Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 UCLA racism controversy

2011 UCLA racism controversy

2011 UCLA racism controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is an article about the controversy surrounding an offensive YouTube video uploaded by a college student. It does have plenty of sources, but it does not seem like an incident of lasting notability. The student left the university because of harassment due to the video. No one was killed, hurt, or even sued. Wikipedia doesn't need an article for every viral video or student prank gone wrong.   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as creator. The amount of reliable press (in multiple countries) demonstrates the notability of this incident. It will pass, I agree, but that doesn't prevent it from being considered as a notable event. All events eventually pass and it's the ones that have numerous reliable sources associated with them that are included. I do believe, however, that the name of the young woman should be redacted from the article. Basket of Puppies 21:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The student's name appears in the title of 6 out of 13 sources. Should we avoid giving full citations for nearly half of the sources to hide the part of the story which we don't want casual readers to know about? That'd be kind of weird. If the incident is notable then I don't see how we can say the person's identity is an irrelevant detail.   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • You have a very good point. I am hoping we err on the side of caution about BLP issues. Not sure what to do when a news article uses her name when/if consensus says not to use her name in the wiki article. Possibly not use that source? I am not sure. It's new territory. Basket of Puppies 01:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. FYI. The student's article was deleted via AfD. Bgwhite (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Even though this incident has been covered by numerous media outlets, I don't see how it will have enduring historical significance. In substance, the incident is nothing more than an example of a person's expression of constitutionally-protected free speech. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I'm also inclined to say that this event isn't an "event" in the sense required by WP:EVENT. Wikinews is/was the right place for this. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per above. By next week people will forget about this (if they haven't already) and there is no point for this girl to be on immortalized on Wikipedia forever for a mistake she made in college. BurtAlert (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete this third lame article on this filler "news" story. WP:NOTNEWS for those of you who like links. Salt this one like bar fries... Carrite (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete and salt Already deleted several times under the student's name, it's definitely WP:NOTNEWS and didn't really get any reporting at all nationally. Stop gaming the system by putting it under different titles and realize there's not anything compelling here to speak of beyond somebody who got their just desserts for what they said. Nate • (chatter) 05:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In fairness to the creator, there's no indication he was involved with the previous articles.   Will Beback  talk  05:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Struck, wasn't sure of the exact status of creation or relation. Nate • (chatter) 05:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I coaxed Basket of Puppies to convert this from an article about the student to an article about the controversy, as per WP:COATRACK. DS (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you striking the previous comment. I had nothing to do with the previous articles and consulted with DS about naming of the article and keeping the name of the student absent from the article pursuant to BLP concerns. I truly believe this article is notable- it has received significant, non-routine coverage in multiple reliable sources from multiple countries. I am unsure what part of WP:EVENT it fails. Can you enlighten me? Basket of Puppies 00:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't particularly care too much about this one, but it is a notable event. I perceive that the real factor here is trying to prevent more damage to the young woman's future, which I don't wish to inflict either.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: It is an actual event that took place. Definitely worth an entry.
• Comment: It is pretty amusing for those who predict what will and will not be historically significant. What are you afraid of? This incident was quite a significant event in that it was one of the first times when a student saying something incredibly stupid actually had real consequences. It is a complete paradigm shift in that ephemeral casual conversation allows a lot of stupidity and mistakes, and eventual correction in behavior from negative feedback versus the permanent record of the internet when doing the same and embedding it on an electronic network. This incident is certainly worth while of keeping until it can be placed in a more suitable place that deals with the larger issue of the internet and reputation. That facet of history is still being written. How this particular incident falls into that larger piece is yet to be determined.Justice.is.here (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)