcasting Group plc, I take it? It's a fascinating assertion that BSkyB is American.  I've been mislead for a lot of years.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lester and Richmondian. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for deletion. It is a factual account of an event in the news with probable long-term implications.  AngelSG (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC) — AngelSG (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.