Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katelyn Faber


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. Ral315 (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Katelyn Faber
I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for this one, but so be it. This article, while about a person who achieved a certain notoriety through the media, still does not belong on Wikipedia, if for no other reason than Wikipedia Is Not A Propaganda Machine. This article reads like a press release from the defense team. It's horribly POV, from the text to the accompanying pictures, and while POV is not a reason to delete an article, I think from a policy standpoint this is not something that should be a part of Wikipedia. Most reputable news outlets do NOT release the names of alleged rape victims, and that self-imposed ban would extend to most if not all print encyclopedias as well. To acheive an air of legitimacy, Wikipedia should follow suit, and not simply say that because one or two unethical media outlets release information about a rape victim that it's just "OK" for Wikipedia to have an article about it. Delete. Tufflaw 06:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable accuser of celebrity who filed a court case under her own name against Kobe Bryant. She involuntarily became a public figure, but after voluntarily filing a lawsuit, what little claim she can make to "privacy" goes out the window. She chose to sue a basketball star for rape, that makes her notable. If there's POV, clean it up. I will note that many "reputable news outlets" released her name - including the Associated Press, after she filed a public-record civil complaint against Bryant. You cease to have a claim to anonymity when you sue someone. FCYTravis 07:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the fact her name became public after she filed a civil claim makes her life story encyclopedic, including information such as her various jobs or places of residence. Tufflaw 07:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This person had intimate contact with a basketball star, accused him of rape, didn't testify in the case so the charges were dropped, sued that star and then settled out of court. It is ludicrous to argue that somehow that isn't notable. "Kobe Bryant" rape gets 980,000 Googles. "Katelyn Faber," in the neighborhood of 10,000. I see a lot of sourcing in the article to mainstream media coverage of this person. I think it's actually a quite good article which encyclopedically discusses the very issue you bring up - the ethics of reporting her name. Fact is, her name is now out there, it's widely-reported public record and it's certainly encyclopedic. FCYTravis 08:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that Googling her name actually brings up only 311 unique hits, and a bunch of those have nothing to do with her. Tufflaw 23:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's not notable, just not encyclopedic. Notability is not an automatic inclusion factor, to my knowledge.  There is also a degree of journalistic ethics that should be considered as well.  At the very most, if her name should be mentioned at all, it should be in the article about the incident itself, or the main Kobe Bryant article.  To create a separate article just for her and to describe the incident in such graphic detail comes across as an attack on her, and reads like propaganda. Tufflaw 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's moralistic to claim that a person who claimed she was raped by a basketball star is entitled to any special treatment. Her acts were clearly encyclopedic - this isn't some woman who claimed to be raped by Joe Blow, she said she was raped by one of the biggest sports figures of the era. If you feel the article is biased, fix it so it's not biased. I am a journalist, and there's clearly *no* issue of journalistic ethics here. She voluntarily became a public figure. FCYTravis 21:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously claiming that anyone who is raped by a celebrity is voluntarily becoming a public figure by reporting that to the police? Tufflaw 22:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * She voluntarily filed a civil lawsuit, a fact that was widely reported in mainstream media. You're also showing your bias by saying that she was "raped by a celebrity" when that celebrity was never found guilty of any crime. She was *allegedly* raped. FCYTravis 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't call her a rape victim, I asked you whether *anyone* who is raped (or even allegedly raped) by a celebrity automatically surrenders their privacy merely by the notoriety of the person who raped (or allegedly raped) them? Tufflaw 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Faber voluntarily surrendered her privacy by filing a civil lawsuit. And yes, there ARE involuntary public figures. It's too bad we don't have an article on the legal concept of a public figure, but if someone is involuntarily thrust into the public eye, courts have ruled they may be a public figure whether they like it or not. [User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 23:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the Hobson's Choice you're saying that a rape victim must face if they try to decide whether to file a civil suit aganist a celebrity, the mere fact of her filing a civil suit doesn't mean that this article is or should be encyclopedic. Tufflaw 23:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that that civil suit was against a basketball star, and the suit alleged said star raped her, is encyclopedic. FCYTravis 23:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the facts of the entire incident are encyclopedic, both the allegations and the subsequent media frenzy. An article just about HER is not.  Tufflaw 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Very notable subject. Everything you're listing above is reasons to edit, not delete. I don't believe that her name should still be protected, since legally she is no longer considered a rape victim; however even at that the article should be moved to "Kobe Bryant Accuser" or something, not deleted outright. And all the alleged POV problems (I havn't read through the entire article) can likewise be fixed. Flyboy Will 07:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because the charges were eventually dropped doesn't mean a person is not a rape victim. There was no claim that the charges were dropped because of any sort of hoax or perjury by the accuser, but because she didn't want to go on with the intense media scrutiny of her personal life.  