Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Strauss-Kahn Tristane Banon alleged sexual assault


 * 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   redirect to Tristane Banon. Mainly per WP:BLP. What little consensus there is in this discussion resolves to Off2riorob's claim that the article is substantively an allegation (which would justify deletion or redirection). Should someone want the material behind the redirect deleted I can do that as well but leaving the history up will facilitate easy access to what content may be appropriate for retention. Protonk (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn Tristane Banon alleged sexual assault

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This issue is already well covered in the BLP of the woman Tristane_Banon - such an allegation - is not notable for its own article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This issue has already received significant attention. Giving it its own article removes the problem of whether to deal with it mainly on her page or his page. It also resolves possible confusion with Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case‎. PatGallacher (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with Off2riorob (thanks Rob). The forker didn't even bother to open a discussion on the Banon Talk page. He had opened one on the Strauss-Kahn case and received no support at all. He blanked an entire section created over several weeks by several editors and mangled it in his fork. He misunderstands in his title a really significant issue inolving statutes of limitations in his naming of the section. That is to say the complaint is one of attempted rape, so that it falls under the 10 years limitation for attempted rape, and not of sexual assault because the limitation is only 3 years there. I am an asssisting editor with this article and hadn't got around to editing for the situation before the fork was made. Finally, as Rob says, the issue is dealt with adequately in the article. The complaint was only due to be filed today. A little early to be thinking of forks, especially in the French judicial situation where we shall hear nothing for months while a magistrate investigates the complaint, which as Rob stresses, remains an allegation and one which is being met by a cointer-suit by DSK's lawyers. I can't imagine a more inappropiate fork in the circumstances, to say nothing of the manner of doing it. FightingMac (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply We are sometimes supposed to be bold, see WP:BEBOLD. If there is a a problem with the artcle title it can be moved easily enough. There may be problems with the format, but I can surely tidy it up given a little time. PatGallacher (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Just do it! (with civility, of course!)"
 * But I don't really think you were civil. Why didn't you discuss on the Talk page first before blanking so much content?. That wasn't very civil. Why did you discuss in DSK (where you got not support) and not Banon? At any rate we're in the 'discuss' phase of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Please don't blank content from Banon again like this (whatever the fortune of your article). Thank you FightingMac (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete We only need to create a separate article when - and if - this subject ever becomes important enough in its own right to warrant it. As things stand, it sits well enough within the article on Banon. Paul B (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep When somebody come here looking for something, they should be able to find it,Jewishprincess (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the first place they will go is the article on Tristane Banon. That's where they will look, that's where they should find it, and that's where it already is. No-one is suggesting that the material should be censored, just that it should not be hived off to a separate article. Paul B (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge content to Dominique Strauss-Kahn and redirect to that article. Otherwise it is just a content fork.Divide et Impera (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why merge to Dominique Strauss-Kahn and not Tristane Banon?
 * Because Tristane Banon is, in my opinion a clear example of WP:1E, and its content will eventually be merged into Dominique's page as well, unless she establishes notability other than for the attempted rape. Divide et Impera (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. If we decide she's not notable enough to merit her own page, then do we strike out her name too?  (e.g. "Someone else" also accused Kahn of sexual assault?)  :-) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tristane Banon is a translation from a French page where she's clearly considered notable in her own right (thrice published novelist, prize winning debutant). It's amusing of course for we Anglo-Saxons to be supercilious about French letters, but the fact is she's as successful in their terms as any of our own minor novelists. And if WP:BLP1E was ever arguable it's certainly not after her filing this complaint
 * If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
 * Your position simply isn't tenable. FightingMac (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. The fact that Tristane Banon is translated from the French Wikipedia doesn't make it notable and suitable for the English wikipedia. 2. I don't see how she has won any prizes, because they are not listed in the article. 3. Having written three books doesn't make you notable. As a result, the only thing that makes Tristane notable is that she has filed charges against Dominique. The event is per se notable, but she isn't in my opinion, because if she had not had been involved in that event, she would fail a hypothetical AfD. Or would she have survived it in your opinion?
