Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal


 * 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   speedy delete. WP:SNOW delete given !votes, POVFORK and BLP concerns. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Jian Ghomeshi alleged sexual abuse scandal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This doesn't exactly fit in any CSD category, but I'm asking for SNOW deletion as an unjustified BLP split. with an unavoidably prejudicial title.  DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I believe that this meets the criteria for inclusion per WP:EVENTCRIT. I also believe that it's more appropriate as a stand-alone article than as a part of the main Jian Ghomeshi article because the amount of information that's being reported will quickly dwarf the rest of the article. This is what we've done in cases like Anthony Weiner sexting scandals and timeline of Rob Ford video scandal. As for the title, I've made it as accurate as possible (referring to the sexual abuse as "alleged"). If there is a more delicate way to title it, I'd be open to it. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear WP:NOTNEWS, given the amount of detail required to cover this topic, it can easily fit inside the subject's main article. Comparing this to Weiner or Ford is like comparing apples and architecture. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How does WP:NOTNEWS apply here? Tchaliburton (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How does it not? --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at WP:NOTNEWS. It's not (1) a first-hand news report, (2) routine news coverage, (3) a "who's who" or (4) a diary of minor events. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. - Does this have the enduring notability to be an encyclopedia article, who knows as this is only a few days old. My opinion is will not, as thus far the only outcome has been a radio personality has been dismissed from their job, and they are suing their employer. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a case of "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" (WP:NOTNEWS #2). This is a top story with practically every Canadian news organization and has received considerable international coverage. This clearly meets WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. It's already apparent that this will have enduring notability. But if you don't think so, keep in mind WP:RAPID which states "Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary." Tchaliburton (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:POVFORK and WP:BLP. If the allegations prove to be true, then surely it can be added in the main article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Firstly, this is a content fork — 90 per cent of it just a repetition (straight-up copy and paste, in fact) of stuff that's already in Jian Ghomeshi's main article anyway, and the very little bit that's actually new is "celebrity reaction" quotes that aren't even remotely essential to the encyclopedic context of the matter. Yes, it's news — but this article isn't adding anything substantive to our coverage of that news which the main article about Ghomeshi himself can't already accomodate on its own, without the need for a spinoff. The time for a separate article about this would be when the encyclopedic content about it actually dwarfs the rest of his article, not when one editor theorizes that it might eventually do so — if the best you can do, five full days after the scandal broke, is still almost entirely just copy-pasted from the main article, then that tipping point simply hasn't been passed yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete : Inflammatory article title – At best Redirect to Jian Ghomeshi as information is already covered there with new article just being redundant. ShoesssS Talk 17:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete (no redirect) - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:POVFORK, WP:BLP, etc. as above. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - at this point, the allegations are unproven, and thus, posting an article like this violates BLP.      Snow delete this as it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. KoshVorlon   Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How does it violate WP:BLP? Tchaliburton (talk) 18:24, 30 October 2014 (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.