Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault 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 per WP:SNOWBALL. Laurent (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Product of WP:RECENTISM, this article covers an event that fails the general notability guidelines. The event has received relatively wide coverage in the international media over the last few days and this has mislead editors into thinking it notable. Our polices say While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information; this article is not giving due weight to the event in the context of the biography.

This also fails WP:EVENT; coverage is currently (and obviously) not of a long duration, as such it is a big assumption that the coverage will have a long duration. This could just as easily be dropped next week as it would go to trial. Most of the coverage is very similar and is purely from news sources (i.e. minimal diversity).

Consensus at Kahn's biography was not to split the content for the moment, but this was later created with minimal extra discussion.

The content is biographical and about a living person, dealing with allegations of a sex crime and an ongoing investigation - no trial has occured and per our usual BLP approach our coverage should be neutral and minimal for the moment.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and this is a news article. Errant (chat!) 20:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The bio had become too weighted with new sections and excessive news report details, but not enough effort was made to prune, summarize, or add context. As for notability, the event has already affected France's political situation and potentially global economics. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Other than the fact he clearly will not be able to stand in the next election (unless it gets dropped quickly) I haven't actually seen a source that deals with an in-depth analysis of the effect on the political situation & global economics... I've seen some idle speculation spun into the news stories, but nothing of much depth. I could, however, have missed something. --Errant (chat!) 20:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An "impact" cite was added to the article which expands on that.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. A major scandal, both the Levinsky scandal (top politician + sex), the Bernard Madoff affair (finance), and Tyson trial (violence). Yug (talk)  20:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This event forced the head of the IMF is forced to resign.  .  Before his arrest he was considered the front-runner to challenge Sarkozy for the 2012 French Presidency, and this event left the French Socialist party in disarray .  It has been covered in roughly 24000 news outlets .  Yes it is news, and yes it is recent, and that makes for some difficulty in writing about it; however, I really fail to see how anyone could conclude that this fails the general notability guidelines ("has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"?) or that the event won't be of lasting significance, whatever the actual outcome of the case.  Dragons flight (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. For anyone interested there have been two preceding talk page discussions on whether this should be split / merged.  The first, before this article was created, ran 8-3 in opposition of a split.  The second, from after the article was created, is currently running 6-5 in favor of a split.  The arguments made at both of these discussions are likely to be similar to the arguments made during this AFD and may be worth reading.  Dragons flight (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We should add that the original discussion for the first one started with, "We urgently need a split, so the content about the trial may be reported day after day, and expand freely" (the text was recently revised, however.) But that seemed to go against the "notnews" policy on its face. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk)


 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Currently this is a current news item. Details will be sketchy, biased, and subject to change. There is no need for a WP article to reflect a changing story, there is no need for an article to be written at this point in time. John lilburne (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable and verifiable, with dozens and dozens of sources available that provide in-depth coverage. This is merely a sensible case of splitting a quite large section out of a biography for the sake of removing undue weight and yet still preserving neutral, verifiable content about a topic. As Yug points out, it's pretty much standard operating procedure to split this kind of event into a separate article. Steven Walling  21:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and as a BLP minefield. If we only report what is justified by policy, this article will be unnecessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutrally explaining the facts of a criminal investigation that has gotten attention from many reliable sources is not a BLP violation. Writing this kind of article is what Wikipedia is here to do and is clearly in line with our core policies of neutrality and verifiability. It's not a matter of libel to prudently describe events that concern a public figure and their role in a major international controversy. Steven Walling  21:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NOTNEWS objections don't apply for such incredibly notable events Soupy sautoy (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with John Lilburne and AndyTheGrump. FightingMac (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep- A scandal that brings down a man who's the head of the International Money Fund, and potential candidate for the French Prsidency? That pole-vaults over being a normal news story and into being an encyclopedic topic. This is something that's already having heavy repercussions in French politics, and will probably, given the nature of the arrest, have ripples in French and American diplomatic relations. And yes, I'm guessing on the latter, but I think its a reasonable guess, given the facts at hand. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and as a BLP minefield. Unless he is formally convicted of a crime then it remains a violation to have an entire separate article on just an accusation, surely? ALso this article currently covers little more than the summary in his biography. I think that is enough for now.