Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The consensus below is overwhelming that this is a highly notable topic with sustained international coverage and international consequences with lasting import. No BLP issues that cannot be addressed by normal editing and discussion have been identified. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article current violates WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. Until such time as these particular items are addressed, this article should be relocated to a user space or the incubator. Avanu (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reminder - Although this is under an 'Article for Deletion' template, the options offered in the rationale include Userfication and Incubation, not just a straight Delete. -- Avanu (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC))


 * Keep (Provisional) Maybe delete the article if the New York State's Attorney's office deletes the case, in a manner of speaking -- you people delete too many things, it is well known. 4.254.80.111 (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge The size of this article gives undue weight to it as compared to other sexual assault case filed this year as it looks unlikely to proceed to trial it should be merged to  Dominique Strauss-Kahn where it should be covered in no more that two or three paragraphs. On the matter of WP:BLP it is a club being used by both sides to keep out information that they don't like. Mtking (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think WP:NOTNEWS is applicable. WP:BLP is certainly a problem, but the subject is clearly far too significant to simply delete the article. We just have to do as well as we can to balance the BLP concerns. Does anyone really expect a different result than the very recent other AFD? Dingo1729 (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Effects of the event went beyond DSK's personal life and reputation - it led to the selection of a new IMF director and to a shakeup in the impending French presidential election. It's also more than likely that this will be discussed and analyzed for some time, and in journals and books rather than the daily media, but even without speculating on this, it passes WP:EVENT (and is not NEWS) because of these national and international effects. BLP issues can be dealt with through normal editing rather than deletion. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree with Roscelese. Key facts of the case and subsequent events have historical significance and could not be incorporated into his bio without undue weight. It's worth adding that among the NPOV issues was explaining the "economic impact" the arrest had, which came from extremely good RSs, but they were summarily deleted and replaced with pointless IMF election trivia, along with a "perp walk" image.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Maintaining NPOV has been a nightmare and it will only get worse as the case proceeds if it goes to trial. I do wish users who vote "keep" would contribute to the article from time to time, if only to see what it's like. Currently the article serves no purpose other than to note the latest twists in the case that support or one other of the parties. Plainly, as Avanu says, the article repeatedly violates WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. Another editor in the Talk has commented that an article like this shouldn't be allowed so long as BLP guidance for ongoing legal process remain so slack and I do agree. FightingMac (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This case seems much the same as Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange or Lewinsky scandal. The nomination fails to indicate the way in which this article necessarily violates WP:BLP or WP:NOTNEWS - see WP:VAGUEWAVE.   The proposal to move the article into user space would not be deletion and is contrary to our editing policy which expects us to work on articles in main space. Warden (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy you quote also says "This principle is not as broadly endorsed for biographies of living persons. While such articles are also allowed and expected to be imperfect, any contentious unsubstantiated or patently biased information in such articles should be removed until verified or rewritten in a neutral manner."
 * Hence, the exception here. The expectation is that editors can edit without getting into edit wars over BLP material. If this isn't possible, then trim the article to a length that is factual and incontrovertible and move the editing over into the incubator (which is a part of the editing process, like it or not) or into a userspace, until such time as it can stand as a article without having to continually edit war over it. -- Avanu (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's incontrovertible that the New York Post claimed that maid was a prostitute, and was sued for libel as a result. It's also incontrovertible this side-lawsuit, was reported by the Associated Press, and so carried over by many newspapers. (The Post also declared they stand by their allegations after being sued.) It's also incontrovertible that one editor edit warred to remove part of that information. So, what's the course of action to take here? Delete the whole article? Butcher it, so it's incomprehensible? FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikipedia is not a news outlet. There is no timeline for us to include all the details that you might consider relevant.  As long as the article is accurate, it could simply be 1 sentence and be fine.  Naming someone as a prostitute sounds like both a BLP concern and a WP:REDFLAG ("Exceptional claims require high-quality sources").  The emotionally-laden word "butcher" as you say, is merely evidence of an emotional attachment to this article, and should not sway editors in deciding what content is worth including.  My goal in the AfD is that either the kids stop arguing over the toy, or we take the toy in the other room, and people learn to act accordingly. -- Avanu (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Unfortunately this is a highly notable event, particularly with all the twists and turns. Wikipedia does have articles on current events, which will inevitably be unstable as the event unfolds. When matters are resolved in real life and all the dust has settled, the content could possibly be condensed and merged into the main BLP, but that is unlikely to be for a while. Mathsci (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, plainly when the process is settled (either through the charges being dropped or as a result of a trial coming to completion) the events will deserve a separate article. What it doesn't need is an article describing the ongoing process. In fact if you look at the viewing figures you can see that the article isn't viewed very much, possibly only by the half dozen or so actively contributing and their mums. But there have been times when the POV bias has been severe and at least one outrageous libel which was allowed to survive for a week or more. In my view Wikipedia just has to get better at policing this kind of article (and in general to get a lot lot better at combating polite POV advocacy) before allowing them loose. FightingMac (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD is not about editor conduct or about settling content disputes, but on whether such a current affairs article should exist at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It certainly is partly about both those things because these articles attracts editors whose conduct is dubious and they get away with it because there aren't presently effective timely content resolution mechanisms in place for realtime BLP events. An unscrupulous editor can keep a content dispute rolling on for days, even weeks, which is just not satifactory for articles like these. FightingMac (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are these comments about editors relevant? Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because regardless of intent, news based articles nearly always end up with editors POV pushing one way or another. John lilburne (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough like this article, the French article was locked from editing for a week at about the same time because of problems with edit warring. But again editor misconduct cannot be used as grounds for deletion. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge Single event in life of notable person - made large only because it has been a slow news period . WP is not a newspaper, nor is WP a soap opera. Right now this article is a BLP disaster in the making. Let's merge it, and make it the reasonable single paragraph it merits at best. (It has less than 1/20 the news value of Lewinsky, which had major political repercussions, and I am unsure that Lewinsky merits a major article) Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this is an astonishingly US-centric view. For all that was written about the Lewinsky affair, it was ultimately trivial with no serious consequences. The DSK affair is more important. It has already had major effects on the upcoming French elections. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Or move to user space. Currently this is a news event which gets pulled each which way from Monday to Sunday according to the prevailing OP ED's. At some point we'll know whether there is a case, and if so whether he is guilty or not. Until then bin it. John lilburne (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge; if it goes fully to trial and if there is subsequent fall out from that it may be notable. This started as a content fork, and we've worked very hard to keep it focused and BLP policy compliant. In the last week or so a determined effort to slander the housekeeper has begun - not by the regular editors but by new SPA's. The content they inserted is now being discussed and I am concerned we are facing BLP problems sneaking in during the normal editing process. This should never have been split, and several editors would not have had to waste so much time keeping an eye on things had it not. --Errant (chat!) 09:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep We recently had another similar case HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan where we had a developing artice while the trial was takin place, a few concerns were raised, but we managed it without serious problems. Even if charges are dropped soon this is still a notable controversy. PatGallacher (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, if it is really true that Wikipedia cannot have an article on this topic because of BLP issues (I'm not sure about that, but just assume that this is the case), then it seems to me that rather than putting this article on AFD, the BLP policy should be rewritten or even put on MFD. Count Iblis (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the most notable political/prosecutorial scandals in recent times, it prompted significant political fallout and commentary in high quality media outlets of multiple countries. Notable as an extreme media circus/trial by media if nothing else. I trust that we can work out a version that deals with the BLP issues, though it obviously won't be easy. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that merging this article with the larger DSK article would add undue weight to that section. There is much more involved in the case that simply his personal involvement (aka the ramifications.) Is it possible to semi-protect the page? That could help the stability problems Cshaase (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, with my rationale unchanged from the previous AFD. BLP issues should be dealt with through editing, and are not cause for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Two AfDs within such a short period of time are inherently abusive. There should be ample time between nominations, more than a few months, let alone a couple weeks.  In addition I must reject this attempt to use AfD process to whitewash BLP concerns.  Let me reiterate once again and as strongly as possible no honest reading of WP:BLP could possibly be construed in any way to prevent us from having a well-sourced and neutral article, even if the information contained in those sources is not terribly flattering.  BLP most emphatically does not say we cannot have negative information.  Sources here are overwhelming, importance is being talked about in multiple countries in several contexts (what this says about the US justice system, what this says about French culture that a vast majority of people think he should be returned to power, what it says about his supporters that some attacked his accuser for coming forward).  HominidMachinae (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My purpose in the AfD was not to abuse the process, as you can tell, I have not previously participated in the article, but to encourage the editors to work cooperatively or move the article to a place where contentious debates will not affect the Mainspace. -- Avanu (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing about BLP that says we can't have a well-sourced neutral article, but we're not doing too well at that so far.Kevin (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's right HM. But the fact is that the article from the very beginning has had serious issues with POV advocacy. Right now it's under full protection because of edit warring trying to include the recent New York Post allegations about the housekeeper. So the issue I suggest must be whether Wikipedia presently has adequate resources (and guidelines to operate under) to police articles like these. I suggest it hasn't ( the current full protection status is proof of the pudding) and so long as it doesn't then we shouldn't be having articles like these. FightingMac (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the article has problems, but we don't remove articles just because they're fought over. Otherwise we'd have articles on every nation on earth with the exception of Israel.  