Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case

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

Product of WP:RECENTISM, this article covers an event that fails the general notability guidelines. The event has received relatively wide coverage in the international media over the last few days and this has mislead editors into thinking it notable. Our polices say While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information; this article is not giving due weight to the event in the context of the biography.

This also fails WP:EVENT; coverage is currently (and obviously) not of a long duration, as such it is a big assumption that the coverage will have a long duration. This could just as easily be dropped next week as it would go to trial. Most of the coverage is very similar and is purely from news sources (i.e. minimal diversity).

Consensus at Kahn's biography was not to split the content for the moment, but this was later created with minimal extra discussion.

The content is biographical and about a living person, dealing with allegations of a sex crime and an ongoing investigation - no trial has occured and per our usual BLP approach our coverage should be neutral and minimal for the moment.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and this is a news article. Errant ^(chat!) 20:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The bio had become too weighted with new sections and excessive news report details, but not enough effort was made to prune, summarize, or add context. As for notability, the event has already affected France's political situation and potentially global economics. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than the fact he clearly will not be able to stand in the next election (unless it gets dropped quickly) I haven't actually seen a source that deals with an in-depth analysis of the effect on the political situation & global economics... I've seen some idle speculation spun into the news stories, but nothing of much depth. I could, however, have missed something. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An "impact" cite was added to the article which expands on that.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major scandal, both the Levinsky scandal (top politician + sex), the Bernard Madoff affair (finance), and Tyson trial (violence). Yug (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event forced the head of the IMF is forced to resign. [1]. Before his arrest he was considered the front-runner to challenge Sarkozy for the 2012 French Presidency [2], and this event left the French Socialist party in disarray [3]. It has been covered in roughly 24000 news outlets [4]. Yes it is news, and yes it is recent, and that makes for some difficulty in writing about it; however, I really fail to see how anyone could conclude that this fails the general notability guidelines ("has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"?) or that the event won't be of lasting significance, whatever the actual outcome of the case. Dragons flight (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. For anyone interested there have been two preceding talk page discussions on whether this should be split / merged. The first, before this article was created, ran 8-3 in opposition of a split. The second, from after the article was created, is currently running 6-5 in favor of a split. The arguments made at both of these discussions are likely to be similar to the arguments made during this AFD and may be worth reading. Dragons flight (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should add that the original discussion for the first one started with, "We urgently need a split, so the content about the trial may be reported day after day, and expand freely" (the text was recently revised, however.) But that seemed to go against the "notnews" policy on its face. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk)

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Currently this is a current news item. Details will be sketchy, biased, and subject to change. There is no need for a WP article to reflect a changing story, there is no need for an article to be written at this point in time. John lilburne (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable and verifiable, with dozens and dozens of sources available that provide in-depth coverage. This is merely a sensible case of splitting a quite large section out of a biography for the sake of removing undue weight and yet still preserving neutral, verifiable content about a topic. As Yug points out, it's pretty much standard operating procedure to split this kind of event into a separate article. Steven Walling 21:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and as a BLP minefield. If we only report what is justified by policy, this article will be unnecessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutrally explaining the facts of a criminal investigation that has gotten attention from many reliable sources is not a BLP violation. Writing this kind of article is what Wikipedia is here to do and is clearly in line with our core policies of neutrality and verifiability. It's not a matter of libel to prudently describe events that concern a public figure and their role in a major international controversy. Steven Walling 21:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTNEWS objections don't apply for such incredibly notable events Soupy sautoy (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with John Lilburne and AndyTheGrump. FightingMac (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- A scandal that brings down a man who's the head of the International Money Fund, and potential candidate for the French Prsidency? That pole-vaults over being a normal news story and into being an encyclopedic topic. This is something that's already having heavy repercussions in French politics, and will probably, given the nature of the arrest, have ripples in French and American diplomatic relations. And yes, I'm guessing on the latter, but I think its a reasonable guess, given the facts at hand. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and as a BLP minefield. Unless he is formally convicted of a crime then it remains a violation to have an entire separate article on just an accusation, surely? ALso this article currently covers little more than the summary in his biography. I think that is enough for now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(As to the first part of your comment) Not really, see People v. Jackson and O. J. Simpson murder case for other articles on unproved allegations that failed to gain convictions. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends - if it gets some work and can be seen as useful, then don't get rid of it; if it keeps just sitting there unimproved then get rid of it - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dr. Blofeld. Albacore (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate per WP:NOTNEWS. The issue is clearly notable and significant, and concerns about the need to make a summary separate from the bio are valid, but that significance is precisely more the reason to exercise restrain. This information is constantly changing, and as such is still unsuitable for any kind encyclopaedic presentation. Of course the article would be updated as event unfold, but that's precisely what a news service is. Anyone who is interested in this information and wants to know its state, background or development should not be coming to WP but should be looking directly at the event, since it is indeed happening now. The information should be userfied so it can be built as the event progresses, and it can be used once the issue has had some form of closure, or significant stallment. Meanwhile the biography can provide a conservative summary of the issue, and perhaps direct the reader to a news facility - frankieMR (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Umbralcorax and Steven Walling. Not a NOTNEWS violation - an incredibly important criminal investigation. Not a BLP problem to report on facts of this investigation. The investigation and charges are notable even if he is ultimately found not guilty. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTNEWS cites "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" as examples of what the policy covers. I'd say this is more than just some New York Post celebrity gossip. I think it's fairly clear this is one of the largest political scandals in the U.S./Western Europe in years. It is in the news, but the odds that the coverage dies off after this week are pretty slim. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep If this nomination is meant seriously, it indicates a need to modify NOT NEWS to show some awareness of the actual world; similarly for BLP consideration--I see DO NO HARM as written to make it clear it does not apply in instances like this, but if we need to say it yet more emphatically , we can do so. It might have been possible to argue for deletion/merge in the first few hours after the incident, but not now. I'm reluctant to mention this AfD to my non-Wikipedian friends, as I don't want them to make fun of me for engaging a project where people argue for deleting articles like this. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usually the question with NOTNEWS articles is whether, if the event had happened 10 or 100 years ago, anyone would have bothered to write an article. But to be honest, if this case was of somewhat lower profile, or happened ten years ago, I don't think it would have ever been nominated for deletion. Whatever the outcome of the case, the political implications are great--something you can't say for the average "missing white woman"-type affair. I've always how found it odd how all the anti-recentist zeal is directed against the most high-profile articles (fortunately, not usually successfully). 169.231.53.195 (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]