Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating of Hillary Adams

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. My rationale for deletion is similar to the one at AfD for William Adams (judge). At the moment, this is passing news. However, if it produces some lasting singnificance, it can be brought back. Tone 22:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beating of Hillary Adams

[edit]
Beating of Hillary Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (events), since it lacks "significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time." Edison (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that is not a reason for keeping at all. A Wikipedia article is not some sort of forum for people to debate their opinions. Neither agreement nor disagreement with what has happened on the part of Wikipedia editors has any place in an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your saying "and break out if and when the story becomes more notable" indicates that you do not think it is yet notable enough for an article. That being so, there is no justification for keeping the history of this article. We do not have articles because their subjects may possibly become notable one day, and a redirect should not be used as a cover for preserving in its history material which does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to Death of Wang Yue is inapt. The focus in Death of Wang Yue is on the reaction in China to the death. Only two paragraphs (one of which is only one sentence long) deal with the incident itself. The majority of the article deals with the substantial public reaction and the suggestion that reforms may be made to the law as a result of the incident. That last part is, in my mind, a substantial distinction between that article and the case here. Death of Wang Yue is about an incident that is perceived as requiring a change to the law of one of the largest nations on the face of the earth. Beating of Hillary Adams is about some jackass who beat up his kid. TJRC (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Had I been quicker, I would have beaten you to it, Jim - and I was going to close this as Speedy and delete the article. I did remove the youtube description, though, as that's a clear BLP violation - someone's opinion from a non RS. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I originally deleted it, but restored it as I felt it does not satisfy the requirements of WP:CSD G10. It serves a purpose beyond disparaging, threatening, intimidating or harassing its subject. While it presents biographical material about a living person that is negative in tone, it's a sourced account of events. I believe the main issue here is that WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:INDEPTH has not yet been demonstrated (so delete under those arguments). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Widespread coverage is not sufficient. There has to be some persistence to the coverage or lasting effect. patsw (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Where did I say that I support keeping an attack page on Wikipedia? I made it clear that the article's name ought to be changed, and that the content of the article needs a huge overhaul so it does not exist solely to slander the subject. "Decidedly" was probably the wrong word, but my point is that the incident itself has received enough attention to warrant an article. Others may disagree, but that's my stance on the matter. This isn't really breaking news anymore, and I don't think there is anything wrong with Wikipedia having an article about something that has had national news coverage. We're not a primary source, in that we don't report the events to the public, but we do create and maintain articles about noteworthy events for informative purposes. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, I'm changing to delete. The more I visit this page, the more convinced I become that the subject of this article simply isn't significant enough in itself for inclusion. I don't necessarily support a rigid application of Wikipedian policies and guidelines, but the spirit of BLP1E is to not include articles about living people who are notable for only one relatively minor event. Widespread media attention doesn't in itself quite justify inclusion, especially if it's a flash in the pan. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your Keep arguments boil down to WP:ADVOCACY. TJRC (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to cover the reaction to the video. I think the amount of coverage throughout the world and the already extensive online discussion raises it beyond the threshold of a single non-notable event. I further strongly disagree with those who characterize this as an 'attack' page on the judge. It is reporting verifiable facts. If you consider that beating your daughter is wrong, then the judge has behaved badly, but this doesn't change the fact that this occurred, was video taped and is now the subject of considerable discussion. Francis Bond (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The threshold that one event has to meet to no longer be considered one event is very, very simple. It is called "two events". There ain't two events here, only one; the alleged abuse. Tarc (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't be snarky. The events are notable because both what happened on the video and because of the now-global reaction to it. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be as snarky as I please when faced with the absurdist comedy that passes for keep rationales around here. This is all one event. Period. Everything event that happens in the world has "a reaction" to it, that "reaction" is called "the news". If we separated everything into "event" and "reaction to event" as counting for 2 and not 1, BLP1E would be rendered meaningless. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "But a lot of people watched the viral video!" is not, has never been, and never will be a legitimate criteria for inclusion. Nevermind the fact that the news announced charges aren't going to be pressed against him, making this a non-issue and potential WP:BLP problem. Trusilver 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major news event. Will be a long story. Involves a judge who primarily ruled over child abuse cases himself. Patcat88 (talk)
  • It will be a long story? We have a policy for that. We don't keep articles on the concept that "well, it might be notable later!" This is totally beside the point, because a "major news event" (by who's standards, exactly?) falls pretty firmly into WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E.
  • Uhh, BLP1E specifically argues for the inclusion of this type of article, in preference over the William Adams (judge) article. WP:NOTNEWS is a depreciated redirect to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which cautions against the inclusion of "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities", which isn't really what's going on here. This clearly meets the General Notability Guideline, and qualifies for a meticulously sourced article. Buddy431 (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone make the case this isn't a routine allegation of child abuse? The explanation for the massive amount of coverage in the 2011-11-03 news cycle was availability of a video of it. In this case, the test of non-routine is not met. patsw (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not true. There is plenty of content to be added to the article. Just because it hasn't been added, doesn't mean it can't be added, and we don't delete articles that can be improved by normal editing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think so. I have not seen any news story (yet) which goes beyond a very basic reporting of the facts, which are scant, and are repeated time and time again in every source. The concise, encyclopedic, version of prose would require 3 sentences. Beyond that would be puffery. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is my name signed on the above statement? That's not mine. Buddy431 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IP did it. They are clearly trying to impersonate you. SilverserenC 18:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to impersonate anyone. I copy/pasted and didn't notice. I don't have a clue in hell how to edit wikipedia, but think you should keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.73.165 (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking out the forged !vote. TJRC (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the IP's explanation (that it was an honest mistake), I moved the strike-through to the signature. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge William Adams (judge) here. The judge may not be notable per se, but the beating of a child by a judge presiding over child abuse cases certainly is, as evidence by sustained international news coverage and subsequent analysis. Here's my argument from the judge's AfD:

Keep or Merge into the event (currently titled Beating of Hillary Adams, also subject to AfD). While the subject doesn't make the bar as a county rather than state judge, they are still an elected official and have an amount of presumed notability already — in any case they are a public figure so the BLP claims carry a lot less weight. Being a judge and having the police chief state that they "believe that there was a criminal offense involved" is, in itself, notable, particularly when you're a judge working on child abuse cases and the claim against you is child abuse. Then being quoted saying "It looks worse than it is" guarantees you additional notoriety, as evidenced by deep and diverse international news coverage extending far beyond the usual short news cycle. I think we'll be analysing and referring to this as a case study for the foreseeable future — indeed we already are.

I find the string of WP:NOTNEWS delete !votes above unconvincing given that when you dig deeper you see that "events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" (as has already been the case). I'm also not convinced by WP:BLP arguments given they are an elected public figure. Finally I'd argue that WP:CRIME does apply too given a police chief stated that "there was a criminal offense" — the perpetrator is a renowned national or international figure and the circumstances certainly sufficiently unusual as to warrant widespread coverage. -- samj inout 11:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there evidence of the coverage being sustained beyond coverage of the disclosure of the 2004 video? Where is there evidence of this being anything more than a routine child abuse case but for the publicity commencing on 2011-10-27? patsw (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If national or international impact is likely, and you want this article considered on that criterion, then articulate what that impact could be.
  • There can be no criminal indictment because the statute of limitations has passed.
  • Of course WP:BLP applies to elected public figures.
  • What guideline refers to "circumstances certainly sufficiently unusual"?
  • Where's the evidence that any coverage of this is sustained? patsw (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date of recording vs release is irrelevant — when the public discovered it there was widespread, deep, dedicated international coverage — publicity is notability.
Publicity is not notability. WP:N defines notability and publicity is not sufficient. The coverage was not deep or dedicated by any definition of deep or dedicated. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable — a review of the statute of limitations could be one such lasting impact, as would changes to policies & procedures for judges.
There is no evidence that this is going to be a precedent or catalyst for anything. This is conjecture on your part WP:CRYSTALBALL. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of criminal indictment (due to statute of limitations) does not imply lack of WP:CRIME.
Why cite WP:CRIME? It contains nothing that argue for inclusion, in fact, it supports the article deletion. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP applies, but as an elected public figure they are by definition not "low-profile" so they have a lower expectation of privacy and should be held to a lower standard.
  • WP:CRIME refers to instances where the "motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" — a judge ruling on child abuse cases being accused of child abuse is certainly unusual, as evidenced by the response (which certainly would not have been afforded your average guy)
Per our current practice and what WP:POLITICIAN states - Adams is at the level of judicial office where he is low-profile. He is not a state-wide or national political figure.
The beating of a child with a belt is evil, but not unusual. What is unusual is the availability of the video in 2011 from the 2004 incident. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. (WP:EVENT) — surely articles still being written almost 2 weeks after release exceeds a "relatively short news cycle"
  • An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. check
The coverage was not in depth. It was a one sentence summary and the link to the video. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. check
The coverage was not significant. It was a one sentence summary and the link to the video. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I think an article for the event (but not the individual) is warranted and given the level of coverage received already one more article will make little difference in terms of WP:BLP, and may even help by offering a balanced rather than sensationalist view. -- samj inout 20:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judgments in articles for deletion under WP:ONEEVENT are not simply made by the amount of initial coverage. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to obvious and unquestionable notability and interest, but even at worst we would merge and redirect to Corporal_punishment_in_the_home#United_States. I can think of nor do I see any actually legitimate reason why would delete something covered in widespread media outlets concerning a judge. We are not a paper encyclopedia. We can and should cover anything and everything that is backed by reliable sources and for which a neutral fact based article can be written. If all these other sources are out there anyway, we need not concern ourselves with "protecting" someone whose actions are viewable online to billions anyway... --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every headline does not get an article in Wikipedia. It's not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia.
  • Should the fact that a judge is involved influence the application of policies here in any direction?
  • There was interest in the October 27, 2011 news cycle. The legitimate reason for its deletion is that the coverage in text was routine. Its global dissemination is explained by the availability of a video. patsw (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: Your sig appears on this page 14 times, which is 13 times too many by my count. WP:DE -- samj inout 00:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is only one vote. The rest is discussion. patsw (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In case you didn't notice, MasterExpert admitted that his arguments were incorrect or at least somewhat wrong, and on top of that changed his vote to "Delete". Also, NawlinWiki's arguments have been proven wrong right above your post. If you have something new, please tell me so I can better understand your position. Gwickwire (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beating_of_Hillary_Adams&oldid=1137603149"