Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax child sex abuse ring


 * 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, given improvements to the article. Clearly meets notability, and BLPCRIME does not apply since these people have been convicted of crimes. ansh 666 00:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Halifax child sex abuse ring

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I declined a prod with the concern "notability, lack of sources, as per WP:NANP.", as I expect this nomination to be somewhat controversial.

In addition to those reasons, there are WP:BLPCRIME concerns. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 21:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple reliable sources document that numerous men sexually abused young girls. Satisfies WP:N and WP:RS No coverups,  Edison (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable, widely covered crime. Article needs improvement.  BLP issues are trumped by the convictions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The BLP objection is quite absurd.  The suspects were tried, found guilty, and their biographic data published by the courts and subsequently by the WP:RS.  By the standard raised that child abuse convictions with names should not appear on WP, you may as well delete the Roman Polanski child rape, as clearly he was never convicted (he merely left the United States).XavierItzm (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:GNG. The article is references. BLP objection is just wrong.BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Limited references, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, 2 references used to fill an entire article is absurd, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper we cannot provide an article for every single crime when there are little sources and coverage, as per wiki rules it should go.Americatcp (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We dont base our opinions on what other articles are available etc. It is based on a article to article basis. And guidelines. That there are two sources are irrelevant as long as the sources are good.BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The Yorkshire Post is hardly reliable, it cites numbers but then doesn't give evidence for how those numbers came to be? It's almost as bad as citing the DailyMail.Americatcp (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, looking closer at it the whole article is innacurate, the "gang" only abused one girl, while a single perpetrator abused another individual, "Another victim was also sexually assaulted by one of the gang members." . Not only that, but the BBC doesn't cite any numbers like the Yorkshire Post does, again, with no mention of how it came to be. The entire article is wrong, it says over 100 from an unreliable source, and mentions two victims of the gang when it was a single victim.Americatcp (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Egregious objection. 1. You put scare quotes on gang, as if a child getting raped by a gang of 25 men were not a horrendous gang action. 2. You accuse the Yorkshire Post of not being a WP:RS. Go and read its Wikipedia entry, and then come back. 3. You are engaging in WP:OR by questioning the figures cited by the WP:RS, and worse yet, not providing sources for your speculation.  Since the WP:RS states the gang was composed of over 100 men, this must be the case, and it is not up to you to speculate why only 25 of the men were actually accused in a court of law.  Surely you are aware that prosecutors do not usually charge all perpetrators? 4. You dismiss the fact only one member of the gang was convicted of raping a second victim and in your opinion this disqualifies the whole thing.  Let me ask you: if a murder of crows eats a plate of cereal with one cherry on top, do you then say, "it is inaccurate to say the murder of crows ate the whole thing, because the murder of crows ate the cereal, but only one crow must have eaten the cherry"?.XavierItzm (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Note that case carries on - ... and in January 2018, 20 more men are arrested for the very same gang case arising from the same rape of the 13 year old girl. XavierItzm (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, that’s literally the guidelines for Wikipedia. If the gang was only convicted for creoles against one individual, then the article should reflect that. If a gang murders one man, but then a single member murders another, the gang hasn’t murdered two men.. you understand how that works correct? Convictions are what should be reflected, not opinions such as your own.Americatcp (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:HEYMANN - The article now has sources ranging from BBC 4 February 2015 to The Independent 12 January 2018. Three years of sustained coverage and it does include very in-depth coverage from The Yorkshire Post.  I'd say that's pretty widespread coverage! XavierItzm (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s still not notable to any serious degree, while abhorrent, if we include crimes against a single individual with a Wikipedia article there would be thousands upon thousands.Americatcp (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- per WP:BLPCRIME & WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is routine for the crime. No lasting significance or apparent societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME reads «For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.» First, the only names included are those of the men who were convicted of raping "Jeanette".  Second, WP:DINC.  If anyone wants to raise a discussion on the list of convicts (whose photos, names, and convictions were widely disseminated by the BBC and other WP:RS ), then take it to the TP.  Deletion is not cleanup.  WP:NOTNEWS reads "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  This case has been already covered for 3 years across many WP:RS.  It meets the criteria for "enduring notability" plus an additional 20 men were arrested a few weeks ago for the same case.  Besides, this is clearly not "routine news reporting" on "announcements, sports, or celebrities".  This is routine news reporting across years on a major crime and therefore WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. XavierItzm (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed - a large grooming / sexual-abuse ring is definitely not routine news reporting. The appropriate guideline is WP:NCRIME which clearly states "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act". Claiming all or most crime is NOTNEWS (which is worded and intended for routine events - such as weather, sports announcements, etc.) - is a misapplication of policy.Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

