Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hedge


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hedge

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS - non-notable run of the mill child rapist. There is nothing about the case or individual that makes this notable for our purposes. Cameron Scott (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete classic BLP1E, Wikipedia is not a news aggregation project.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete does every criminal whose crimes are reported deserve an article as notable; I don't think so. ww2censor (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment from article creator (moved down by Belinrahs): I created this article because I found the crime and perpetrator quite shocking and extraordinary. I heard about it on BBC-4 radio's Sunday morning news report on religion issues last Sunday and could not believe my ears. I was disappointed to turn to Wikipedia and find nothing there about this criminal. How could such crimes occur after all the brouhaha over child abuse by Catholic priests? Was this because this occurred in England and they were unsuspecting? Was it because it was in the COE not the Roman Catholic church? This man was a vicar and curate (responsible for the 'cure of souls' in his parish). He was convicted of multiple rapes and more than 30 other charges of sexual abuse of 6 boys. There is noting "run-of-the-mill" or non-notable about this case. It is not consolidating news but providing Wikipedia's only reference to a man who has deeply wounded 6 young men, two populous communities, and arguably the Anglican Communion. I am sure there are some who would prefer to look the other way, to pretend things like this don't happen, to not include them because it embarrasses and hurts people to think that priests can be so horrible. But Wikipedia is about the world as it is; not the world as we might wish it to be. Let people make of this what they will, but don't just delete it.Celia Kozlowski (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Hey Celia - thanks for commenting. I understand how you feel about this, however Wikipedia has rules and policies which must be followed. We're not trying to "look the other way", as you say, by voting this article for deletion; however Wikipedia policy states that this type of article doesn't belong here. For a thorough explanation why, please read the policy by clicking here: WP:BLP1E. We'd love if you'd continue to contribute; if you have some more subjects that you'd like to write about (and judging by this article, you do have good writing skills), I'd recommend using the Article Wizard; see WP:NAW. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 18:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. As per Scott Mac, this fails WP:BLP1E. While it looks like the author put in a good effort, the person is not notable enough for this encyclopedia. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 18:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, although perhaps it could be made appropriate for Wikinews. For purposes of Wikipedia, this fails to meet WP:BLP1E and the guideline for notability of criminal acts. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  19:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not see evidence that this is a landmark case which led to societal changes, new legislation, or to secondary coverage such as books or motion pictures. PerWP:BLP1E the essay News articles, and the recent proposed guideline Notability (news events). Edison (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Don't Delete and Comment from article creator  -- FYI this article WAS created using the wizard and guided by what it says about newsworthiness. BLP1E and specifically newsworthiness of crimes/criminals are satisfied in this case. It is not that this case lacks national coverage -- but I did fail to site it. I have now redressed that, adding national coverage of the case and putting it in the larger context of how the Church of England is coming to grips with child sexual abuse.Celia Kozlowski (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This may just be one of the rare times that I say Weak Keep and work on it by wikifying, or merge somewhere. Although I do see WP:BLP1E here, it just may be encyclopedic as far as the notion of an emerging wider problem of the church. I will not be too saddened if this is deleted, but that is my 2 cents. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * weak Keep mul;tiple rapists are notable if there's sufficient press coverage, as there is here. BLP1E does not apply, as it was not a single event.    DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The single event was the trial. There are 100s of cases like this in the UK. It's simply not notable, no laws were changed, no media outraged was raised, no child safety policies were changed. It's completely run of the mill. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep, rewrite, possibly rename. Well-sourced content in the article suggests the case led to significant changes in the relevant policies and practices of the COE. The cited BBC commentary indicates that the case was unusually prominent, and was discussed nationally in the way that events of this sort are not. And BLP1E is not applicable, since the subject's role was central; the discussion should focus on the principles involved iwith NOTNEWS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * strong Keep from article creator -- If you listen to the Bolton interview, which is the first item on the BBC soundfile, you will certainly hear national media outrage. But in addition I have added further national news coverage. (I see the long list of international blog citations that I added -- more "media outrage"-- was deleted). I have added more wiki links. I have added more information about the church's response, which includes changes in child safety policies. It is not run of the mill to have a vicar, supposedly a model of ethical, nurturing leadership for his flock, violate trust and harm children so extensively-- especially after years of warning incidents like this in the Roman Catholic church in other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celiakozlowski (talk • contribs) 11:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, article author has already provided their comment and opinion in other sections above. Please try to keep your comments and statements together, as spreading them throughout the discussion can make it more difficult to follow. Many thanks,  Gazi moff  12:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - per BLP1E. Coffee  //  have a cup  //  ark  // 06:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:BLP1E. Although the article is well sourced, it was still a single event within the wider context of the various abuses documented at the time. I would suggest a framework similar to the Catholic sex abuse cases in order to unite the material together and describe how policies evolved over time, instead of relying on piecemeal one-event BLPs that go against policy and only show a small fragment of the larger picture. Many thanks,  Gazi moff  12:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't hold with the argument that this is not a single event. A series of crimes followed by a trial is close enough to a single event for applying WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep based on indicia of notability (media coverage, church reaction). I can see the BLP1E concern, but that policy says that "a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options."  Deletion would lose this information.  Retitling this article to be an event article would be easy because, except for the title, that's what it already is.  There's no bio information about Hedge beyond what's related to the scandal -- no birth data, education, etc. JamesMLane t c 09:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. No problems with userfying, as the sourcing and information may be useful in articles about either the individual events (trial, rape, etc) should they pass notability in their own right, or more generally in articles that touch on recent scandals relating to priests in England. Ray  Talk 20:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Trials of child abusers are neither uncommon nor inherently notable. Unless there is significant and ongoing media coverage of the case or a resultant change in the law, which there hasn't been in this instance, I do not see how the case moves from the realm of news into one of encyclopedia-worthiness. That said, the article is well researched and sourced&mdash;I would have thought it could be modified for the purposes of WikiNews. Rje (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2009 (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.