Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Constand


 * 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. Article's been moved so not much to do other than close (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 01:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Andrea Constand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete per WP:BIO1E. We cannot create an encyclopedic article about a person only known for a single event (the 2004 alleged sexual assault by Bill Cosby and related lawsuits). Either the article should be renamed so that it does not pretend to be a biography or the material should be moved to Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations and the article deleted. Kaldari (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as she actually has independent notability for her collegiate and professional basketball career. On top of that, her life has been examined by independent, reliable sources. The article renaming would be the only other course of action. This story has become so big that it's narrative cannot be weaved into the other allegations, while still doing it justice. Given the other notable part of her life, the basketball career, I don't see how we can rename or delete. Please help add to the basketball career. --JumpLike23 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Every single source used in the article is related her suit against Cosby. I wasn't able to find any sources significantly covering Constand that are not related to her suit. If you can find any, I will withdraw the deletion nomination. Otherwise, it fails WP:BIO1E. Kaldari (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep while she is (arguably) notable for a single event, her complaint against Cosby has become a very significant cultural and legal touchstone in the United States and is certain to have significant further coverage. Independent Wikipedia notoriety in such cases is related to the significance of the larger event; in anticipation of a criminal trial, deletion at this point would be premature and short-sighted. The material in her bio is going in an independent direction and is not easily incorporated back into Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations as suggested. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If her complaint is what is notable, the article title should reflect that. Would you favor renaming the article "Andrea Constand's sexual assault allegations against Bill Cosby" or "Andrea Constand v. William H. Cosby, Jr." (the name of the original lawsuit)? Kaldari (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually like the Constand v. Cosby title you gave and would support that change as I think it is apt. This really isn't an article about her, so I will withdraw my argument above about her independent notability which I think she has. --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with a change, and Andrea Constand v. William H. Cosby, Jr. seems the best option right now. Of course, that's the name of the civil suit resolved in November 2006, and the article we propose to develop will (presumably) incorporate the criminal case which recently developed largely as a result of revelations in Cosby's 2005 deposition. As long as the civil and criminal cases are correctly described and distinguished, and there is room for the criminal case to be reported on in this article as appropriate developments occur, I haven't a problem with this, but I do think the criminal case has the potential to eclipse the civil case which will then require this comprehensive article be renamed down the road. Does that make sense? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)ki n
 * The civil case and criminal cases are related as the prosecutor noted. A critical piece of evidence in the criminal case will be Cosby's admissions in the deposition. I note this to explain how the criminal case can naturally come under the heading of the civil case. The criminal case may eventually need its own article. like, commonwealth v. Cosby. --JumpLike23 (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, this woman is becoming more notable by the day due to all the attention the criminal charges against Bill Cosby have garnered. Now is not the time to consider deletion IMHO.--Hokeman (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename to Andrea Constand v. William H. Cosby, Jr.. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. We don't have enough information to write a biography on her, but we have copious information on the case.  I would support keeping this if it's renamed, as above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. We appear to be unanimous on keeping the article, with consensus for a name change. Am I seeing that right?, should we go ahead? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. We have a SNOW consensus to keep this, and a pretty good majority for a rename. Go for it. I doubt you'll get any resistance. You should be able to use the move function without any problems, since the redlink above is still red. Move it there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * KEEP BUT CHANGE THE TITLE BACK TO Andrea Constand The CURRENT title certainly makes no sense since that refers to a lawsuit while the content covers many topics. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep but move back to Andrea Constand  The article covers various other topics tangentially related to the lawsuit, such as the criminal investigations and charge. As we get closer to the trial I suspect that will get its own article, in the meantime it works in the Constand article.LM2000 (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I changed the article title to Andrea Constand v. William H. Cosby, Jr. because I thought we had developed consensus. I am relieved (at least) that we are in agreement that the article has valuable information and should not be deleted. Also, we seem to be in agreement the subject is very likely to attract more information as the criminal case develops. (And probably not information about Constand's life, but rather, the particular circumstances of the January 2004 assault and its aftermath.)
 * I'm not sure it's really fair to Constand that Andrea Constand, the biography, becomes a catch-all article for all the complexities and extended tentacles of the ongoing criminal case. The title change was inspired by the fact that prosecutors have said that the criminal case developed out of revelations related to the civil case, and even Cosby's defenders (lawyers) have said the prosecution is a politically-motivated response to the unsealing of Cosby's 2005 deposition in that case. I've an extended comment on the relevant Talk page, but in short, I've argued that it's not necessarily even fair to Constand that 95% of her Wikipedia biography is dedicated to issues related to her alleged assailant's perversions. Her life story is surely better than that, and doesn't deserve to be defined by that. Here's hoping more people weigh in and we discover a workable solution. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm striking my vote in fairness to the subject. The tangentially related material, such as charges and criminal investigations will probably end up in a separate article once we get closer to the trial.LM2000 (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please close this discussion as title has already changed. Thank you. --JumpLike23 (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


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