it's not a misapplication, your bias is showing.RomanskiRUS (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Delete WP:NOTNEWS, no scandal, no cover up, we cannot include every single incident of rape or child abuse, it's not worthy of an article. Concur with K.e.coffman 's comments. Americatcp (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What strikes me, is the large numbers of people involved. This does seem notable and unusual for just the shear volume on incidents and people involved.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - None of the keep voters have even attempted to address the glaring issues with WP:NOT and WP:BLPCRIME; sure, you can pretend they don't exist but it makes for a particular weak !vote. Closing admin: remember GNG, a guideline, does not supersede WP:NOT and WP:BLP, both policies, and since this is not a ballot the outcome of this AFD should be much more obvious than you would expect.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - WP:NEXIST applies here as well as a reason for keeping the article.BabbaQ (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * comment- um no? WP:NEXIST May well apply but it doesn’t make it worthy of an article when there’s no lasting social difference or even national news. WP:NOT and WP:BLPCRIME are why it should go.Americatcp (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * um, yes, it does apply and refute the Deletionists rationales for deletion based on sources.BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Crime is clearly notable per WP:NCRIME, with extremely wide coverage of the events in national and international and political discourse around them (e.g. ). BLPCRIME is hardly an issue as the perps currently are not named in our article - though they definitely could be seeing that they were convicted. Per BLPCRIME we should presume non-known perps as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - and they were convicted in this case. BLPCRIME does not negate NCRIME, though it is at time an issue - in any case this argument is completely irrelevant here. It might be worthwhile to rename the article to something that contains Calderdale - e.g. Calderdale grooming gang or Calderdale gang per usage in Calderdale gang jailed for grooming and abusing girls, BBC and elsewhere.Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Question From where came the request for deletion? Should that not be recorded here?

Comment The concerns listed as warranting deletion of this article were (a) notability, (b) lack of sources, and (c) WP:BLPCRIME, which I will address in reverse order. (c) BLPCRIME says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". Convictions have been secured in this case, so BLPCRIME cannot be a valid concern. (b) I count six sources in this article, as follows. I cannot speak to all of them but am pretty sure that at least three are reliable. (a) I was unfamiliar with the problem of child sex abuse rings in Britain until just a couple of weeks ago, when I happened upon the Rotherham case as a result of other reading. Since then I have read quite a bit about this phemomenon and see no way an instance of its occurrence may be deemed "not notable". A search of Wikipedia itself turned up the following list. I believe it would be a mistake to delete any of these articles unless and until their material is incorporated elsewhere within Wikipedia. Dayirmiter (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yorkshire Post
 * BBC News
 * Huddersfield Daily Examiner
 * Daily Mirror
 * Halifax Courier
 * The Independent
 * Aylesbury_child_sex_abuse_ring
 * Banbury_child_sex_abuse_ring
 * Bristol_child_sex_abuse_ring
 * Derby_child_sex_abuse_ring
 * Halifax_child_sex_abuse_ring
 * Newcastle_sex_abuse_ring
 * Oxford_child_sex_abuse_ring
 * Rochdale_child_sex_abuse_ring
 * Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
 * Telford_child_sex_abuse_ring


