Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brock Turner
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
— [[User: JaneNova|JaneNova]] ([[User talk:JaneNova|talk]]), 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP: NPOV (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)