Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Le Brocq


 * 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. &mdash; madman bum and angel 05:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

David Le Brocq

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Serious WP:BLP violation for naming his underage student, Karl D., with whom he was in a sexual relationship. The BLP policy states: "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.... When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." There are several sources, but each one of them is just a news report. 1of3 15:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme WP:BLP prejudice, as nom. 1of3 15:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 15:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP. I completely agree with everyone above. STORMTRACKER   94  17:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete violates WP:BLP and probably WP:NOT as well - this person has little long-term notability. Hut 8.5 17:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think this falls under WP:BLP1E. A biography should not become a WP:COATRACK for one event. And since he's NN outside of this one event, we can and should delete.  B figura  (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - NN Djgranados 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Egregious misuse of Wikipedia policy to protect living persons. The boy involved in this matter, Karl Donaldson, has gone public with his story, as has his mother. As a matter of fact, a picture of Karl and his mother is available to all on the Daily Mail site here. So who exactly is being protected??? This case was widely reported on in the UK and there are NO privacy issues involved, except to those who have not familiarized themselves with this topic. Haiduc 22:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Donaldson has indeed allowed his photo to be published in the paper, and his mother gave interviews to the press. Further, the sexual aspect of the relationship didn't occur until after Donaldson was of legal age, if the Sun article is correct and Donaldson isn't lying. The only aspect that troubles me is the article's statement that Donaldson wants to forget this episode. Putting aside all his inane chatter to the media, we here at Wikipedia are forced to assume good faith about his assertion and presumably coddle him, since he is ostensibly the "victim" in this escapade. Is it not possible to just link to the article without naming this now legal Lolito? Jeffpw 22:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not our place to read things in Donaldson's statements, nor to fulfill wishes. The boy and his mother freely and openly gave interviews about an event that was ultimately unpleasant to them. But that is a very different matter from wanting to keep things quiet. Had they wanted that, they would not have gone on the media trail. Even the article in the American magazine The Advocate states that "The student, Karl Donaldson, now 19, revealed his identity to the press and in court." When information is widely disseminated (on at least three continents in this case) and the young man (now 19) has freely come out to the media, even releasing pictures of himself, there can no longer be any question of protecting anyone, since the person most in need of protection has shown he does not need or want it. What are we, Big Brother, to over-rule his wishes and his actions? Haiduc 23:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Haiduc that this is at best a misunderstanding of the BLP policy. Donaldson gave interviews about this to the national press.  There are no privacy issues here. Nick mallory 00:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the notability issues? --lquilter 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Haiduc. This is a slight, but completely understandable, miseuse of the WP:BLP policy.  RFerreira 00:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the notability issues? --lquilter 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How is this different from the recent precedent of Allison Stokke who also gave interviews to the press and then we deleted her article Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke for WP:BLP reasons (some of the several times it was deleted? Edison 00:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In her case, the pictures were taken without her knowledge, or they were posted without her knowledge, resulting in her unwanted notoriety. In this case the statements, and the pictures, were freely contributed, and the expressed unhappiness is with his lover, not the media - not that it matters from the point of view of compiling a record of history. In any case, the current situation must be judged on its own merits, not on dubious parallels with a contentious matter. Haiduc 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Haiduc. The student himself admitted the affair in The Advocate. Keep this in mind when reviewing the previous "Delete" votes. - Cyborg Ninja 01:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the notability issues? --lquilter 23:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 01:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not because it reveals the name of the boy; we've established that the boy has done public interviews himself. But because this person appears to only be notable for this one incident. Will he still be notable in ten years? Has he done anything noteworthy besides sleeping with one of his students? WP:BLP says "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." I think this is one of those situations. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Mary Kay Letourneau, anyone? Think about it. Wikipedia, quite understandably so, has thousands of articles on criminals that were given widespread media attention. I strongly believe that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" refers to news that is minor, not something of this notoriety. The subject himself will continue to bring attention to the subject of student-teacher relations and pedophilia for years to come. - Cyborg Ninja 02:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. I respect your point of view (and I can see that mine is the minority opinion), but I have to point out that this person has not, thus far, been the subject of a book or any made-for-TV movies.  Letourneau has gotten a great deal more media coverage than Le Brocq, at this point.  Counting google hits is not usually a valid argument, but my search shows about 79,000 hits for Letourneau and 269 for Le Brocq.  If we decide that Le Brocq meets WP:BIO, I accept that, but I don't think the comparison with Letourneau is quite apt. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - Letourneau's article is replete with third-party comentary and analysis. Le Brocq's is just based on news reports. 