Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax child sex abuse ring

Halifax child sex abuse ring

Halifax child sex abuse ring (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)

I declined a prod with the concern "notability, lack of sources, as per WP:NANP.", as I expect this nomination to be somewhat controversial.

In addition to those reasons, there are WP:BLPCRIME concerns. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep Multiple reliable sources document that numerous men sexually abused young girls. Satisfies WP:N and WP:RS No coverups, Edison (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Notable, widely covered crime. Article needs improvement. BLP issues are trumped by the convictions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The BLP objection is quite absurd. The suspects were tried, found guilty, and their biographic data published by the courts and subsequently by the WP:RS. By the standard raised that child abuse convictions with names should not appear on WP, you may as well delete the Roman Polanski child rape, as clearly he was never convicted (he merely left the United States).XavierItzm (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Per WP:GNG. The article is references. BLP objection is just wrong.BabbaQ (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete - Limited references, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, 2 references used to fill an entire article is absurd, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper we cannot provide an article for every single crime when there are little sources and coverage, as per wiki rules it should go.Americatcp (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• We dont base our opinions on what other articles are available etc. It is based on a article to article basis. And guidelines. That there are two sources are irrelevant as long as the sources are good.BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The Yorkshire Post is hardly reliable, it cites numbers but then doesn't give evidence for how those numbers came to be? It's almost as bad as citing the DailyMail.Americatcp (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

In fact, looking closer at it the whole article is innacurate, the "gang" only abused one girl, while a single perpetrator abused another individual, "Another victim was also sexually assaulted by one of the gang members.". Not only that, but the BBC doesn't cite any numbers like the Yorkshire Post does, again, with no mention of how it came to be. The entire article is wrong, it says over 100 from an unreliable source, and mentions two victims of the gang when it was a single victim.Americatcp (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Egregious objection.

1. You put scare quotes on gang, as if a child getting raped by a gang of 25 men were not a horrendous gang action.

2. You accuse the Yorkshire Post of not being a WP:RS. Go and read its Wikipedia entry, and then come back.

3. You are engaging in WP:OR by questioning the figures cited by the WP:RS, and worse yet, not providing sources for your speculation. Since the WP:RS states the gang was composed of over 100 men, this must be the case, and it is not up to you to speculate why only 25 of the men were actually accused in a court of law. Surely you are aware that prosecutors do not usually charge all perpetrators?

4. You dismiss the fact only one member of the gang was convicted of raping a second victim and in your opinion this disqualifies the whole thing. Let me ask you: if a murder of crows eats a plate of cereal with one cherry on top, do you then say, "it is inaccurate to say the murder of crows ate the whole thing, because the murder of crows ate the cereal, but only one crow must have eaten the cherry"?.XavierItzm (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note that case carries on - ... and in January 2018, 20 more men are arrested for the very same gang case arising from the same rape of the 13 year old girl. XavierItzm (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that’s literally the guidelines for Wikipedia. If the gang was only convicted for creoles against one individual, then the article should reflect that. If a gang murders one man, but then a single member murders another, the gang hasn’t murdered two men.. you understand how that works correct? Convictions are what should be reflected, not opinions such as your own.Americatcp (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)