Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colt clan incest case


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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   18:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Colt clan incest case

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article (and press feeding freezy) is based on claims of inter-generational incest and child abuse, yet despite three years passing, not changes have been laid despite the police having them under surveillance and DNA tested, see here for confirmation of lack of charges. Similar articles such as Goler clan and Moe incest case have details of court cases because they were prosecuted and convicted; here it doesn't appear to be going to happen. Without convictions pretty much any content in this article is going to be a violation of WP:BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete as there has been no court case, the story lacks a reasonable level of proof. Could be speculation and hearsay NealeFamily (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Per The Guardian, noting that their WAS a Children's court case, and that was published here. Information is verifiable and no BLP violation if sourced to the published case and mainstream, non-tabloid media.   Montanabw (talk)  04:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment almost certainly that's a routine family court hearing related to the removing of the children from the parents' care rather than a criminal matter. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read it? It's the entire report into the matter terminating the parental rights based on all the children being born incestuously and neglected/abused. It is not a routine family court hearing. —Мандичка YO 😜 02:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME says A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. None of these people have been changed, let alone convicted. Once we omit the references to incest,  exaclty how much content do we have in this article? Stuartyeates (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * None of these names are real - even Colt is a pseudonym. There is no BLP violation. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - per significant international media coverage spanning several years. I'm not sure what difference a criminal court case makes. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, due to the continuing coverage of the case, as shown by the recent story about one of the family members being deported to NZ. While I'm sensitive to the BLP angle, in this case the names are all pseudonyms and I don't see that there's a real danger of further harm to the subjects of the article by continuing to use the court-created false name.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC).
 * Keep per accurate analysis by Lankiveil. Cavarrone  16:28, 26 October 2015 (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.