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (As to the first part of your comment) Not really, see People v. Jackson and O. J. Simpson murder case for other articles on unproved allegations that failed to gain convictions. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Depends - if it gets some work and can be seen as useful, then don't get rid of it; if it keeps just sitting there unimproved then get rid of it - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dr. Blofeld. Albacore (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Incubate per WP:NOTNEWS. The issue is clearly notable and significant, and concerns about the need to make a summary separate from the bio are valid, but that significance is precisely more the reason to exercise restrain. This information is constantly changing, and as such is still unsuitable for any kind encyclopaedic presentation. Of course the article would be updated as event unfold, but that's precisely what a news service is. Anyone who is interested in this information and wants to know its state, background or development should not be coming to WP but should be looking directly at the event, since it is indeed happening now. The information should be userfied so it can be built as the event progresses, and it can be used once the issue has had some form of closure, or significant stallment. Meanwhile the biography can provide a conservative summary of the issue, and perhaps direct the reader to a news facility - frankieMR (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Umbralcorax and Steven Walling. Not a NOTNEWS violation - an incredibly important criminal investigation. Not a BLP problem to report on facts of this investigation. The investigation and charges are notable even if he is ultimately found not guilty. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOTNEWS cites "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" as examples of what the policy covers. I'd say this is more than just some New York Post celebrity gossip. I think it's fairly clear this is one of the largest political scandals in the U.S./Western Europe in years. It is in the news, but the odds that the coverage dies off after this week are pretty slim. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep If this nomination is meant seriously, it indicates a need to modify NOT NEWS to show some   awareness of the actual world; similarly for BLP consideration--I see  DO NO HARM as written to make it clear it does not apply in instances like this, but if we need to say it yet more emphatically, we can do so. It might have been possible to argue for deletion/merge in the first few hours after the incident, but not now.   I'm reluctant to mention this AfD to my non-Wikipedian friends, as I don't want them to make fun of me for engaging a project where people argue for deleting articles like this.      DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 *  Keep Usually the question with NOTNEWS articles is whether, if the event had happened 10 or 100 years ago, anyone would have bothered to write an article. But to be honest, if this case was of somewhat lower profile, or happened ten years ago, I don't think it would have ever been nominated for deletion. Whatever the outcome of the case, the political implications are great--something you can't say for the average "missing white woman"-type affair. I've always how found it odd how all the anti-recentist zeal is directed against the most high-profile articles (fortunately, not usually successfully). 169.231.53.195 (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with John Lilburne and AndyTheGrump. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This event is a man-made storm of world-wide impact, with the IMF, the presidential election in France, the reputation of the New York Police Department and CSI's looking for DNA (forensic evidence) in the hotel room, etc. We don't delete/merge "Hurricane Ike" under "Bad weather" (or "North America"), waiting for the "news" to be over and people to "know" the impacts. Strauss-Kahn resigned from the IMF, and the French election has been affected. Typically, the next step will be determination of judge and New York district attorney to hold a grand jury (which happened), and Strauss-Kahn was indicted on all 7 criminal charges, based on the preliminary evidence. The next step is "trial by jury". Top American news sources will be extremely careful to fact-check their reports, so "news" from major U.S. WP:RS's should be very accurate, avoiding gossip. Deletion would lead to WP:UNDUE detail placed back into his bio-page to note the level of forensic evidence obtained for trial of this case. If the CSI's find only minimal evidence, and that is withheld by WP as being WP:UNDUE details (within a bio-page), then the result would be a WP:BLP-vio to omit how only marginal evidence was available for trial against him. -Wikid77 05:27, revised 06:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really, the "man made storm of world wide impact" once again is the product of media hype. It wreaks of recentism. It basically comes down to a banker hitting on a maid. The case is well summarized in his main article at present. This is hardly comparable to OJ Simpson, sorry. I think a incomplete merge at least until he goes on trial would be more appropriate. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "It basically comes down to a banker hitting on a maid". No, if the allegations are true, it is a banker committing a serious sexual assault. I have no doubt regarding the seriousness of the allegations, and of their possible repurcussions. I still think this article should be merged with the main DSK one though. Not because of any 'media hype', but because there is actually still insufficient reliably-sourced factual data meeting Wikipedia's requirements to merit a separate article. This article seems to have been created because many contributors to the DSK article discouraged the addition of trivia, and of speculation regarding the events. This is in effect a POV-fork, where the 'POV' concerns the degree to which Wikipedia should pretend to be a newspaper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Incubate per frankieMR. Wikipedia covers current events, but we are not a newspaper. Thus far, the case is being well covered on the bio page. Give this article some time to be developed as new information is reported, then return it to the mainspace. Novusuna (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wikid77's argument. --Europe22 (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The repercussions of this case are enormous, and it is clear already that there has been an upheaval at the IMF, with big ripple effects, not only in France where DSK was considered a major contender for the presidency, but also in several European economies, Greece being a clear example. The coverage has been massive and widespread, and it is not tabloid coverage either, but major news services reporting on this. Obviously a major event which has a lasting impact. