Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia University rape controversy

Columbia University rape controversy

Columbia University rape controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This entry mostly duplicates content that is either already included on the entry for Mattress Performance, or that was rejected by community consensus as being unwarranted. This article covers, in detail, an unproven sexual assault allegation dealing with a non-notable person who has made a concerted effort to keep a relatively low profile, and raises serious BLP issues. There was previously pretty strong opposition to a similar proposal for a page move proposal on the Mattress Performance page, and this sort of seems like an even more problematic version of exactly the same idea.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Nblund (talk • contribs)

• Comment, this article is regarding the case presented plainly and fairly, with accusation, defense, outcome, reception. The goal is to present the events leading to the Mattress Performance neutrally. Nungesser has been vocal in defending himself publicly, releasing both lawsuits and having multiple interviews with news media outlets such as The Daily Beast. As per NPOV we must present both sides with neutrality, at the end of the day he was found "not responsible", his views must presented otherwise the BLP violations will always exist. I do not feel Mattress Performance is the best location for the details of the case. There is more than enough information to warrant a WP:SPLIT. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Keep The article is about a notable controversy with a world wide coverage, Mattress Performance on the other hand is about the art piece which is a crucial part of the controversy but not the only part. Information that was rejected in the Mattress Performance article was rejected because the article focus was the art piece and the surrounding controversy was a tangential part. I would agree, now that this article exists, the Mattress Performance article should be focused more on the art piece and the "controversy" coverage should be minimal in there. Also at the time of the move proposal mentioned above, the controversy was still developing and the article was about the artist herself, not the art piece. It was later renamed per Blp1e and we still don't have an article about the artist for same reason. Darwinian Ape ^talk 22:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Details regarding "the events leading to the Mattress Performance" seem well-suited to go in to the Mattress Performance entry. To be clear: i'm not raising a neutrality issue. The concern is that this topic isn't independently notable and doesn't warrant an independent article. The denial, outcome, and reception are all mentioned in the Mattress Performance entry, and "new" information in this entry seems mostly composed of block quotes, unwarranted biography, or play-by-play recounting of a non-notable sexual assault accusation.

DariwnianApe: The entry is primarily about the Mattress Performance because the consensus was the Mattress Performance made this case notable. There's no indication that this view changed, and it's patently obvious that no consensus in favor of a split developed in the 6 hours between the opening of the split discussion and the creation of this page. Nblund (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

How are you defining non-notable? This case has been covered by multiple reliable sources and appears to pass WP:GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree the creation of this article was a bit hasty, I would have preferred to wait for additional voices. But I believe having a separate article is a better solution for documenting the controversy. Neutrality will suffer as long as the focus of the sole article about the controversy remains an art piece, which by the way not at all the focus of the most reliable sources. I don't believe we should delete the article about the art piece. It has independent notability,(i.e praise/criticism it got from the art world) but so does the controversy. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that acknowledgement. It really sounds like you're making a case for changing the main focus of the Mattress Performance entry. I think that's perfectly reasonable and should be considered, but it's not an acceptable reason to create a separate entry. We didn't agree on changing the focus of an existing entry, so a new entry was created and it's been filled with stuff that was previously rejected. This is more or less the definition of a POV fork. It lowers the quality of the encyclopedia and it undermines the consensus building process. Why not merge in some of this content to the existing entry, and then discuss whether or not a split is necessary? Nblund (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe the focus of the Mattress performance article should not change because the art piece has a notability of it's own regardless of the controversy. I too was afraid of a POV fork before when the mattress article was the only article, but the successful implementation of the sister article Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol convinced me that we can focus on the subject of the art on the mattress performance article(as the aforementioned article is) and document the controversy in it's own article. As I said, I would have preferred more eyes before creation, but I will not endorse deletion of this article on procedural grounds now that it's created, because I believe this is the best solution there is. Perhaps I can convince you that withdrawing this nomination and starting an RFC to keep, merge or remove this article would better suit our needs instead? So that we can have more eyes which we did not have the chance the first time. Darwinian Ape ^talk 00:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Can't see any reason to duplicate already existing content, nor include all this new material that's at best skirting the line with WP:BLP. I'm going to delete some of the more obvious stuff that's unsourced, for now. Hopefully this will be uncontroversial. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

