Deletion of 2009 Richmond High School gang rape

Comment: per nom and per . FWIW, I've already been called upon to deal with edits which needed |oversight on that article. I also have concerns that such an article 1) is a BLP nightmare, at least prior to verdict and 2) it could easily be used in evidence that the jury was prejudiced and that due to the coverage, etc, that the defendants could not receive a fair trial, etc. Not the first time this kind of thing has happened
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:OVER)

Comment: Those arguing that this violates  need to re-read the policy is question. The policy does not forbid articles for notable current events, it just emphasizes that not everything that gets reported automatically warrants an article. As such, we have to consider this not in the context of  but  and specifically Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) which clearly says that a criminal act is notable if it "receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope". The N/CA guideline specifically was created as a result of the arguments that this debate reflects, i.e.  and  vs. coverage satisfying . But if the guideline reflects consensus on how to deal with '''exactly this kind of article''', then this means it's also the most (or even only) relevant guideline to apply here. N/CA requires "multiple, independent sources" that discuss the subject in question (stricter than ) but we have them. We even have an event here that, tragic as it is, has sparked massive discussions on different subjects, like people not helping a crime victim and peer pressure leading to horrible crimes. It meets thus the relevant guideline for inclusion and  problems can be addressed by editing. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOT||WP:N||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E||WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:BLP)

Comment: as yet another confusion of "what is in reliable sources?" and "what is of encyclopedic value?".   to a T
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Per #NEWS. As Peacock said, it is newsworthy but not encyclopedic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: major'' news with extensive coverage of national scope -- clearly not the sort of "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" that fails #NEWS. Statements that certain (unnamed) individuals have been arrested for the crime do not violate  -- such excessive concern for the interests of the alleged rapists is highly misguided. If oversightable edits, such as the name of the victim, become a problem, the article can be protected; deletion is neither necessary nor sufficient for preventing such edits, since they could always be made to an article that won't be deleted, such as Richmond, California. Editing of the article by a disruptive SPA, if established, can and should be remedied by blocking
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:BLP)

Comment: The significant and lasting reliable source coverage, thus far, makes it appear as though this article survives #NEWS|wp:notnews.  We can review this in the future should hindsight become clearer
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Gang rape of a teenager outside a school with none of the witnesses phoning the police or trying to intervene - indeed, some joining inhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/31/MNR41ACRGU.DTL - isn't run-of-the-mill. There have been vigils held in the local community, showing an impact beyond the immediate trauma to the girl. Those simply citing  have to realise that it does not give carte blanche to delete all events reporting in the media; NOTNEWS is intended to avoid having articles on minor events, but this isn't minor and the reporting of this event is far from routine. It has been reported internationally, and the reporting has not diminished after a fortnight. Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) is a guideline that applies to this kind of event and the coverage meets the criteria laid out there. There is no doubt that a gang rape occurred, so deletion on BLP grounds seems bizarre. BLP sensitivities have gone too far when Wikipedia treads on eggshells over having articles on crimes while ''thousands'' of news reports exist.  is not whitewash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP)

Comment: I have covered many big-city incidents of gang-rape; none of them need an article on Wikipedia, and they don't - #NEWS ... unless, some major Federal Act prohobiting something comes from it, it's really only locally notable.  Sure, NBC nightly news might cover it as a "look at what people do at Richmond High, aren't you glad you don't live there", but what does that matter?  BLP violations galore.  Also check the  and  aspects
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:COI||WP:OR)

Comment: This is a tragic and ugly incident with almost no factual content. The article reads like a newspaper report and is full of supposition: alleged, believed, reportedly proliferate without much, if any, attribution as to whom, exactly, is doing the alleging, believing and reporting. (The remark about people at the school who "believe" the minor victim is herself responsible for the events certainly ought to be stricken on the grounds that there will be neanderthals everywhere who will hold idiotic opinions; their ignornace should not be immortalised in an encyclopedia.) Everyone involved appears to be a minor; that alone could be grounds for awaiting verifiable facts despite media feeding frenzies over anything prurient. "Notable", even if true beyond the needs of a voracious 24-hour-news station hunger, is not sufficient when minors are the BLP-related subjects. As an aside, Richmondian, who suggests in his/her defense of the article above that he/she has insider information through confessions of a prosecutor, appears also to have a conflict. He/she began his/her Wikipedia career on November 4 with this article and has been entirely single-minded about it since then, displaying all the attributes of a  with a mission
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: per #NEWS, , two weeks later and nobody is talking about this. As for this being an such an unusually violent or otherwise unique event, you're just fooling yourselves
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:BLP)

