Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape tree


 * 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 merge to Sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States. Most !voters agreed that this can be merged now that a suitable merge target exists.  So Why  10:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Rape tree

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article recreated after PROD deletion a month or two back. Sources are not reliable enough to confirm this as a notable concept. The first three are YouTube videos from vloggers, not clips from reliable sources. The next is Washington Post, but it's a blog, and the mention of the "rape tree" in it is a Tea Party activist's claim that "rape trees" exist. The blog quotes the activist's claim about rape trees and then follows up with a statement about "confirmed reports of migrant women’s rape by border “coyotes"," making it look like the rape trees claim is similarly confirmed - but it is not, at least not in the article. The final source is a claim by a local sheriff alleging that trees marked by undergarments and condoms are commonly found along coyote routes and are intended as warnings to migrant women by coyotes. He states, "we discovered that those are rape trees," but from whom? There is no indication of where his information came from, and a local sheriff testifying about illegal immigration issues is about as far from a neutral, independent source as one can get.

Please don't take this AfD wrong; I'm not by any means disputing that women are sexually assaulted by coyotes taking advantage of their situation. I am disputing specifically and exclusively the concept of "rape trees" as a notable concept that should be covered in a stand-alone article in Wikipedia. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the term "rape tree" appears to be used by the "Minuteman" type movements, not by mainstream sources, nor by the smugglers/illegal immigrants themselves. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the appearance of the term in Congressional testimony, which is legit, makes it seem to me as if this is worthy of including in the encyclopedia. Bri (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional sources include (added 23 May):
 * Nationally and locally, civilian militias have a new look [originally published as The militia next door], Williams, Lee. Sarasota Herald-Tribune; Sarasota, Fla. [Sarasota, Fla] 23 Sep 2012: A.1. "While patrolling Arizona's Vekol Valley, Sawyer said the team found a "rape tree" in the desert, a macabre trophy created by the "coyotes" who smuggle aliens. Sawyer said that after a coyote rapes a woman in his group, he will hang her underwear on the tree."
 * The privilege of citizenship, Klayr Valentine-Fossum, The Knox Student, Knox College, Galesburg IL., April 2, 2009. "Rape is something that could not be ignored by our camp. Not but a 15 minute hike from where we were sleeping was a site of repeated sexual violence. It was called "the Rape Tree." The tree was located down in a wash, that is, in a dry riverbed, not visible from the bank above. You have to climb down into the wash to see it. Bras and underwear hang from the mesquite's branches. And underneath at the base of the tree were pressed down clothes, blankets and backpacks. This tree had become a symbol of domination; of the power a coyote has over the group."
 * The Watch, Fox, Lauren. U.S. News & World Report; Washington (Jul 2013): 1. "As they make their way around the heavy brush, they circle around a pile of women's undergarments, which lay at the foot of a tree. In sections of land near the US-Mexico border, this is known as a "rape tree.""
 * Your first source quotes someone claiming to have found such a tree, but does not indicate that the newspaper ever followed up on this claim or attempted to fact check the statement. Your second is student journalism, which again shows no indication of any fact-checking. "...a site of repeated sexual violence. It was called “the Rape Tree.”" By whom? When? Third source does seem to meet WP:RS per a quick search of the WP:RSN, but again, I question the credibility of their facts in this case - it's all quotes from "border watch" people with no apparent follow-up or scrutiny. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - The term "Rape tree" is being used in multiple news reports including Washington Post, congressional testimony, government officials (see the YouTube videos.) Perhaps the resolution to this dispute is the add a section to the article noting that the existence of "Rape trees" is disputed. FYI: I am editor who recreated the article.WSDavitt (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Artw (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - sources looks ok. The term is obviously used. BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 *  Delete  (changing iVote to Delete or redirect, see below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)) for lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Coverage such as the Fox News clip linked form youtube in the sources conflate the fact that human traffickers rape the vulnerable women they lead across the border, with the assertion about rape trees.  Smugglers are abusive.  Trees, panties, and rape exist.  The problem is that sources do not support the assertion that rape trees exist.   Note that although term is cited to the Washington Post what the Post actually printed was this comment: “Take a look at the rape trees in the Arizona desert. When women come, they’re told to bring plenty of condoms, because ‘you’ll be raped,’ and the trees are covered with women’s underwear and condoms,”  the comment was made by "a tea party activist from northern Virginia, referring to confirmed reports of migrant women’s rape by border “coyotes,”as the human traffickers are known."  Got that?  WaPo confirms that women are raped by coyotes, it does not confirm that "rape trees" exist.  And the activist making the assertion is in Virginia.   She does not assert that she has seen a "rape tree."  The 2014 Reuters article on the page does refer to rape trees.  The National Geographic article is only an assertion cited to an individual resident of the border area.  That is the sum total of sourcing to major media in article the rest is blogs and youtube.  