There's no legitimate need for the kind of information in this article to be available, which effectively victimizes her again. Tufflaw 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What sort of twisted logic is that? I understand you have a POV on this, being an ADA, but we can't call her a rape victim because it was never factually established in a court of law that she was raped. FCYTravis 21:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it twisted logic at all, and while I'm an ADA, I work very hard to keep my personal POV out of Wikipedia. If someone is raped, they are a victim of rape, whether their accuser is ever caught, or if caught is punished.  If someone is murdered, for example, would you say they aren't a murder victim if their killer is never caught or convicted?  Now, I don't know if this woman was raped or not, because I wasn't there.  However, she shouldn't be punished or exposed to public scrutiny because she was allegedly raped by a celebrity instead of a non-celebrity.  To say that by accusing a public figure of attacking her means that she is "voluntarily" becoming a public figure - well, THAT is twistic logic. Tufflaw 22:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A murder victim is not necessarily a murder victim until a coroner's jury makes a finding, or someone is convicted of the murder. It would be appropriate to say they were a victim of homicide. In this case, nobody was convicted of the alleged rape so we must call her an "alleged rape victim." Saying she was a "rape victim" is implying someone was guilty of a crime, when in this case we have no such finding of guilt. She voluntarily filed a lawsuit, which makes her a public figure by any standards. FCYTravis 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's semantics. If I rob a bank and am never caught, am I not a bank robber?  I may not be convicted of robbery but that doesn't change the fact that intrinsically I am still a robber.  Same thing, if I rape someone, does the fact of my never being caught mean that I'm not a rapist?  Are you saying that any woman claiming to have been raped is not a "rape victim" until their attacker is actually caught and convicted?? Tufflaw 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not semantics, it's a neutral point of view. We cannot call Ms. Faber a rape victim because the person she accused of raping her was not convicted of any crime. Hence, alleged rape victim. Wikipedia cannot make judgements that have not been made by a court of law. FCYTravis 23:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the semantics, are you saying that if a person is "allegedly" raped by a celebrity, that it's OK to create an encyclopedia article about them unless/until their accuser is convicted? Tufflaw 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd ask an attorney about the appropriate terminology. This did result in a civil court settlement. Durova 22:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Civil case settlements virtually always include no admissions of wrongdoing. FCYTravis 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you a lawyer? Durova 00:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you not read newspaper articles on lawsuit settlements? The entire point of settling a lawsuit out of court is so the defendant can "pay off" the accuser without having to admit in a court of law that they actually did anything wrong. FCYTravis 01:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * From your answer I gather you are not a lawyer and therefore unqualified to answer the question I posed. The issue I raised is one of technical terminology.  It regards Wikipedia's obligations as a publication. Durova 15:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd never heard of her, of Bryant or of the incident, but it is clearly notable in the U.S. Calsicol 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with Flyboy Will's comment about reasons to edit, not delete. --Squiddy 11:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notible. Agnte 14:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect with Kobe Bryant. To the extent that this covers a notable court case it amounts to a POV fork of the celebrity article.  The rest is borderline slander.  The number of times this otherwise non-notable woman colored her hair is of no encyclopedic interest. Durova 22:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Kobe Bryant] Jcuk 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep . Not withstanding this 'no smoke without fire' fishwivery, clearly a notable person (even if we wish she wasn't). --Last Malthusian 10:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, merge and redirect per Durova. If not being raped by a celebrity was a claim to fame, we could all have articles. --Last Malthusian 16:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself ... damn that Fireman Sam *sniff* . Oh yeah, redirect to Kobe. Proto t c 14:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This wasn't just some celebrity rape case that was kept under wraps by the accused, but dominated national news for the entire basketball season. howcheng   [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 23:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment - how could this be "kept under wraps" by anyone? Bryant was arrested and that was big news, I agree.  The incident is certainly encyclopedic.  How does it make this particular graphically in-depth biography of the accuser encyclopedic?  Tufflaw 20:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So clean up the parts that you feel are too graphic. The fact that an article needs cleanup is not a reason to delete it. FCYTravis 21:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not why I nominated it, it's not encyclopedic. At the very least, if it's not deleted, it should be merged into the Kobe Bryant article.  Tufflaw 02:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. --King of All the Franks 08:05, 23 December 2005 (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.