 * Delete The claim above that it made "international news" is wrong, it didn't even make "national" news. 3 of the cited sources are local newspapers, hardly national news at all. This is literally WP:NOT it's just not notable, no lasting impact, no scandal as per other comments, no cover up, and only a single victim. Per Dayirmiters comments, the "problem" of child sex abuse rings in Britain?? are you sure?? because do we include every single case of this happening in the US and say "the US has a problem of kids being abused!!" such as this report from Tennesee or the one in the Tri state area with children as young as 11? . There is no "problem" in Britain, and if there is then the United States has one considerably worse but yet has no articles on it. Your bias is showing. as per other comments in this thread... "remember GNG, a guideline, does not supersede WP:NOT and WP:BLP" by TheGracefulSlick. And they are correct, the article should go, it's not notable and not news.RomanskiRUS (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NEXIST refutes your claims.BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Um no.. it does not. There was no national news scandal, no tabloids, no "international" news of any sort. This is fact, and looking at the sources within the article, 70% are local news only, clearly a lack of impact and lack of notability.RomanskiRUS (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:RS report that police said the Halifax case was the largest child sexual exploitation investigation in the U.K. – "bigger than high profile cases in Rochdale and Roterham." . I really don't see how this here Halifax case could reasonably be deleted w/o also deleting the Wikipedia smaller cases of Rotherham and Rochdale.  XavierItzm (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But that's not true is it? Police make lots of statements, but where are the international coverage? where is the CNN pages? the NBC? the tabloids even? a statement that is reported by the local news in regards to a single victim comes no where near close to the other scandals.RomanskiRUS (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * fact check User:RomanskiRUS is incorrect in asserting that there has been no national coverage.  Here: Police arrest 20 men for alleged involvement in Calderdale grooming gang is a 12 Jan. 2018  article   The Independent ; here: Vile sex gang caged for 168 years for 'systematically' grooming and abusing teenage girls is one form 2016 in The Mirror;  there were more, and there has been some international coverage as well Yorkshire: Twenty Men Arrested for ‘Sexual Exploitation’ of Teenage Girl.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Breitbart is less trustworthy than my Aunt with Alzheimer's. That should be down right ignored, plus, Breitbart is not international coverage. The "national" coverage you cite is one from the beginning... to one at the end with the sentences, no update in between, the case is not followed nationally whatsoever. The only regular upadates are from the local news stations such as halifax courier, more than likely because there was only a single victim, still WP:NOT as per other users have pointed out.RomanskiRUS (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck comments by block evading sockpuppet of blocked user (and fellow sock of Americatcp). • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:HEYMANN kudos to User:XavierItzm for major expansion of article, and note that national coverage - in this case ongoing since 2016 - is sufficient to establish notability per WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Kudos?? For what? The Independent is hardly a WP:RS and the coverage has hardly been significant to say it has been covered nationally. It’s not sufficient to establish notability at all, also if you want to maintain any shred of credibility using Breitbart as a source ruins every chance of that.Americatcp (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom - I see a lot of discussion about national/international coverage but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article per WP:NEVENT. The most important issue is, what is the lasting effect or significance of this? Based on the sources, I don't see anything supporting lasting effect or historical significance. Seraphim System ( talk ) 07:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This WP:NEVENT claim was addressed above by Icewhiz. To summarize, from WP:NEVENT: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." (text is cited from WP:NEVENT/subsection WP:N/CA). XavierItzm (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Note Two sock !votes have been struck. One of the socks initiated the prod which triggered this AFD. --Neil N  talk to me 04:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: How do you know who initiated the prod please? I do not see that recorded on this page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayirmiter (talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The article was prodded with this edit. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Further note on the sockpuppets. I have gone ahead and struck the comments of the sock puppet Americatcp, as I have noticed that Gene93k only struck the comments of sock puppet RomanskiRUS on this edit.  If this is incorrect, please leave me a message and I will revert myself. XavierItzm (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - No reason provided for deletion, undoubtedly a notable event. Orientls (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep likely to have a lasting impact on the city and region even country regarding race relations and will continue to be exploited by the far right. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2018 (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.