So I ran a gNews  search turns up only Brietbart,   in which "a human trafficking investigator" asserts that "rape trees are a common practice in this area,” "  and Brietbart affirms that "These coyotes usually remove an article of clothing from the female they rape and they tie it tightly to a tree—a rape tree."   PJ Media claimed to have found such a tree in 2013, However the sole evidence offered is a photo posted on the Facebook page of something called Texas Border Volunteers.  PJMedia continues, "Rape trees have been known of since at least 2009, but they tend not to feature in any discussions of comprehensive immigration reform." .  This seems to be true. I see no substantive support for the existence of rape trees in reliable sources.  WP:NOTSOAPBOX.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This goes back to my meta question about what the purpose of this debate is. Determining that it is a term used in RSes with a reasonably complete definition is, I think, the point. "The existence of X" really shouldn't be the subject of a deletion debate. WP:NOTTRUTH kind of makes your agonizing about whether RSes were correctly or incorrectly interpreting the Texas paramilitary group's claims, moot. Bri (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This article makes a very big claim.  Big claims require heavyweight proof.  The evidence here is mere handful of news stories the best of which merely quote an individual law enforcement officer, border-zone rancher or political activist who asserting that a bra hung from a tree is an example of a "rape tree."   There is  a vibrant Spanish-language press on each  side of that, not to mention the vibrant outlets for women's rights and anti-sexual abuse journalism.  The question I keep asking myself is: If a story this dramatic is is real, why isn't there more media and better coverage????E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This scholarly author asks the same question., in which the author states she "could not find a single academic reference" discussing rape trees, yet they are commonly discussed in the conservative blogosphere, and do profoundly affect attitudes and behavior on the southern U.S. border. - Bri (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:HEY any editor arguing Keep on the basis of the Congressional Testimony needs to establish that the individuals giving the information on these trees are recognized experts on the border and offer proof (after all, anybody a Congressman invites can testify, Sissy Spacek can testify about farming, that doesn't make her statement RS).  But even if the testimony is valid, it is insufficient to establish NOTABILITY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the standard that the article has to be about an actual, notable phenomenon, or whether the public discussion of the phenomenon is in and of itself notable? I think the latter, which is why we have articles about mass delusions, legends, hoaxes, cryptids, etc. Which is why I brought up Congressional testimony. I don't care for the purposes of this debate whether the testimony was true or not, only that the venue itself gave it notability. - Bri (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The standard is laid out at WP:GNG..E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds pretty fringe. I have raised the matter at WP:FTN. Artw (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the article is hopelessly biased under this title. The phenomenon isn't notable as an urban legend; as an actual phenomenon it should be at most a single paragraph in the controversy section on Coyotaje. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "The argument is biased" is WP:SURMOUNTABLE, not a valid reason to delete. Bri (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you want to reply to the rest of my argument? Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep . I added some sources to my comment above. So now in addition we have two very mainstream sources: a page-one regional newspaper and a page-one U.S. News & World Report story using the term and explaining what it is in detail. Good enouh for me. - Bri (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the USNews article mentioned by Bri . E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Revisiting The U.S.. New article is written by a journalist who is being shown the border area by members of the "Texas Border Volunteers", and who show her a "rape tree."  Yes, U.S. News goes with the story,  but, no, the journalist doesn't have an evidence that it is a "rape tree" beyond the opinion of the Border Volunteers.   To me, it looks as though what we have is a small media flurry around an appealing allegation about a group of criminals who exploit, abuse and abandon illegal border crossers to die in the desert.  Maybe the y do advertise on rape trees.  Pretty hard assertion to prove, though.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That one does seem to be a bit more of a substantial mention than your other sources, though I've no idea if that publication meets the standard of WP:RS. On matters of substantial import we probably shouldn't be using random news sites nobody has ever heard of before. Artw (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We already have too many references, we don't need pointless arguments asking for more. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands is spammed with all kinds of refs, but If you subtract the low quality or insubstantial sources there are not really enough to support an article. Artw (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Bri, you can help your case by removing unreliable sources (I took a few such out just now,) User:Power~enwiki piling up citations to unreliable sources as was done here (spam) is amateurish. If a topic is notable, there will be WP:RS providing WP:SIGCOV and editors should stick to them.  