Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester 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. Discussion about the content should take place outside AfD. Tone 08:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Manchester child sex abuse ring

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This does seem to be a "Manchester child sex abuse ring", it seems more of a crime that so happened to occur in Manchester. This crime does not have connotations associated with it such as others like Rotherham or Rochdale, there is no motive against the victims due to their race or any controversy. This is no scandal, this is not notable for an encyclopedia given the lack of sources, the fact some sources are not in English and even the Daily Mail has not reported on it. It does not belong.

If it does belong then it runs the precedent of every crime being reported on with an encyclopaedia article when it affects 3 or more people, every individual “mass shooting” or the like. Reallythoughbro (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Reallythoughbro (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment from the article's author: The editor who created this deletion request appears to misunderstand Wikipedia policy (their edit history also shows they are very inexperienced) and appears to be trying to deceive the community about the extent of the crime's news coverage.
 * The Manchester ring actually was reported in the Daily Mail, despite Reallythoughbro's claim otherwise.
 * The General notability guideline confirms that: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language."
 * Maternalistic Lioness (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maternalistic Lioness (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I still maintain coverage does not warrant an encyclopaedia piece, even looking at the mail article coverage compared to other “scandals” this does not compare, all coverage declares them a gang who more so we’re convicted for a rape in a park, than the likes of systematic and widespread abuse of others. Again, I maintain this is a crime that has happened to occur in Manchester, not a “Manchester abuse ring” and therefore not worthy of encyclopaedia inclusion unlike the others.Reallythoughbro (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment from the article's author: Reallythoughbro is misrepresenting the nature of the crimes. The victims were all under-age, a dedicated police operation was launched to investigate the grooming gang, the police said it was a "sophisticated grooming operation by males operating in that area" and that "we do believe there are other victims". Maternalistic Lioness (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Police also said: "the group had preyed on young and vulnerable victims and subjected them to systematic abuse over a prolonged period." Maternalistic Lioness (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course the police make this statement, they make it with everything they do, regardless of crime whether it’s drugs and the like, simply saying this about this case does not compare to the years and decades of abuse seen in other cases, it does not compare to those that are actually worthy of an article.Reallythoughbro (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, speaking of users history, it appears the creator has had a history of obsessing over this topic, has had numerous occasions of almost being topic banned, including having to change their name from “tots and little ones matter” they have a history of trying to “right great wrongs” and this should be taken into account for motivation to make this article when it isn’t remotely worthy of it compared to the others in the portal. Again, this is not a scandal or is coverage worthy of this.Reallythoughbro (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment from the article's author: Reallythoughbro is misrepresenting how the article's notability compares to some others on the same topic. The Aylesbury child sex abuse ring has four references and is about two victims. The Banbury child sex abuse ring and Peterborough sex abuse case articles each have six sources. Maternalistic Lioness (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Understandably the creator has chosen to ignore their history of the topic and almost being topic banned as well as changing their name from “tots and little ones matter”- which shows you the motivation why they made their account in the first place. They have spent a long time dedicating themselves to making articles about literally everything and anything child sexual abuse related in their efforts to “right great wrongs”. Note they misrepresented what I said regarding coverage, the other articles he mentioned have not only been covered considerably in the news just not with references in the article, but it was also questioned to be racially charged. This “ring” was not racially charged, had no controversy or scandal, and has not been covered extensively in the news. Please do not fall for their misrepresentation. Their motivations are clear. Reallythoughbro (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment from the article's author: Whether or not a gang was "racially charged" (whatever that means) is irrelevant to the General notability guideline. (The the perpetrators were all Romanian, so even if having a different ethnicity were relevant, it would not make this article any different to the others.) Maternalistic Lioness (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The sidestepping is quite interesting I must admit by the creator here. But still, the “racially charged” applies to those that actually have been scandals and are worthy of an article, including Rochdale, Telford, Rotherham, they are incredibly racially charged and usually have an influence of political correctness not seen in this case here. This case is purely a crime that has been committed in Manchester, with little coverage, no scandal, no right wing nonsense, and is not worthy of an article. I understand the creator seems themselves the protector of “tots and little ones” but if we are to create an article about every single one of these crimes there would be hundreds according to the NSPCC. It is not worthy of an article, lacks coverage and does not meet guidelines. Reallythoughbro (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment from the article's author: Reallythoughbro, your repetition is getting silly. Please save us all some time and familiarise yourself with the General notability guideline. Also, no, I was not "making articles about literally everything and anything child sexual abuse related". All my articles bar one were about an abuse ring and still have a Wikipedia article because they are notable. Maternalistic Lioness (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your inability to admit your motives is more telling I am afraid. I understand you see yourself as the guardian of some sorts and feel you must bring all these things to Wikipedia, but on this occasion this is very much a general article, with no great coverage, four sources not in English, no scandal like every single other ring, and very much an odd one out that does not belong. Reallythoughbro (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Obviously meets GNG just from the sources in the article and has had wide-ranging, international coverage as expected for a significant event. Zerach (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Not the right place to wage a policy dispute.  Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 00:04, 30 September 2019 (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.