Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Richmond High School gang rape (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball   Watcher  01:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

2009 Richmond High School gang rape
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was previously nominated for deletion, shortly after it was created, and was narrowly kept by a no-consensus vote. I think its time to revisit this issue. The article seems like a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. While there was some national coverage of the incident, there has been almost no lasting impact of the event, everything about the event seems to date from the standard news cycle which covered it. Seems like a minor event, ultimately. Tragic, to be sure, but not up to Wikipedia standards regarding notability of criminal events. Jayron  32  03:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Agree with nom. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. --Reference Desker (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Despite the substantial coverage, I'm leaning on WP:PERSISTENCE as I don't see any lasting coverage of the event other than initial media buzz. That said, this is definitely a grey area in terms of policy and if more recent coverage were to pop up I'd be inclined to change my position.  elektrik SHOOS  16:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Richmond High School (Richmond, California), where a good synopsis of the event is currently. Tavix | Talk  20:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Richmond High School (Richmond, California). Keep - Searching Google brings up 2,870 hits, many of which are in depth/significant, therefore one can argue that the subject already passes WP:GNG. However, if one believes that this well referenced page can be condensed, keeping all referenced material, and merged to the aforementioned article, then so be it; if the content grows beyond a reasonable size there it can always be spun out. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll notice most of the links are either to a) news aggrigators (i.e. websites that take news reports from one site and pass them on unedited) so do not represent seperate information b) wikipedia mirrors c) news reporting from the time of the event (i.e. part of the standard news cycle). The arguement presented by me to delete wasn't that the news coverage did not exist, it was that it did not represent an event of lasting significance.  From Notability (events), "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article."  Rather than counting raw google hits, if you could present sources which provide further analysis that would actually go a long way towards convincing people (principly me) that the article deserves to stay.  Given that I did the google search you did, and many others as well, using google news and google scholar and many other permutations, and found myself in my research before nominating this article, no analysis of the event, and just run-of-the-mill reporting, that is why I nominated it for deletion.  -- Jayron  32  00:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete on the basis of NOTNEWS. Sensational events in the news like this one will always produce a multitude of articles in so-called "reliable sources" unquote /s. What the idea of NOTNEWS is meant to express is that we should not rush to create an encyclopedia article about each fresh sensational blip on the horizon of popular culture, but rather that we should instead cover only those matters with enduring historical or cultural significance. A gang rape (!!!) at a school (!!!) while a scheduled event was going on (!!!) sure sells newspapers. This does not rise to the level of an encyclopedia-worthy event, however, unless somehow down the road society or law is somehow morphed by the event. This is a pure, clear, obvious example of where we need to say, "I don't care if there are stories in 30 newspapers from around the country, this is not an encyclopedia-worthy event." Carrite (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. There is significant coverage and analysis in which the event is treated as more than a simple crime. It's just too soon to say whether the event will have any lasting impact - according to the article the trial hasn't even taken place yet. Dlabtot (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * keep for now. I agree with Dlabtot.  There is still the posibility of long term impact from this.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep.  Meets all standards for keeping an article.   Huge coverage of the event in notable publications.   Hundreds of thousands of google hits.  Richmondian (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PS notnews is about "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities".  this was by no means routine news....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmondian (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - That wikipedia is not news is a lie in itself in my opinion as Wikipedia is based on news. Anyhow this article should stay on it has reached national and international headline when occuring and has good standard sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The event meets various subsections of WP:EVENT, including WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE. Despite being a relatively recent event, it had already made mention in at least one criminal justice book. Run-of-the-mill crimes do not get this sort of coverage. Location (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * keep per Dlabtot. --John (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.