Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia University rape controversy
I find it ironic that this article is being labeled as a  (pushing a particular point of view) when the other article, Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), clearly has a POV Title about her senior thesis project, which is http://time.com/3910621/emma-sulkowicz-mattress-columbia-rape-video/ about what she considers to be the poor handling of her rape allegations by university authorities. That's ''her'' POV and the article is titled with that point of view. And it has also accurately been pointed out in  that - ''The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article.'' Here, the "certain subject" is her senior thesis project, the alleged rape and the way that the University handled that allegation; the facts and major points of view surrounding her senior thesis project are adequately represented in that article. But, let's not forget that Nungesser was also accused by two other females and a male of sexual misconduct, and those "facts and major points of view" surrounding those allegations are not reflected in that article. Indeed, Nungesser's rebuttal to those allegations are not even mentioned. In addition, the facts and major points of view surrounding his Title IX lawsuit (Columbia discriminated against him “as a male.”), are not reflected in the Mattress Performance article either. And finally, I don't understand what the issue is with naming the "accused student", when he has publicly spoke out - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/nyregion/accusers-and-the-accused-crossing-paths-at-columbia.html The New York Times, http://www.newsweek.com/2015/12/18/other-side-sexual-assault-crisis-403285.html Newsweek, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/columbia-student-i-didn-t-rape-her.html The Daily Beast
— User:Isaidnoway, 17:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:POVFORK||WP:POVFORK (Wikipedia:Content forking)