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This completely changes the course of the French presidential elections, will have a lasting effect on the career of one of France's major political figures, will bring a new leader to the International Monetary Fund in a period of major financial crises and is probably the most extensively covered news story in the world at this point. I don't think you can shrug that off as "recentism" or a fait divers. Skarioffszky (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOTNEWS is not valid here (as with 90% of the times it is used in AfD). This isn't routine news coverage and although it's an unfolding event but that doesn't mean we cannot have information on it. Details of climate change are still emerging, for example, but that doesn't mean we ignore it until there's a rainforest in the Sahara. Clearly meets GNG  Jebus989 ✰ 10:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Enjoyed your remark about the Sahara. But GNG has a test of presumption i.e. an article may be presumed notable but editors' may still reach a consensus that it's not appropiate, for example indeed because it's deemed WP:NOTNEWS. FightingMac (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * French Wikipedia's article fr:Affaire Dominique Strauss-Kahn is also being discussed: . 188.29.70.25 (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To better the GNG claim, then, I turn to notability (events) inclusion criteria, specifically: and —the lasting effect in this case being on the French presidential election, plus the IMF resignation. edit: also the French article appears not to exist, can anyone confirm that it was deleted?  Jebus989 ✰ 14:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No redirect to your link has been set. There are a couple of splits - they are AfD'ing this one in favor of that one, which was moved from Dominique_Strauss-Kahn Case to Dominique_Strauss-Kahn Affair (redirect set).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.51.189 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Dragons flight. Massive media coverage, involving one of France's major political figures. --Edcolins (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable, with multiple implications for French election and culture and the history and culture of the IMF.  There are far more reliable sources already available than for the majority of Wikipedia articles, and the number of reliable sources available will only increase as time goes on.  Five years from now we will certainly want this article to exist; why should we wait until then to begin writing it?  John M Baker (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, now that he has resigned If it had no long-lasting event, then it could be a minor WP:ONEEVENT like many political sex scandals. But it has an effect well beyond the simple act and accusation. Eauhomme (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable, a series of events, and will have some value after the news coverage settles. gidonb (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep; clearly notable, same advice as John M Baker's. Necrid Master (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is foreseeable to have a big impact and already has had an impact on politics in France. Absent a total retraction of the accusation by the alleged victim, this cannot be reduced to an event.  One of the problems with WP:NOTNEWS as wrtitten is the ambiguity of enduring.  With this case in mind, you may want to look at WT:NOT and see if the wording of the policy can be improved. patsw (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did research behind "NOTNEWS" and found, before WP:NOTNEWS was a guideline, people wanted a reason to delete a Mel Gibson article, and the then-proposed WP:NOTNEWS was suggested as a future weapon for similar AfD debates (see early "NOTNEWS" in WP:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident, Feb. 2007). Perhaps the claim "not-notable" fails to sufficiently POV-push other people to support "Delete" of a highly notable topic. -Wikid77 08:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An encyclopaedic article/biography should not be a source of news. When the dust has settled it may be appropriate to include an article on the subject until then all this does is replicate news sources, that are replete with punditry. At this moment in time, anything that is written or said about the impact of this event, economically, politically, or on anything at all is pure speculation. John lilburne (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the highly speculative impacts of this event is his resignation as head of the International Monetary Fund, tendered 3 days ago  Jebus989 ✰ 11:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The tone of some comments in this article seems to take a view on defending Strauss-Kahn (i.e. not a neutral point of view) rather than presenting a balanced account of the event. In relation to this, I have particular concern with the selective referencing (which I have gone through). Some of the article's content (for example, the so-called different version of the encounter by another hotel member) come from an unnamed sources and therefore, in effect, are nothing more than hearsay. The selective use of such unverified accounts would seem to be an effort to push the reader towards accepting Strauss-Kahn's view of the event. (This bias is highlighted in that the article does not question the inconsistencies in Strauss-Kahn's account, which seem to be more considerable and material).  Wikipedia needs to maintain its integrity by ensuring that details are verifiable and that includes the references and links (which is a critical aspect of Wikipedia's claim to integrity). Comments that are referenced in articles should come from named people - including, but not limited to lawyers, police, prosecutors, family and friends - and not hearsay from unnamed people.  Given the unbalanced nature of the article, it should be deleted (or, at least, heavily modified). Mari370 (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that wikipedia is apparently not censored its pretty irritating how vague it is with "a Manhattan hotel" and a "housekeeper". BLP it seems is now an excuse to censor wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The hotel name is partly my fault - I've been moving detail from the biography and missed that one. --Errant (chat!) 14:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is the AFD, not the discussion page for the article: Suggesting that speculation be removed  is an editing task, not a rationale for a delete vote.  