Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R v. Elliott


 * 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The result was Keep; withdrawn by nominator. Any additional discussion can continue on the article's talk page. utcursch &#124; talk 16:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

R v. Elliott

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a non-notable and ongoing criminal trial involving a non-notable person accused of a crime against another non-notable person. Per WP:VICTIM: this case does not involve a notable person and is not (yet) historically significant; and per WP:BLPCRIME which states "" (emphasis in original). I'll grant that the unusual nature of the alleged crime in this case makes it likely that it will become historically significant, but at the moment because that significance is based purely on conjecture, the article is simply a coat rack to republish the opinions of a noted hostile columnist as though they are facts. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are calling a living person "hostile" as though THAT is a fact when it is merely an opinion from people who one could just as easily label "hostile". I also don't believe that kind of comment is considered proper under Wikipedia policy. --TheTruthiness (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed with Ivanvector's argument here to Delete. As mentioned in earlier criticisms of the page, most of the sourcing comes from one columnist's editorial page.Nothing-Significant-to-Report (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've edited the article so there is now exactly one use of Blatchford, and that is to quote Elliot. There is no opinion from Blatchford anywhere in the article, so I expect it should have your full support for keeping. Rhoark (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:VICTIM is a red herring, as no one involved is being treated as an independent article topic. I certify that the requirement of WP:BLPCRIME has been met, in that I have "seriously considered" not including the relevant material. The event has sufficient independent notability and coverage that sensitivity about the privacy of the accused is unwarranted.
 * The case is notable by all prongs of WP:EVENTCRITERIA:
 * A verdict in either direction will set an important precedent
 * ...of national scope
 * Coverage is in-depth
 * ...over the span of a year
 * ...from diverse authors and publications
 * Contrary to aspersions, the article maintains a clean division between opinion and fact. Even were there a problem of this nature, the correct response would be improving the article rather than trying to get it deleted. Rhoark (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur that the columnist's opinions have been appropriately trimmed or removed. My concern is that while the case has the potential to become notable, we would normally base that on critical analysis of the verdict in reliable sources, and as there is no verdict we can't do that. As it is now, the article really only serves to report the news, and further victimize both the accused and his accusers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The article makes clear the distinction between fact and opinion. Some of the edits have wrongly removed fact claiming it as opinion. The ramifications this case could have on free speech in the future are very significant and thus it is already an important historical case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.80.37.0 (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think this case will set a precedent for online harassment or at least be very notable. Maybe protect the article since Im assuming it will be vandlized Fangrim (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per Ivanvector's argument. It certainly has the potential to be notable, but unless and until it rises to that threshold, I don't think it deserves an article.  Slightly contra Rhoark, while I agree that a verdict of guilty would almost certainly be a notable precedent, a verdict of not guilty would likely not set any sort of precedent (not guilty here would not be a total repudiation of the idea of harassment via twitter).  Basically, why rush it?  As we all know Wikipedia is NOTNEWS.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Note that the guidelines cited to justify deletion are for biographical articles. This article is not a biography, but a legal case and parallel trial, as pointed out by Rhoark. As such, the nomination doesn't include an assertion of any violation of the criteria for deletion and I don't see one on my own accord. GraniteSand (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a vital case on the limits of free speech, all the persons involved are notable, with many articles, TED talks, &c. It is very suspicious that on the night before a decision is to be rendered in this case, someone decides it should be deleted. Hiding information does not work, folks. Keep for that reason alone, as a notable example of editorial sabotage. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I have reservations because I do think this is an important case. But the individuals are not really notable (TED talk is actually TEDx) and this is a criminal trial at a relatively low level with questionable precedent-setting ability (it's not likely to alter the definition of criminal harassment in Canada). Depending on the result, it could be that a different Supreme Court decision will later become the more important article as there are potential Charter implications, but that's not this trial and there's no real guarantee this will happen. 99.235.212.48 (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, at least pending outcome, which should will be by 17:00 EST tomorrow (22:00 UTC 22 January). There has already been a great deal of coverage of this trial, both in local Toronto media, and in editorial press internationally, from both those supporting and opposing a guilty verdict and the effect that it could have on online free speech/harassment. It is likely that it will get much further coverage after tomorrow. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, this is being described in reliable sources as a precedent-setting case and is notable as its the first known harassment case in Canada based entirely on tweets. You have someone banned entirely from the internet for years before being found guilty (and not on any cybercrime/terrorism charges), both Twitter and the police have claimed there was nothing threatening and allegations of corruption. There's plenty notable about this case and there's several reliable sources in the article, if anything is a WP:COATRACK it would seem to be this delete request. --TheTruthiness (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, the editor who nominated this article for deletion, Ivanvector, has an undisclosed personal relationship with two of the complainants in this case. 58.7.254.153 (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actual tweet is here: . I don't know who tweeted all the other tweets listed in that imgur: one is a retweet of my tweet, and the others I'm not familiar with. For the record, I have an "undisclosed personal relationship" with all three of the complainants and with the defendant, insomuch as I have interacted with all of them on Twitter. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The verdict has just come through, and multiple reliable sources, both new and old, have stated this case has major implications for free speech in Canada. The notability extends beyond the individuals involved. —Torchiest talkedits 15:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, Elliott's victory today has set legal precedent. Given the amount of coverage given to this case already, there is no reason why this should be deleted aside from a pathetic attempt to perform a cover up.  LCrowter (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, this case will set precedent for whether what Elliot did constitutes harassment as there are disputes between the two parties. This case has been covered by CBC, The National Post and other international news organizations. It meets notability requirements. The defendant does not need to be notable himself, the case itself is notable. Anaverageguy (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Withdraw and keep given broad neutral coverage of the verdict (I actually didn't know it was due today). WP:NOTNEWS, but all sources agree that the verdict is precedent-setting so I expect there to be lasting coverage of it, and there's no point deleting the article just to recreate it later. The other issues I mentioned can be solved with editing, so deletion seems to be off the table. Pinging   (the other delete !voters) to see if you agree with this assessment, then we can close this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep this is national news, a precedent case, and one of the first of it's kind. It's of historical, cultural and academic importance. Why is this even a discussion? Yet Another Nobody (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2016 (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.