Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. v Evans and McDonald


 * 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   no consensus. This was a difficult AfD to close, because this event is still unfolding and new information is coming in each day which could affect its notability. At this point, it seems too early to determine whether this court case will have lasting significance. If the notability of the case is still unclear after the news reports have died down and once there are no new developments, then take this article back to AfD at that time. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 16:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

R. v Evans and McDonald

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A court case that is not notable. The two accused are notable but the case itself is not unusual or a landmark in of itself. EchetusXe 14:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I created this article for the sheer practical reason that there was already a significant amount about the case in the biographies of the 2 players involved, and it made it easier to cover the case if this was combined into a single article. I recognise the article could do with improvement, but my computer is playing up at the moment, making some things difficult.  I suggest that a trial for serious charges where the 2 accused are both notable is itself somewhat notable.  Also, the case is attracting a significant amount of attention in Britain, as it touches on some wider issues of misconduct by professional footballers, by no means an isolated incident. PatGallacher (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There may be an argument for creating an article for dealing with British footballing scandals, where players hit the headlines off the field for criminal and immoral activities. I don't know what that article would be called however. You could say it is an issue in the sport like Homosexuality in English football is (for different reasons, obviously).--EchetusXe 15:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

*Delete as per argument above, the trial itself seems to fail notability and essentially is getting the coverage it is due to two professional footballers (thus being somewhat in the public-eye already) being involved. --Jimbo[online] 22:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This rape trial is about a Wales International Footballer and has featured across most UK mainstream media as well as globally. It is fairly notable. IJA (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per the above. Almost voted Speedy Keep on this. Clearly notable per WP:GNG. Lord Roem (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, borderline Speedy Keep. Has the nominator even had a cursory look at the mountains of broadsheet / serious media coverage on this topic? --Mais oui! (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would appear to be a news story. I was keeping the Clayton McDonald and Ched Evans articles updated with the events of the trial. There are hundreds of other news stories out there that have no Wikipedia article and will never have a Wikipedia article. The two men are notable, that is why it is a news story. The trial itself is not notable, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, like it across the world right now. Why do we need an article on the trial, saying exactly the same things as written on the two articles already? What purpose does this third article serve? Google 'R. v Evans and McDonald' and all you get is the Wikipedia article. I say again, the trial in itself is nowhere near notable, no legal precedent is being set, it will not be referred to in other cases, it is a non-entity. The two men are notable, hence the news coverage, hence all coverage should be in the articles of the two men. You do not create an article for every news story. WP:NOTNEWS--EchetusXe 20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I quote from Notability (events): "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." It may well be widely report tragic celebrity news but it is not notable.--EchetusXe 20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've striked out my !vote, I think it's become very prominent now what with recent Twitter developments. I'm in favour of keeping the article. --Jimbo[online] 22:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 00:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Try searching for "Ched Evans rape" or "Clayton McDonald rape" and you get a pile of articles. The case is receiving a substantial amount of coverage, it just isn't using this exact title. PatGallacher (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is because of the individuals involved. The case itself is not notable. It sets no legal precedent like Roe v. Wade. It isn't like the Murder of Stephen Lawrence, no wider issues in society are raised by the trial. Neither is it like the O. J. Simpson murder case or People v. Jackson where the individuals are notable within in their own right AND the trial is also notable due to sustained coverage over a long period of time. This is a pretty standard trial that can be covered in a couple of paragraphs by the two articles already in existence. Harry Redknapp and John Terry both have had recent trials that received 100 times the coverage of this story and yet there are no articles on those trials. That is because the individuals were notable but the trials were not, as is the case here.--EchetusXe 11:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete agree - the trial itself isn't getting the coverage, the two famous people involved in it are, and to be honest not even that much. Compare the rolling news coverage in the US of the trials of OJ Simpson/Michael Jackson and this in the UK - nothing. I honestly haven't seen it on new bulletins once. GiantSnowman 12:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, this case does raise wider issues, which have been discussed on the internet, about sexism in football and abusive behaviour towards women by some footballers, a cause of some controversy in Britain over the past few years. PatGallacher (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not unless they are proven to be. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The controversy about sexist and abusive behaviour by footballers isn't going to go away, whatever the truth of these specific allegations against these two. PatGallacher (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep why are we even having this discussion?. Notable trough reliable sourcing and WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We are having this discussion because an article has been created on a non-notable court case that has received minor coverage in a few national newspapers. Is anyone actually reading this discussion or are we all just saying 'keep' because it shows up after a quick look on Google?--EchetusXe 16:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Yes the trial is important enough to be mentioned on articles of the sportspeople effected, but the article should not exist in its own right as it is not a breakthrough legal case, nor does it warrant any additional weight due to the minor celebrity of the individuals involved. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete All rape cases get coverage in the press, and this is being skewed somewhat with the alledged involvement of two notable people. This case is unlikely to change case-law, or have a long-lasting legal impact.  Lugnuts  (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "All rape cases get coverage in the press"?  --joe deckertalk to me 15:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and Delete plenty of other more notable footballers have been charged and convicted of rape. There seems nothing to make the case notable beyond the two defendants, which was bound to create press coverage. merge major details to Ched Evans. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - run-of-the-mill criminal trial with no particular historic importance, adequately covered in the players' articles. Some have said a separate article is needed because of the amount of information here, but we shouldn't be going into this level of detail in the first place (are future generations really going to want to know that 'She had drank two glasses of wine, four double vodkas with lemonade and a shot of sambuca.'?). Robofish (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per WP:GNG. Also Evans has just been found guilty and sentenced so there are more sources that have come out in the last hour which can be added to improve the article. It would be really ugly to put this in the Ched Evans article as there is too much that can be written. Spiderone  15:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Ched Evans. (note: at the time of writing the case has just concluded, subject to any appeals. Evans has been found guilty, McDonald has been found not guilty.) The notability of this case is solely due to the identity of the defendants. The guideline at WP:CRIME suggest that when the perpetrator of a crime already has an article "it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." We have no such size issues here, a section in Ched Evans summarising the main points of the case would be appropriate. While McDonald was also a defendant, he has been cleared, and good BLP practice involves not retaining an article that drags his name through the mud. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. per robofish. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment To be frank I never saw this verdict coming when I nominated the article. If anything I saw the case being dismissed. But now that it has it has ended like it has it can be merged to the Ched Evans article, whilst becoming a paragraph in McDonald's article.--EchetusXe 16:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge Does not need a seperate article, only often quoted cases, ones which form a legal precident, or ones that recieve large scale media coverage are deemed notable. Murry1975 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge: The trial is not independently notable, and can be covered sufficiently in the articles on the defendants.  AJ Cham  19:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: In light of the ongoing coverage and wider consequences of this case, it seems to in fact be notable.  AJ Cham  14:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge some of the content to the existing sections on the subject to the two players' biographies. It is in itself not a particularly notable or a landmark case, as English footballers have been charged with rape in the past.--SUFC Boy 23:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge is an invalid option, if you merge you must preserve the page history. Please clarify your comment. Polyamorph (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and perhaps also merge any useful info into the existing BLPs. Nothing notable about the case itself.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not possible to delete and merge, if you merge you must preserve the page history. Please clarify your comment. Polyamorph (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete mainly per WP:RECENTISM. Absolutely no enduring historical significance, even if the general notability guideline is currently met. Leaky  Caldron  11:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the trial is indeed absolutely notable as it (the trial) has had extensive coverage in numerous news sources. The article is exceedingly well sourced. Notability is not temporary, it satisfies WP:GNG now and is not required to have ongoing coverage. The original reasons for creating the article, detailed by PatGallacher, are sensible and perfectly acceptable. Any discussion with respect to merging can be had at the appropriate article talk page(s), this is articles for deletion, not articles for merging/redirection. Polyamorph (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Polyamorph, please refer to Articles for deletion. Merge and/or redirect are appropriate options in a deletion discussion.  AJ Cham  16:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I know but in my opinion a merge proposal might have been more suitable than an AfD in this case. Polyamorph (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Chad Evans. While this seems notable, it seems to be notable due to the individuals involved. Nothing about the trial seems notable. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect  to Ched Evans. The story has been reported internationally but this in itself isn't sufficient to warrant its own article (see Notability_(events), which makes this quite clear). Possibly the verdict may be seen as notable in the future (I cannot think of any instance of a footballer being found guilty of rape). But I can't see any 'reliable' evidence of anyone drawing this conclusion and neither does the article make any claims of wider notability. Sionk (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've altered my 'vote'. Redirection seems pointless because no-one is likely to search for 'R. v Evans and McDonald'. Sionk (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't merge and delete! If you merge you must preserve the page history in order to comply with wikipedia licensing requirements! Polyamorph (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for the clarification! In that case I guess I'm 'voting' for a merge of the pertinent information. Sionk (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect Yes, most of the notability criteria are met, but one of those is that this means a presumption, not a guarantee, of inclusion and editors can reach a different consensus. I agree that the trial itself is worthy of inclusion in the players' articles - especially Evans, as he was convicted - but the case itself doesn't warrant a standalone article as its notability derives entirely from those involved and the level of detail required is not great. Whouk (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument about notability deriving from those involved is reasonable. However the level of detail is not relevant to AfD since it's an issue that can be resolved through normal editing process. Polyamorph (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Within the boundaries of delete vs keep, and given the issue of duplication mentioned below, I switch to keep - with merging into the separate articles still an editorial option outside the AfD process. Whouk (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per arguments above. Can be covered adequately in the Evans and McDonald articles, and case isn't sufficiently notable in itself. HornetMike (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Considerable media coverage that satisfies WP:GNG, eg Guardian BBC. This is more notable than most court cases and is not WP:RECENTISM.