Comment: per , the baseline of what all articles are judged by. All sources meet  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Definitely violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: appears to pass /CA,  the policy guideline for articles on criminal acts. Actually, this piece is ''precisely'' what led to /CA, and passes with flying colors. In addition, ''CBS news, ABC News, CNN, NPR, NY Times, USA Today, Newsweek, and The View'', as well as international publications as far away as India have covered the event. Gaining notability daily.   A very strong case for '''KEEP
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: From Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) - ''"Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope."''.  From:  - ''"# News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:News articles"''.  The coverage for this event was not routine - it's been extensive, in depth, national in the US and global, and very persistent for many days after the incident.  There are introspective features and philosophical considerations as well as factual reporting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per Edison and Georgewilliamherbert. The subject meets the |general notability guideline, but I understand the  argument. Nevertheless, this is not your everyday police blotter story, as evidenced by the national &ndash; in fact, international &ndash; media coverage. This is on par with the Central Park jogger rape case, in my opinion. Like that article, this subject absolutely meets the /CA|specific notability guideline for criminal acts
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:N)

Comment: I was looking for an article that this one might be merged into, as Llywrch asked, but didn't find anything. But roughly a sixth of the articles in :Category:Rape are mostly or largely about gang rape or some aspect of it: :CATEGORY:War rape (six articles), Ashfield gang rapes, Sydney gang rapes, 2007 De Anza rape investigation, Anjana Mishra rape case, Sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (not now listed in the "War rape" category; appears to be largely gang rape, but maybe not), The Greatest Silence: Rape in the Congo, Chiong murder case, Land, Gold and Women, Denis Mukwege, Murder of Junko Furuta, Eudy Simelane, Shopian rape and murder case, May 2009, Dans l'enfer des tournantes, Super Free, Suryanelli sex scandal, Vilina Vlas, Megan Williams case, and Subic rape case. I was surprised that there were this many articles, and this article seems to fit in with the rest of them, although at this point I'm not sure whether it should be kept. Some of the articles (the last two listed) are about allegations of gang rape that were later dropped (to allegations of a single rape). I do agree that a gang-rape allegation in a high school with students and local people who have abundant Internet access is a nightmare for BLP concerns. And we can expect that a case like this may not be resolved for more than a year. That's a lot of policing. We need to think about the harm Wikipedia can do by having articles like this. The other articles, at least, aren't now current and most don't deal with kids, and many are in poor countries where fewer people will edit. The notability guideline should be stiffened beyond  standards for these kinds of cases
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per #NEWS, , and a little common decency. Any salacious stories like this will have a spurt of news coverage initially. Sorry to say, despite some's remarks above, this is not that unusual. The only thing unusual about it is that the speed of information available (right or wrong) thanks to the internet and cell phones. Its extremely common for mob mentality to take over, even in raping some poor girl. Its a well documented phenomenon. At best, a very brief, nameless mention in the appropriate article about that phenomenon might be appropriate, but otherwise, leave it for Wikinews. While this AfD is on-going, I hope admins will continue to be vigilant in oversighting the downright despicable attempts to post the victim's name
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:BLP)

Comment: as #NEWS. Send it to Wikinews and if anything notable emerges from this (a la Kitty Genovese), an article can be written then. By way of substantiating my position, and as a suggestion to the closer to at least consider the issue more generally, a quick note about the disagreement between the two camps: it seems to me this is a classic example of the systematic, US-slanted bias in en.wiki. This regional issue is trumpeted as Most Important Event Ever by (willing to bet almost exclusively) US editors watching US news caught up in classic intense-then-forgotten US media cycle. They are being sucked into the magnifying effect of the style of US news coverage (not to single out the US b/c other countries are just as bad, but I note that we don't get these kind of knee-jerk, NotNews-violating "articles" about big events in Bulgaria, which I would also vote to delete.) http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/0,1518,656125,00.html This article from ''Der Spiegel'' provides something of the perspective we should maintain with respect to the events that get caught up in the news cycle
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)