Deletion of Brock Turner

Comment: per .  As far as I know, there aren't any other articles about the victim's rape.  Also, this is a crime that shouldn't be whitewashed, papered over, or shoved under the rug
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIMINAL)

Comment: per  and . A non-notable individual who committed a crime has no encyclopedic value
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: to Campus Sexual Assault, as per Only in death's rationale. If that's not an option, then '''Redirect''' and refocus the article to cover the case as a whole, not just Turner. If that fails, too, then '''Delete.''' I ''strongly'' disagree with the many "Keeps" above (along the lines of "This man is notorious. Personally, I think the judge should be notorious as well for such a lenient sentence. This is a disgrace"), because "Wikipedia is not a public forum for shaming." Many of the arguments lack grounding in actual policy, and some violate . As noted above,  basically precludes the possibility of keeping the article as is, and we can't say now whether this will ever become a " well-documented historic event." That would require more CRYSTALBALL. I am about 95% sure that a concerted canvassing effort/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is going on here, but I won't waste time investigating that, and I'm confident the closing admin will realize this, too
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL||WP:CRIME)

Comment: Clear  violation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Seems like it would not be notable under  or . Also under wikipedia Wikipedia:NOTNEWS#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper|is not news . This was not a nationally or internationally known criminal act or criminal until the unexpectedly light sentence was reacted to. The person is convicted of 3 counts of sexual assault and he happened to be a university level competitive swimmer. Neither of these justifies a wiki page to himself. His father's reaction is not surprising, "parent advocates for their child" is surely not newsworthy, nor should judges really listen when a parent advocates for their own child. It would be far more surprising if a parent said to the court, "my child should be punished severely". Merge into a page on sentencing for sexual assault convictions, and how this case generated a strong public reaction
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIMINAL||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: to 2015 Stanford Campus Rape Case or similar, and '''redirect''' Brock Turner to the renamed article.  As many have noted above, Brock Turner is not the primary subject of this article and if he was it would be deletable under .  There has been significant national and international coverage of the case, the verdict and the subsequent fallout from the verdict, up to and including a circulating petition to recall the elected judge in the case; this indicates clear notability under .  "Brock Turner" will remain a valid search term for this case (hence the redirect) and the conviction is a matter of public record and international news and therefore should not violate 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:N||WP:BLP)

Comment: a straightforward failure of  and . His case is notable for the symbolic value of his victim's letter, which "went viral" because many people and sexual assault victims felt it spoke for them, than for his specific crime. I think this would be better placed on campus sexual assault with a description of the events. He doesn't himself pass . His case has attracted attention not so much because his actions were "unusual—or have otherwise been considered noteworthy" than because they were felt to be an ''example'' of of such assaults in general; not because his actions were unusual as they were felt to be all too common
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIMINAL||WP:BIO1E||WP:CRIMINAL)

Comment: it.  I strongly disagree that Brock Turner's page violates Wikipedia's notability guidelines.  Wouldn't a strain on Wikipedia's |neutrality stance actually demonstrate a strong attempt to be neutral?  Neutrality itself is not a fact--it is an aim that is embedded in the delivery of an argument.  All writing makes some kind of claim.  The veracity of that claim is what determines whether the source is being neutral.  Is Brock Turner a convicted rapist?  If a record of conviction exists, we can then turn our attention to the problem of the term "rape."  Rape, by any definition, is not a 'neutral' phenomenon.  As a concept, it raises all kinds of categorical challenges for writers--when is rape rape?  What are the boundaries between the terms rape and sexual assault?  Is there a such thing as "intent to rape" (which implies that intent is not sufficient enough to constitute the violation suggested by the term rape).  Of course, there remains the question of notability.  Who is Brock Turner, and why--of all the convicted rapists in America--does he warrant Wikipedia page coverage?  On Wikipedia, the question of inclusion presents a problem for those who assume that notability could ever be discussed as a 'neutral' thing.  Phenomena ought to be considered 'notable' if it becomes a widely circulated narrative.  One *fact* of Turner's conviction that has generated enough media response to introduce his name to the masses involves the legitimacy of Turner's sentencing.  A neutral stance that ignores the sociopolitical context in which meanings are made compromises its value as such.  Age, race, and class clearly played a major role in Turner's very light sentence.  Turner, then, has been transformed into a symbol of a stratified U.S. criminal justice system, which makes it of importance to anti-racist social movements and organizations from #BLM to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).  Furthermore, the victim was unconscious during her rape, which has caused some discussion about whether she was 'actually' raped.  In addition to generating discussion about fairness and justice, the Turner case is part of a larger public conversation about campus sexual assault and alcohol abuse that cause people to vigorously debate how we talk about rape as a legal, social, and political issue, especially when victims are acquaintances.  In sum, the Brock Turner case warrants inclusion and should not be deleted.  Wikipedia's neutrality policy is flexible enough to withstand the relativity of perception and the reality of an event and the scope of its impact.  Neutrality is not a matter of whether something is true, but whether the syntax of categorical claims about reality avoids expressions of value (e.g. good, bad, ethical, positive, negative).  In other words, rape may conjure a number of value associations about 'bad character' (e.g. creep, criminal, dangerous violent creepy criminal), but that has nothing to do with the reporting of a legal status--however controversial.  For the article to maintain Wikipedia's standard, it should acknowledge that the conviction of Brock Turner is controversial, and of relevance to a significant number of Wikipedia's publics--hence its inclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP: NPOV)