What is duplicated? There is a great deal not mentioned in the other article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The case is notable, it's not independently notable and the new article seems like it reflect that fact. Without the art project, this is a run-of-the-mill sexual assault allegation, and we don't have entries for any of the dozens of other men who have filed similar lawsuits alleging unfair treatment. Readers probably would get by without the detailed knowledge of Nungesser's upbringing, or verbatim transcripts of Sulkowicz's Facebook exchanges. The truly new stuff here seems simple to incorporate in to the existing entry, and I don't see any reason this wasn't at least attempted first. Nblund (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Run-of-the-mill sexual assault resulting in extend international media coverage? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep International most highly qualified sources cover this topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseeart (talk • contribs)

Hey Caseeart, just to be clear: no one disputes that the topic as a whole is notable, but this topic is already covered in the entry for Mattress Performance. The question is whether a separate entry is justified. Nblund (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The information here contains the documented outcome of the allegations based on trial and investigation. It is not covered in the other article nor should it be covered there. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The Mattress Performance entry does cover the lawsuit and the investigation, but the lack of mention of the outcome of the suit seems to be an oversight. I'm very confident no one would object to that being added to the existing entry, and that seems like a great solution to this issue that would allow us to avoid this content fork. We could even start a page move discussion that would allow more balanced coverage of the suit alongside the performance. What do you think? Nblund (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Title of article needs to be about "Columbia University". Majority of all sources have a title similar to "Columbia University rape". Very few are titled "Mattress Performance". Even if we were to merge - we should merge Mattress Performance into this article. CaseeArt ^Talk 08:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (the article it was forked from), though possibly under a title more like the one above ("Columbia University rape controversy"), since a majority of the content even of the Mattress article is about the rape and various university and legal proceedings rather than the art piece. -sche (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep or Merge Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) to this article, not the other way around. There is enough coverage in reliable sources of both and the fact that there are very different aspects to the story, both the artwork and the tie-in to the campus rape controversy. The fact that there are reliable sources that focus commentary on the art-worthiness of the project and reliable sources that focus on the rape allegations with no commentary on the mattress as an artistic project in and of itself strongly suggests that these are two distinct subjects. The articles for The Massacre at Chios by Delacroix and the Chios Massacre are able to co-exist. If, however, the consensus is to merge, it should be merged to an article title that is related to the underlying controversy. It is correct to say that most rape allegations don't become notable topics, but it's also correct that criminal allegations that are related to a notable controversy are more likely to be notable than a college student carrying around a mattress; the rape allegations may or may not have been notable when connected with the underlying controversy without the mattress carrying, but the mattress carrying would almost certainly not have been notable without the allegations. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the reverse is true—the performance art would probably have been notable without the allegations, but the allegations would almost certainly not have been notable without the performance art. Anyway, these kinds of hypotheticals are impossible to prove and probably not very good arguments. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. Without the underlying, larger controversy (both the wide campus controversy and the specific incident), it's just a student carrying around a mattress. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment do we really like a merge is option? -sche CoffeeCrumbs, would there not be NPOV violations? The article would be written with the first have stating the outcome of the case then the performance. The Mattress article focuses on the performance with minor details of the case, this article focuses on case with minor details on the performance. My question is can we portray the performance fairly if too much detail is given to the case? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Also this source here gives Sulkowicz's defense, I did not have time to include it fully as the article was fired out in 6 hours, but if we include a strong defense for her this article would be even longer making a merge less viable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I much prefer Keep to Merge, but if we do in fact agree on Merge, I rather it be connected more with an article title reflecting the larger controversy rather than specifically the performance piece. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That would also violate NPOV by not giving due weight to the outcome of a highly cited legal case on which the performance was based. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think length is an issue. Portions of this entry appear to be composed almost entirely of extended verbatim quotes from editorials. I cut and and pasted the substantive portion of entry in to the the Mattress Performance entry in this sandbox. It comes out to just over 43,000 bytes, which is only a couple thousand more than the existing entry for Mattress Performance. That's within the recommended limits, even without removing the redundant and wordy prose. It would be very easy to create a spinout article down the road if it proved necessary and if community consensus supported it. Nblund (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also add reaction to the allegations and lets see where we are at. That article is still missing massive information. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding the "reception" section gets to 47,000 bytes, again, this is without any editing for content or length at all. This is still within the recommended guidelines. There's no need for haste in splitting entries, and we certainly don't need to preemptively split articles. It really doesn't seem like you've made a plausible argument that length is the motivating issue here. Nblund (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep It makes sense to have separate articles for the art project and the accusation/legal actions. Some of the latter could be removed from the Mattress Performance article, making it more about the art and the artist. Where necessary, "main article:" notations could lead to the article about the controversy/legal issues. Also, the Mattress Performance has ended, but the legal actions have not yet, so that points to a logical decision that these are interrelated yet separate events. LaMona (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - separate articles makes more sense. BabbaQ (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)