The sourcing on this article is a sort of red flag indicating that scholarly validation of the topic and quality investigative journalism does not exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The ginormous quotes probably need to go too, if we take it seriously as an article. Artw (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * True, although I did not mean to imply that it should be kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the comment about me needing to remove non reliable sources. If you are referring to Knox College's student-run newspaper, it may be an RS. Per RSN discussions (March 2017, October 2009, etc.), student newspapers may be RSes. I'd rather leave it for consideration. Bri (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge. A modicum of RS does appear to exist, but per GNG, there is insufficient substance to justify a standalone article. I would suggest incorporating it into the Coyotaje article, as previously suggested. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  22:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As nom I am open to merge & redirect. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC) struck, see below for comment re: better M&R target. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to coyotaje.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge. It's just not strong enough to merit a page, makes more sense to place it in the context of Coyotaje which actually discusses the topic, and lose 'in popular culture' which as fiction has no relevance there. Mramoeba (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * comment if the keel argument is that this is worth covering as a piece of conservative mythology then WP:TNT probably applies, since it isn't in the slightest covered that way at the moment. Artw (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT is for "hopelessly unsalvageably" articles, usually either massive copyvio, or polluted by some kind of COI. Even articles created by undisclosed paid editors rarely fall into this category. I don't see how a four-paragraph article with multiple valid sources can be described this way. If you think it should be described as mythology then by all means add a statement to that effect, of course, backed up by RS. - Bri (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need just a statement, it (if kept) needs a full rewrite to make it clear that as far as all sources have indicated, it is an unproven allegation primarily linked to minuteman/borderwatch type movements, with no confirmation from any independent sources. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 05:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I added some info to the article. My research indicates that some people believe rape trees are "real," and other people believe that they are instead a fiction used to fuel an agenda. The sources I provided are books and are reliable sources. The congressional testimonies are also reliable. I'd rather that people searching for a topic like this find a neutral POV article on Wikipedia describing it. The material I added makes it clear that the claims are coming from a particular source and are most likely being used to create an agenda. I think that's sufficient. There's no reason to TNT the article. Improve it like I did if you are unhappy about it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Selective Merge and Redirect to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States (just created, and mentions this subject) - When I first came across this AfD, saw the sources, and did a search for my own, it seemed like a neologism intended to make a political point (e.g. "Consequences of an Open Border") rather than a subject that we need a stand-alone article about. There's enough coverage for me to support something other than deletion, but it's clearly a relatively small element of a much bigger subject -- sexual assault of women crossing the border. I was surprised that I couldn't find an appropriate merge target that dealt with that subject. Coyotaje is sort of related, but the sexual assaults are not the sole domain of the smugglers, and I would argue are not best covered as part of that article regardless. So I started a draft of sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States, and I would like to invite other editors to improve it. I don't even know that the title I chose is the best, but it seems like too important a subject for us only to cover in the coyotaje article or via "rape trees". &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging AfD participants to see if this possibility changes your opinion: &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 19:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) This is a a much better merge & redirect target than coyotaje, I think. We can make mention of your article in the coyotaje article and then fully discuss the topic in its own article. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Selective Merge and Redirect to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States. This is a much better way to handle the topic! Kudos to for putting the article together. The redirect is important, too, because like I wrote above, I want people finding neutral, reliably sourced information about topics like these. I've struck my keep since I agree it's a better fit for the new article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * comment currently the article has no inbound links, so I am not sure a redirect is really needed. Artw (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with selective redirect, merge to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States.  I do think a redirect is useful, since this is a likely search term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Selective merge/redirect to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States per above - and thanks to Rhododendrites. Neutralitytalk 00:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Selectively merge and redirect to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States, the new article created by Rhododendrites which takes a much better approach than the existing article. "Rape trees" is a potential search term so a redirect is appropriate, but they are only a small aspect of the notable topic which Rhododendrites has identified.  EdChem (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect to sexual assault of migrants from Latin America to the United States as suggested by Rhododendrites and others (!vote changed). As long as substantial content is preserved this is fine. Bri (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2017 (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.