Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The rape of Savannah Dietrich

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 keep. Consensus is that the event is significant enough for inclusion. Sandstein 01:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rape of Savannah Dietrich

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This about a crime incident appears to violate WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia generally does not maintains articles on living people that are only notable for one specific event. Unless the person in question is notable for other events as well, this should probably be deleted. In addition, there is also no main "Savannah Dietrich" article. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 21:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep You have no understanding of these policies. This is an article about an event - not a person, therefore WP:BLP1E does not apply - and in fact specifically advises to make an article about the event instead of the person . In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.. I suggest you withdraw your nomination. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the person in question is only notable for this one event, per WP:BLP1E, it is still regarding the person, especially considering you first sentence which is about the person itself. It is about her and the event, so that does apply. In addition, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and hence should not cover these sort of topics. The policy itself states that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." You do not see article on event murder, rape, or crime that has occurred everywhere in the world. Please also remain civil in discussions like this, I removed your inappropriate comment about me. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 22:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored my comment. per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil;. The article is about the event, not the person. Obviously the event focuses on the person, but none of the informatino is biographical, and is all in reference to the event. If you think the event does not pass WP:EVENT or WP:GNG, then make that argument (which I also believe will fail, as it has received significant attention, including international) but your given rationale 100% does not apply. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. People get raped all the time (sadly). Of course it was covered in the news, but that doesn't make it notable or warrant its own article. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: The event has been covered in Newsweek and the ~~New York Times~~. This isn't a normal rape case, the significance is in Dietrich being forced not to release the names of those who assaulted her and related events. Ryan Vesey 22:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it was not the subject of the coverage by the New York Times; however, the coverage by Newsweek and other news outlets is significant. Ryan Vesey 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~NYTimes coverage here. Swliv (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Do you have a link to the newsweek article? I didn't come across that in my ref search. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added it but didn't realize it. The Daily Beast is Newsweek's website. If it has a "In Newsweek Magazine" tag, like this one does, it was actually in the magazine. Ryan Vesey 22:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject violates WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 22:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How? We have depth of coverage, which I mentioned and duration. Articles range from July to December. Ryan Vesey 22:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", while WP:EVENT claims "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." In addition, WP:BLP1E will agree with my opinions; and that is a policy. WP:INDEPTH does tend to agree with you, though. I will also, however, admit I was acting in WP:RAPID when tagging the article for deletion. The duration assessment may be something though. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 23:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWSPAPER is intended to avoid Run-of-the-mill coverage of routine events; I hope the topic of this article is not considered routine. You misunderstand WP:BLP1E; it applies to biographies, but this article describes the event and is not (and should be not) a biography, which is the preferred way to cover notable events about living persons. Diego (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, condition 3 at WP:BLP1E is not met. The event is significant as indicated by persistent coverage, which allows us to have an article about it. Diego (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:EVENT and move to Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich as suggested by Auric. We don't have biographies about people notable by one event, we keep articles about the event itself such as this one. The event was more than one day news; the social implications have lasting repercussion as shown by coverage during several months. Diego (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRIME and criminal acts are the guidelines directly relevant to this article. It's important to follow the WP:AVOIDVICTIM section and not provide details that are too detailed or unrelated to the assault. Diego (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ryan Vesey; continued coverage in significant sources/etc. —Theo polisme 03:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --do ncr am 03:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also discussion of this event at Steubenville_High_School#Steubenville_Rape_Case. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be conflating two different crimes. R. Baley (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. Slowly getting sorted out. Swliv (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rape is never routine, that is why the media reports it. Move to a better title, Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich. --Auric 09:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It may happen all the time (hope that's not true), but the media has reported this for quite some time. Coverage of rape to this extent isn't routine. Zappa O Mati 16:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with name change to "sexual assault". Not mentioned I think is that it's not just the event but also the coverup. SDietrich broke a gag order to name names and gained some increase in the judge's sentences. Documents are still being collected, including by Anonymous. See "Inside the Anonymous Hacking File on the Steubenville 'Rape Crew'" by Alexander Abad-Santos, The Atlantic, Jan 2, 2013 and others at that site.Swliv (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Wrong case; two cases were melded in one article for a time. Swliv (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Steubenville case is entirely different. Ryan Vesey 01:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Swliv (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ryan; CNN is also going hard on the story now and The Atlantic published a story about the subject today, and inevitably most of the cablers and broadcast news departments will follow. This isn't the usual Nancy Grace/Dateline/Investigation Discovery overhype we see with these "murder of..."/"assualt of..." articles. We have good sourcing, though I would personally suggest a move to a title which does not name the subject. Nate • (chatter) 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Steubenville case (in The Atlantic) is a different rape than than the one this article is about. R. Baley (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but expand and the article does not mention when it happened, where or anything. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something like this got ample coverage in different nations. Its a notable event. Passes WP:GNG just fine. Dream Focus 13:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.