 * Prize was "Prix du premier roman de Chambéry 2005". In the infobox, was in the article but got churned out and I didn't bother to re-add. It's not perhaps a very prestigious prize, really it's a festival, but still it's a prize. Her first novel sold more than 100,000 copies. That's very respectable. I did comment on the Talk page, on the whole agreeing with you, and right I think she might well not have survived an AfD before now. But most likely it would not have received any attention and would have been unresolved. The French article has been going since 2008. I haven't checked at what point the DSK allegations went in but they certainly weren't there to begin with: here's the diff. Note that it was quite detailed from the start and it has evolved. There has been active editing going on there. In practice full translations of other language articles aren't deleted, at any rate not by administrators under speedy deletion. We have articles for every single member (bar a couple or so) of the French National Assembly, all 577 of them, most of them totally obscure for English letters and most of them just a single line long ( random example). So I think you can safely say that Banon with her three by no means failed novels, her from founding association with Atlantico as something of a youth icon and of course the DSK affair is here to stay. I wrote at boring, somewhat philosophical length, on the Talk page about her possible impact on the way French understand gender relations, which indeed is truly exceptionelle by other European standards. I suspect she will find a place in the history books over there. I'm quite sure her chimpanzé en rut will make it to the quotation books, though curiously it was not her who actually first made that remark about DSK. And one last thing, taking her at face value, if she really didn't press charges because she didn't want her writing career to be sullied by the allegations, then that was a brave thing to do. That first successful novel pulling in respectable sale figures, was written long before a breath of the DSK scandal had hit the public consciousness, though the details were well known in her (elitist) social circles. She's only tuned 30 years old and novelists don't usually produce their best before 30. Look at someone like Alan Hollinghurst, another journalist, who had his first, I grant you it was a masterpiece, at 34. I think you're being too dismissive. Don't you worry it might also not be very attractive? FightingMac (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The 100,000 copies is unsourced and the prize is minor to make her notable. In 2007 she said in a French TV show that DSK tried to rape her, and her article in the French wikipedia was written in 2008, so just after her public confession. My initial concern was that no content was wasted, so I wanted to preserve content by bringing it to DSK's page, not hers. However you make your case on foreign articles being preserved, and I actually am too a fan of that. Well, then I'll retire my case, by restating redirect to Tristane Banon. Thank you for your very well argumented piece.Divide et Impera (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers DeI and thank you for your very pleasant remarks on my Talk page. As I remarked originally on the Banon Talk page we were never very far apart on this. Appreciated. FightingMac (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Bob, there is no need to have an article for every person mentioned in wikipedia. And no need to have it as a redlink either. Divide et Impera (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as content fork, salvage whatever's important and not already represented in the articles on the principals. Not (yet) clear that either of those articles should be the target of a redirect, given the implausibility of the title as a search term. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: allegation Can I just stress Off2riorob's extremely cogent observation right at the top that this is still an allegation. DSK hasn't been charged with anything yet here. It's way too early for a fork. As for searching, the Google terms "Banon, rape" currently produces the Tristane Banon article (whose content was lifted in one big unformatted mess to create the fork) as its third hit. FightingMac (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Content to Banon's page. Accusations do not merit their own pages. It's interesting that we're so protective of the accuser in a sexual assault case, but then many of us are happy to help libel a public figure based on nothing more than an accusation.  BLPs are supposed to be extremely conservative with a focus on the individuals privacy.  We should not be putting allegations and slanders on biographies.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete; minor issue without standalone significance - these DSK forks are a mess. Should be deleted under IAR and content merged as needed. --Errant (chat!) 22:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with others.  This is an allegation. Bgwhite (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. True or not, it's evidently been receiving coverage since 2006. NOTNEWS does not apply. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a content fork, and with due regard to WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - NOTNEWS does not apply. has recieved coverage since 2006 evidently.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notnews is not the reason for deletion - its a content fork about an allegation that is already well covered in the BLP of the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep- Ms Banon is now prosecuting so this MUST be included. You can't ignore it now.86.25.245.118 (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * - — 86.25.245.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The Tristane Banon article was updated accordingly within minutes of the Paris prosecutor's office's announcement of an investigation (not a prosecution - different system than the US/UK adverserial system). Just as soon as I got the email (hi I :-)) Nevertheless it remains an allegation (per Off2riorob above) and it may not even become a trial case. It will be weeks, even months, before we know. If it does a fork might well then be a good idea. But not right now. FightingMac (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Factual and informative content should be housed in the Tristane Banon and Dominique Strauss-Kahn articles. Neutralitytalk 18:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let it churn. Experienced editors can keep an eye out to avoid libel, but otherwise their efforts are better spent elsewhere on Wikipedia. Don't let articles like this take so much of your time and effort. The merge/split/move issues will be resolved over months. Benefac (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Let it churn" is an interesting thought, but not a good keep rationale in a AFD discussion. This content is already covered in the main article, so letting this churn is not a benefit to our readers. Deleting it now will also save us time watching the WP:Content fork in two locations rather than one. Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The reason for deletion is obvious from the article's title, it seems inappropriate to have an article dedicated to a mere allegation which is still under investigation and where there isn't even a prosecution. I would in particular echo the comments of Bob drobbs.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - At first glance, it appears that there a number of reliably sourced articles specifically covering this case, which would seem to satisfy WP:N. Additionally, given that this is a developing story, it is likely that there will be more references for this subject over time(note:  I realize here that the "it will become more notable with time" argument is a little specious). NickCT (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Badly written aside, it's a developing story but remember that Wikipedia is not a news source. That this topic will have lasting significance is WP:CRYSTAL. Rennell435 (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication that this is notable, covered else ware. Mtking (talk) 02:40, 12 July 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.