This needs serious work and a lot of consensus discussion, but deletion is not a way to solve content issues in my opinion. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When you get down to it the I/P articles have problems mostly related to the piling on of reportage of newsy events. That method of article construction is inherently biased. It is the same here in the instance DSK bad, pile on critical and salacious articles about him and drag his family into it. Now it is housekeeper bad, drag salacious articles about her in to balance it up. Crap process, crap result! John lilburne (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Incubate. Replace the current article with a stub and have interested collaborators work together on a draft in another namespace.  We'll need an article about it, but there's nothing that says we need a comprehensive article about it instantly, and I believe trying to comprehensively cover the case in near real-time has done more harm than good. The draft could be moved in to replace the stub once it has attained some stability. Kevin (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly notable. No reason for merging or deletion. Also a new AfD after such a short period is abusive to me.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not in question, please provide a rationale in keeping with AfD rationale. Also, if you are implying bad faith, please provide evidence. My rationale for the nomination is given in further detail above. -- Avanu (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly notable. No reason for merging or deletion.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not in question, please provide a rationale in keeping with AfD rationale. -- Avanu (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per BabbaQ. This is a joke right? -cc 08:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above editor has few edits, and started on Wikipedia on 3 July 2010. Collect (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And you care why? --cc 14:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, whoever closes this may well care, indeed. New users popping up at AfD discussions who have little editing background, and who show sudden familiarity with AfD processes, may often be discounted as to value ot !votes. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to stop acting as if it is in any way difficult to find out how Wikipedia process works. New users are not illiterates. -cc 16:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke !vote? -- Avanu (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My !vote is no joke. I was calling your nomination a joke. -cc 09:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

*Keep per Qrsdogg. So soon at AfD again? Did they give him back his job at IMF making this affair of no long term consequence? FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least Merge. I would like to point out that among the quazillion editors in favour of keeping the article, only Wikiwatcher1 is actively involved in editing the page. The few merge or delete nominations come from people who are actively involved in the tp discussions and editing, as John points out somewhere above, initially the POV was "ooh the dirty rich Jew" and now it's "ooh the lying, Black, married to a drug-dealer maid". So, difficult to maintain correctly as people just drop by and go "well it was published in an RS so we must publish it". As noted here, there and everywhere Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece to amplify every bit of information that finds its way onto the Internet (even if in RSs).  Captain Screebo Parley! 17:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello? Of all the statements you just made, the only one that is correct is the spelling of my user name, the others, ie. recent editors are wrong. If you need support for that fact, simply pick one you made and put it on the article talk page. Why you'd post a reasonable talk page topic and now turn it upside down is beyond me. BTW, for other editors here, 95% of any so-called "edit warring" related to this article has been isolated to the the Talk page. Only a few, relatively minor issues, were ever warred about on the article itself during the last few months, the most recent being about a lawsuit by the DSK accuser. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Being a poor article is most assuredly not a criterion for deletion. Deletion is for articles that have literally no hope, and cannot possibly exist without failing core policies. HominidMachinae (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming what you say is true (but it isn't), that's an argument for blocking a bunch of editors, not deleting the article. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize the censors have such wiki political clout, so I change my vote to... FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia cannot have decent article on this with all the wikicensor wannabes running loose, apparently with the direct support of the wiki Supreme Court, the ArbCom. It's hopeless that this article will ever be anything more than Soviet-propaganda-censored version of what's in the New York Times . FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The head of the IMF had to step down from his post because of these accusations.  This case may have stopped him from becoming the President of France, and thus may have had major implications on French politics and history.  This case also brought to attention issues with the American "perp walk".  There seems to be no question that it's historically notable enough to merit it's own article and should remain.  As to the BLP debate, it seems that it has already been resolved in mediation.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The political impact this case has had is readily apparent, DSK resigned from the IMF, and did not run for the French presidency. The way the media covered the case is another aspect which is being discussed. The media coverage is not mere reporting, but consists of massive political analysis and critique, and is thus far beyond anything which WP:NOTNEWS is supposed to prevent. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for being highly notable. The article will settle down once the case ends.Red Hurley (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is not in question, please provide a rationale in keeping with AfD rationale. Shouldn't have to continually repeat this. -- Avanu (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as a significant event influencing the recovery from the debt crisis in Europe, the election of the next French president, plus some issues related to racial, gender and social relations in France and United States. Hektor (talk) 09:33, 20 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.