Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gucci Gang controversy (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   delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Gucci Gang controversy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was nominated for deletion before, but the discussion was primarily about whether the subject was notable or not. I posit that this article violates WP:BLP.That policy has evolved significantly in the 5 years since this article was primarily written, and it clearly violates its current form. To quote WP:BLP: This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages." Further, the article violates WP:NPF, and WP:BLPCRIME (the article is about one non-public figure accusing another of theft of $70,000 via his blog, and the aftermath/repercussions), and the article is rife with WP:GRAPEVINE issues and conjectural interpretations of sources WP:OR. For example the line "The blog raised questions about the extent of Philippine and Australian libel laws, with jurisdiction being the key issue," isn't found in any source. No source reported it "raised questions." That was the conjectural interpretation of the Wikipedia editor, and was likely done to strengthen the case for notability. While there were quite a number of stories about the event at the time, most came in op. ed. columns or entertainment gossip columns, not hard news reporting. I just don't think this entry is encyclopedic and meets current community standards for inclusion. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 18:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  19:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  19:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  19:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete appears to fail WP:NOTNEWS, and is about a trivial tabloid-style dispute so the subjects presumption to privacy under WP:BLP needs to be taken into account - there's no need for an article on this matter. The fact that this article is essentially an orphan says it all really about the significance of this topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2013 (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.