Comment: per , to an article about the case, including the sentencing and the controversy over "Emily Doe's" statement
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIMINAL)

Comment: This case may be problematic under , but it's important to note that the victim's lengthy in-court statement has now gone "viral" http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-stanford-rape-victim-statement-20160604-snap-story.html and has been covered in detail in important sources like ''The Washington Post'' https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/06/04/you-took-away-my-worth-a-rape-victim-delivers-powerful-message-to-a-former-stanford-swimmer/ and ''The Guardian'' http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/02/stanford-swimmer-sexual-assault-brock-allen-turner-palo-alto.  At this point, I don't know that the event can be accurately characterized as "low profile
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIMINAL)

Comment: meets  -- but  a bit more in doubt. The event has generated significant coverage to justify an entry, just not sure if the perpetrator should be the center
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CRIMINAL)

Comment: Turner is internationally (in)famous, and fully satisfied  as an All-American swimmer even before his current notoriety
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The information is important and notable via a conjunction of  and , which respectively define a notable person as a criminal who is otherwise notable, and an athlete who is otherwise notable.  A criminal athlete sounds potentially notable, and the months and months of media coverage puts me over the edge.   applies only to low-profile individuals: specifically, if an individual has engaged in any kind of self-promotion, they are likely to be considered high-profile.  I'm inclined to count Turner's father as an extension of Turner for the purposes of this policy, given the close nature of their relationship, and the specific nature of the crime.  As a case against renaming:The case in question is not well-known by any unanimous moniker: "the case with Brock Turner and the series of events and news coverage that followed" may be descriptive, but it's hardly convenient or useful.  If instead, we decided to pick one of the names for the Event in question from the various news stories, it's possible we might technically be hewing closer to our rules on neutrality, but we'd also be making a choice at the whim of whoever titled the article, and that seems to violate the spirit of neutrality we should be reaching for
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME||WP:ATHLETE||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I'm reserving judgment on whether or not Brock Turner was independently notable, so I can raise a major concern about the merge proposals. (Note to newcomers, Wikipedia policies are often restrictive on this point, but that doesn't prevent relevant content about, say, Adam Lanza, from appearing on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.) Both  and  guidelines question whether not-otherwise-notable individuals should be topic of an independent Wikipedia article, but the guidance they offer is about incorporating ''the available encyclopedic material''. In general, this means merging to or creating '''a page about the specific crime'''. Thus we have Steubenville High School rape case and Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich. Merging to campus sexual assault would require a massive and unnecessary deletion of encyclopedic content. So, those who favor a merge should back a renaming of the article to something like Sexual assualt by Brock Turner or January 2015 Stanford rape (although the latter may like Wikipedia:PRECISION|precision
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:CRIME)

Comment: certainly keep as is for now, as it is very prominent in the news.  A BLP, but not a violation, it is all well sourced, and appropriately written, certainly far better that what is all over the internet today.  When the news cycle calms, a merge may be appropriate, per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to Campus Sexual Assault. Delete if unable to merge.  is very clear on this
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIME)

Comment: per  and . This is not a newsworthy event, it is a crime and there are no distinguishing characteristics to make this worthy of inclucion in an encyclopaedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: Violates Low Profile individual policies on Wikipedia. . Additionally, claiming that this guy and this event is nothing more than a perpetuation of the ravenous, 24-hour news cycle is preposterous.  The simple fact the article cites so many articles as references, which are mostly redundant in that they are news articles covering the exact same information from different media outlets proves that anyone interested in true crime gossip can find it elsewhere.  —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)