1of3 16:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Re-note - Letourneau has also had many more years to gather steam.But this event falls right in the middle of an important cultural controversy, proved by its newsworthiness and coverage on three continents. Haiduc 00:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A future-tense notability claim is a striking innovation. I think I'll try the same thing with my band's Myspace page! (Letorneau is one of a handful of female teachers who were convicted of similar crimes at about the same time a few years ago and won notoriety on the TV news. She is for whatever reason the only one of the group who has maintained name recognition. I don't think there's any way to guess whether Brocq will share her "luck" in this.) Dybryd 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * delete per Bfigura and FisherQueen: WP:NOT#NEWS, no encyclopedic value. Pete.Hurd 02:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Haiduc DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 03:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If in a year or so the incident turns out to be a lasting reference point or to have achieved cultural significance, then someone can add it back. Otherwise it's a fleeting news story du jour like, no doubt, scores of other minor sex scandals. --lquilter 03:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as not sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article. Maybe Wikinews?  Rklawton 04:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Cyborg Ninja. Callelinea 04:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The   Wikipedist  17:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Haiduc. Tim Q. Wells 18:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Haiduc. --profg Talk 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Severe BLP violation. WP:NOT etc. Hell I'd support a speedy of this. It doesn't claim allegations, it flat out states that the guy had a homosexual affair. That's a huge BLP issue &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  01:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You would benefit from reading the sources, in which the boy and his mother freely and openly discuss the love affair and sexual relationship between himself and his teacher, affair which was conducted with the consent of the boy and the mother, according to the judge presiding at the trial. Haiduc 01:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not a question of BLP, but there's no notability here. The tabloid Daily Mail gives wide publicity to several sex-n-crime scandals a week. Where are our articles on Christopher Allison, Shaun Farrell, Shellagh Davies, and their many, many cohorts? Where they are is in Wikinews for the duration of their notoriety, and nowhere after that.
 * "I say, Charles, don't you ever crave..." Dybryd 01:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: The Advocate and several of the other sources are eminently WP:RS. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of reliability. I'm sure it's absolutely true that David really was having secret sex with both Tracy and Karl while Karl was a student in Tracy's drama class, but that neither Tracy nor Karl knew of David's clandestine erotic involvement with the other until Tracy had David's illegitimate baby! And then Karl's sister told someone who told someone who told Tracy who had David arrested in a jealous rage!
 * I just don't think it's very important that it's true.
 * By the way everyone, this AfD inspired me to go nominate a whole bunch of other scandalous but banal sex offenders for deletion, so all of you folks who think that Wikipedia ought to function as the archive for Wikinews may want to swing by and vote keep on all of those. Dybryd 06:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The bunch of other articles nominated for deletion by user:Dybryd are Karen Louise Ellis, Bridget Mary Nolan, Pamela Rogers Turner, Sarah Jayne Vercoe, Debra Lafave, Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., William Chandler Shrubsall and Toby Studebaker. Alfons Åberg 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: per Haiduc. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BALCO KEEP, the strongest keep possible. There is no WP:BLP related problem here, and to cite it as a reason for deletion borders on misuse of policy.   Bur nt sau ce  17:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I didn't cite WP:BLP. I cited WP:BIO; and clearly said that I didn't see a BLP problem here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no need for you to reply, as my comment was not directed toward you. Thank you though for your clarification. (BALCO thanks, the strongest thanks possible.)  Bur nt sau ce  17:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep if the younger partner came forward in The Advocate, it makes absolutely no sense to try and protect the guy by removing that information here. The boy and his mother freely and openly discuss the love affair and sexual relationship between himself and his teacher, that kills any potential claim of BLP as they WANT the information public.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there's an argument for long-termm notability of this particular case. I know we don't delete just based on article content, but a discussion of how many times a day they had sex is not exactly encyclopedic. The discussion above about the particulars of the affair only echos this. Consensual sex, even with a teacher, is not necessarily notable.  13:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, according to the following text on the WP:BLP page, When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced appears to confirm the legitimacy of having articles for persons known only for only one event. Le Broq would seem to fit in that category, would he not? Haiduc 02:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.

Haiduc, you quote WP:BLP, but have somehow missed the relevant section of that page. For convenience, here it is in full:

Articles about living people notable only for one event

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.

Off I go to put this paragraph in my other AfDs!

Dybryd 02:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per WP:IGNORE stating, The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been". Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. So I'm ignoring WP:BLP and WP:whatever else you got to try and delete this article. He's notable, the minor went public, it was a significant event, end of story. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  22:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, as you can see from above discussion, notability is not at all a given in this case. --lquilter 23:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope that you are not reaching for some kind of absolute truth here. Notability is not a black and white matter. While he will never be as notable as Napoleon he nevertheless became the focus of widespread and international attention over the course of his public life, as can be seen from the numerous articles on this affair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiduc (talk • contribs) 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT, an encyclopedia does not cover every scandal that gets its 15 minutes of tabloid publicity. Sandstein 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC) Sandstein 21:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. numerous references have been cited and simply need to be integrated into text. Benjiboi 02:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lquilter, recreate if story attains more significance. Eliminate tabloid details in any event. Hal peridol 02:51, 13 October 2007 (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.