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Those references also show that coverage is continuing after the event and regarding the repercussions of twitter use exposing anonymous victims and possible inadequacies of the criminal justice system. So those comments that say the case is not notable in itself outside of the fact that famous footballers are involved are mistaken. Polyamorph (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the more I read these comments the more I'm dismayed. The nominator gave no evidence based rationale for deletion and many of the comments have been along the line of "merge and delete" which is not possible - I don't think this article should ever have come to AfD, deletion is and always should be a last resort. The article itself gives numerous sources which indicate it's widespread notability. Other commentators have stated that there is no individual notability for the trial itself, i.e. it's only notable because of the famous people involved, but is that really a valid argument, after all there are still hundreds of reliable sources that discuss the trial, regardless of why it passes WP:GNG it does still pass it, a point that commentators arguing for merge acknowledge. Further reliable sources are available in the aftermath of the trial in the wake of twitter activity condemning and identifying the victim - this demonstrates wider impact. We must go with what the sources say. Polyamorph (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are additional notability criteria for events. When this AfD was raised there were no ongoing repercussions or evidence of the case's importance. Therefore the nominator was quite correct (though could've elucidated further!). It is debatable whether things have changed significantly because we're still too close to the event IMO. If one of the vile blabbing Twitterati is hauled before the courts too, maybe things will change! Sionk (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This court case raises a range of issues, including privacy and conduct on social media websites. In this respect, it is similar to CTB v News Group Newspapers in 2011. Saying that this case is not notable does not make much sense in view of the amount of media coverage and discussion that it is generating.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Aside from the verdict (which is so far incomprehensible in its inconsistency), the case history is identical for both men. Without this article, the relevant sections in the two footballers' articles would need to have virtually identical content, resulting in duplication of effort. – Smyth\talk  12:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Police have arrested a number of Twitter users in the UK, and are also investigating the Sky News coverage of the Twitter incident. Things have moved on considerably since the article was nominated for deletion on 12 April 2012, and it is no longer a routine rape case.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable event becoming more notable due to ongoing coverage. As indicated above its not a routine case. Edinburgh  Wanderer  17:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I would tend to agree. Seen as this has developed a new dimension, similar to the "Twitter Joke Trial", how about renaming the article to Trial of Ched Evans? As with the aforementioned Trial of Paul Chambers. "R." is legally unidentifiable and McDonald has been found innocent, so most of the title is irrelevant. Evans is launching an appeal so now I'm not sure that if that goes to court it will still be referred to in the courts as 'R. v Evans and McDonald'. Plus I have not seen anywhere reporting 'R. v Evans and McDonald', but variants of the 'Ched Evans trial'. --EchetusXe 18:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Wait a minute, I made that comment after reading above that that "Police have arrested a number of Twitter users in the UK". That is not the case. Not so far at least. So there is the potential for notable legal issues to arise (people being arrested for naming rape victims on Twitter), but so far that has not happened.--EchetusXe 11:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On Tuesday 24 April, The Guardian said that "a number of arrests" had been made by North Wales Police, but subsequently edited the story to say that police planned to make arrests. There may have been a mix-up here, or the police may be holding off to get more evidence. Either way, the ongoing coverage of this case and the issues that it raises about sub judice are notable enough for an article. North Wales Police are still saying on Twitter that "Arrests will be made following comments made on social media sites identifying the victim in the Ched Evans rape case (25 April)."-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Three people have now been arrested over their comments about the case on Twitter.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - prominent trials, especially those that have ongoing legal sequelae, are notable. The many reliable sources attest to the case's notability. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - since it's initial nomination the case has metamorphosed into a vastly more significant case with wider ramifications. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 23:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think the page is notable. Footballgy (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Agree. I also think the page is notable. Wallie (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Far too much to merge. Multiple sources highlight notability Francium12 (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Ched Evans, with content also summarised at Clayton McDonald, per WP:PERSISTENCE. If the case is in future cited in a number of works relating to the wider context of sexism in football, then perhaps it would be WP:DUE to reinstate the article then. -- Trevj (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The primary question here seems to be WP:PERSISTENCE of coverage, and I can understand why some editors feel that that bar isn't met--we wouldn't usually count a cluster of articles at the time of a crime and another at sentencing time as "persistent", and rightly so. However, the Twitter-related arrests, and their likely continuing is another matter. That, while recent, includes some coverage of this case past the routine. Perhaps to put it more clearly, when the Home Secretary gives quotes to the media to discuss the social implications of a side-effect of a case, some degree of lasting WP:EFFECT and notability has been, in my view, evidenced. --joe deckertalk to me 15:24, 30 April 2012 (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.