Suggesting that anonymous sources not be used is an editing task, not a rationale for a delete vote.  patsw (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A very obvious keep for me. A clearly notable scandal of long-lasting importance, either because it's true or because it's an outrageous smear campaign. — Nightstallion 12:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Any problems with neutrality can be fixed through editing. It is true that Strauss-Kahn is innocent until proven guilty, and that his trial has yet to occur. However, that does not change the historical importance of the scandal, particularly in the context of French politics. Coverage of this case thus far has been in-depth and persistent; WP:EVENT is met here. The article does indeed need to be heavily patrolled to ensure compliance with WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. However, that's not by itself a reason for deletion. Although Strauss-Kahn's alleged crimes are obviously more violent than perjury and obstruction of justice, I think a parallel with Bill Clinton is fair here. If Wikipedia was around in the late '90s, some of those advocating deletion here might have voted to delete the Lewinsky scandal article because of BLP concerns. I would have objected just as strenuously. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you care to expand on just why this is of "historical importance ... particularly in the context of French politics" sounds like armchair punditry to me. John lilburne (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. As I'm sure you too have read, Strauss-Kahn was probably going to be the Socialist nominee for President of France before this happened, and indeed many have written that he could have defeated Sarkozy. No armchair punditry intended. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The keywords here are "was probably going to be" and "could have defeated". Speculation (punditry) at best and even if true does not demonstrate "historical importance ... in the context of French politics". John lilburne (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not all expressions of the probability of a future political event are speculation or punditry. The assertion that he was a likely socialist candidate is adequately sourced.  Its contradiction, that he was not a likely socialist candidate, can be made by an editor in the article if it is likewise sourced.  (Again)  These are editing issues for the article itself and not rationales for a delete vote. patsw (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any "long term" impact is speculative though. Clearly he was a favoured candidate and would have stood. Now he is not going to stand - and that does affect the election. Beyond that who knows what was going to happen (i.e. who knows if he would have won), hence speculation beyond the short term. --Errant (chat!) 20:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any long-term impact is speculative? He resigned from the most high-profile position in macroeconomics some days ago. If you are staunchly anti-speculation, there are plenty of more obvious places to start  Jebus989 ✰ 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If he was going to stand for the French Presidency he was going to resign his IMF position. His arrest has simply brought that forward by a few weeks, it hasn't changed anything fundamental in that arena, thus it is a fallacy to equate the arrest with any long term anything on macroeconomics. As for the French presidential election what is the "historical importance ... in the context of French politics" of him not running? John lilburne (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with snowball closing--closing this by snowball doesn't make the problem go away)
 * Strong Keep How is this any less article-worthy than the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case?? It has completely changed the political landscape for the 2012 presidential elections in France, as well as having a major impact on the current negociations on Greece's debt! --Jules.LT (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Yug and Umbralcorax --Knulclunk (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Expanding article for legal details, plus double-sources: Already, the article had been edited to try removing some 2nd sources, for each major point, to reduce the size of the article. However, the tactic of double-sourcing for each issue, with 2 independent sources, avoids the problem of including a one-report emphasis of details, and losing WP:V verification if one source is judged to be non-WP:RS. Typically, if an issue is stated in 2 sources, then it is less likely to be a one-person bias about the events, so the article has been expanded for double-sourcing of major issues. As for expansion, details can be added for the indictment on 7 reported charges, concerns of his legal rights (to appear in dress-code attire), and his terms of bail to house arrest ($1 million +$5 million bond), plus he was required to surrender his passport, and his United Nations travel document, known as a laissez-passez, over the weekend. Perhaps some editors did not realize how, in New York City, a "news" case can go from arrest+CSI+indictment in just 5 days, becoming official incarceration facing 15-20 years in prison. Long story short, all these issues (to be expanded) would seem to be clearly WP:UNDUE details in the bio-page article, but essential to understand the 7 charges against him, the restrictions while awaiting trial, plus allow viewpoints of concerns about his legal rights as a French citizen. -Wikid77 01:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability clearly not in doubt. If this is deleted, then a shitload of detail will accumulate in his biography, and this will just be recreated. Maybe delete it in a few years when nobody cares anymore about all the details. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Incubate Wikipedia is not a newspaper, WP:NotNewspaper; and Wikipedia is not breaking news reports, WP:Notability (events).  Admins need to WP:BOLD these breaking news reports into the incubator before these pointless AfDs get started.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 23 May 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.