Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax child sex abuse ring

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RomanskiRUS (talk | contribs) at 13:05, 13 February 2018 (Police statements mean nothing without other sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."[1]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • WP:HEYMANN - The article now has sources ranging from BBC 4 February 2015 to The Independent 12 January 2018. Three years of sustained coverage and it does include very in-depth coverage from The Yorkshire Post. I'd say that's pretty widespread coverage! XavierItzm (talk) 06:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It’s still not notable to any serious degree, while abhorrent, if we include crimes against a single individual with a Wikipedia article there would be thousands upon thousands.Americatcp (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-36559092
  2. ^ Lizzie Dearden (12 January 2018). "Police arrest 20 men for alleged involvement in Calderdale grooming gang". The Independent. Retrieved 7 February 2018. This week's arrests were part of the same investigation, which centres on allegations made a woman who was the victim of sexual abuse as a child in the Halifax area between 2006 and 2009.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME reads «For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.» First, the only names included are those of the men who were convicted of raping "Jeanette". Second, WP:DINC. If anyone wants to raise a discussion on the list of convicts (whose photos, names, and convictions were widely disseminated by the BBC[1] and other WP:RS[2]), then take it to the TP. Deletion is not cleanup.

WP:NOTNEWS reads "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This case has been already covered for 3 years across many WP:RS. It meets the criteria for "enduring notability" plus an additional 20 men were arrested a few weeks ago for the same case. Besides, this is clearly not "routine news reporting" on "announcements, sports, or celebrities". This is routine news reporting across years on a major crime and therefore WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. XavierItzm (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - a large grooming / sexual-abuse ring is definitely not routine news reporting. The appropriate guideline is WP:NCRIME which clearly states "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act". Claiming all or most crime is NOTNEWS (which is worded and intended for routine events - such as weather, sports announcements, etc.) - is a misapplication of policy.Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And yet it didn't make international news, or even national news hardly, it was covered by 3 of the cited news articles as local news.. it's not a misapplication, your bias is showing.RomanskiRUS (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, no scandal, no cover up, we cannot include every single incident of rape or child abuse, it's not worthy of an article. Concur with K.e.coffman 's comments. Americatcp (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What strikes me, is the large numbers of people involved. This does seem notable and unusual for just the shear volume on incidents and people involved. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the keep voters have even attempted to address the glaring issues with WP:NOT and WP:BLPCRIME; sure, you can pretend they don't exist but it makes for a particular weak !vote. Closing admin: remember GNG, a guideline, does not supersede WP:NOT and WP:BLP, both policies, and since this is not a ballot the outcome of this AFD should be much more obvious than you would expect.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment- um no? WP:NEXIST May well apply but it doesn’t make it worthy of an article when there’s no lasting social difference or even national news. WP:NOT and WP:BLPCRIME are why it should go.Americatcp (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crime is clearly notable per WP:NCRIME, with extremely wide coverage of the events in national and international and political discourse around them (e.g. [1]). BLPCRIME is hardly an issue as the perps currently are not named in our article - though they definitely could be seeing that they were convicted. Per BLPCRIME we should presume non-known perps as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - and they were convicted in this case. BLPCRIME does not negate NCRIME, though it is at time an issue - in any case this argument is completely irrelevant here. It might be worthwhile to rename the article to something that contains Calderdale - e.g. Calderdale grooming gang or Calderdale gang per usage in Calderdale gang jailed for grooming and abusing girls, BBC and elsewhere.Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question From where came the request for deletion? Should that not be recorded here?

Comment The concerns listed as warranting deletion of this article were (a) notability, (b) lack of sources, and (c) WP:BLPCRIME, which I will address in reverse order.

(c) BLPCRIME says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". Convictions have been secured in this case, so BLPCRIME cannot be a valid concern.

(b) I count six sources in this article, as follows.

  • Yorkshire Post
  • BBC News
  • Huddersfield Daily Examiner
  • Daily Mirror
  • Halifax Courier
  • The Independent

I cannot speak to all of them but am pretty sure that at least three are reliable.

(a) I was unfamiliar with the problem of child sex abuse rings in Britain until just a couple of weeks ago, when I happened upon the Rotherham case as a result of other reading. Since then I have read quite a bit about this phemomenon and see no way an instance of its occurrence may be deemed "not notable". A search of Wikipedia itself turned up the following list.

I believe it would be a mistake to delete any of these articles unless and until their material is incorporated elsewhere within Wikipedia. Dayirmiter (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim above that it made "international news" is wrong, it didn't even make "national" news. 3 of the cited sources are local newspapers, hardly national news at all. This is literally WP:NOT it's just not notable, no lasting impact, no scandal as per other comments, no cover up, and only a single victim. Per Dayirmiters comments, the "problem" of child sex abuse rings in Britain?? are you sure?? because do we include every single case of this happening in the US and say "the US has a problem of kids being abused!!" such as this report from Tennesee[3] or the one in the Tri state area with children as young as 11?[4]. There is no "problem" in Britain, and if there is then the United States has one considerably worse but yet has no articles on it. Your bias is showing. as per other comments in this thread... "remember GNG, a guideline, does not supersede WP:NOT and WP:BLP" by TheGracefulSlick. And they are correct, the article should go, it's not notable and not news.RomanskiRUS (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Police said the Halifax case was the largest child sexual exploitation investigation in the United Kingdom – "bigger than high profile cases in Rochdale and Roterham."[5]. I really don't see how this here Halifax case could reasonably be deleted w/o also deleting the Wikipedia smaller cases of Rotherham and Rochdale. XavierItzm (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not true is it? Police make lots of statements, but where are the international coverage? where is the CNN pages? the NBC? the tabloids even? a statement that is reported by the local news in regards to a single victim comes no where near close to the other scandals.RomanskiRUS (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-36559092
  2. ^ https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vile-sex-gang-caged-168-8219903
  3. ^ https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tbi/documents/2011%20Tennessee%20Human%20Sex%20Trafficking%20and%20its%20Impact%20on%20Children%20and%20Youth.pdf
  4. ^ http://www.startribune.com/3-twin-cities-somalis-guilty-of-sex-trafficking/150258965/
  5. ^ "Child sexual abuse ring in Halifax: 25 men charged - police reaction". Halifax Courier. 9 February 2015. Retrieved 13 February 2018. police say is the largest child sexual exploitation (CSE) investigation in the country - bigger than high profile cases in Rochdale and Rotherham
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Halifax_child_sex_abuse_ring&oldid=825445883"