The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2011 UCLA racism controversy[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. FYI. The student's article was deleted via AfD. Bgwhite (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]

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

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

• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    • Struck, wasn't sure of the exact status of creation or relation. Nate • (chatter) 05:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]
• 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)Reply[reply]
  • If it's still significant in a year or two then an article can be created on the phenomenon of students saying stupid things and facing the consequences. History is hard to write too close to the event.   Will Beback  talk  21:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep New York Times covers this. Its a notable event. Dream Focus 23:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: An editorial establishes notability? BurtAlert (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly DF was thinking about this NY Times article? An editorial in the NY Times, however, probably helps the notability argument. When the NY Times feels compelled to write an editorial over an issue it's usually a notable topic. Basket of Puppies 02:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The New York Times also reports on a 14-year-old girl named Margarite who "sexted" a nude photo of herself to her boyfriend, and was shocked to find that it was spread around to hundreds or thousands of other children at local schools.[1] While having an article on the general phenomenon of sexting is encyclopedic, I don't think anyone here would say we should have an article in that incident just because it's reported in the Times.   Will Beback  talk  07:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It gets coverage in more places than just the New York Times, of course. And if this incident was notable enough to get massive attention through news coverage, its notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 11:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete: Article in question meets WP:NOTNEWS. The incident itself was a once off and did not generate significant coverage over a long period of time. It was just in a space of 1 or 2 weeks and hysteria subsided. Keeping it will require page protection as potential trolls is just an article away. --Visik (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I don't think anything has subsided. This reliable source news article was published just 3 hours ago on the topic. This and this 10 hours ago. I honestly don't think this is one of those blips on the radar that then goes away within a day or three. Basket of Puppies 03:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first two articles you mentioned are from major newspaper which is fine. The third url you provided is a blog off LAtimes. I did google search, 37 articles in all. Most of them are opinions on blogs off major newspapers. --Visik (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read the full story here.CallawayRox (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - non-event with no evidence of long-term notability. This is worthy of, at most, a mention in Ching chong#Modern usage, but not its own article. Robofish (talk) 10:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  A mention in Internet vigilantism could also be justified, which includes brief entries on several other people who were temporarily infamous on the Internet. But a separate article here would violate the spirit of WP:BLP1E (even if it's not a biographical article, it has much the same effect). Robofish (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Lots of news articles including 2 in The New York Times and international papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallawayRox (talk • contribs) 16:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: Someone keeps deleting the mention in Ching chong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallawayRox (talk • contribs) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - per NOTTHENEWS. It got a burst of coverage which all quickly died off. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• With all respect, this is factually incorrect. Eight hours ago and nineteen hours ago indicates that the coverage is ongoing. Basket of Puppies 20:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete I'm all for having articles on internet phenomena, it is possible for viral videos to become notable. But at this point it doesn't seem like there is the depth of coverage to merit an article. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There are 13 reliable sources from a multitude of news outlets from around the globe. How is this lack depth of coverage? Basket of Puppies 03:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It certainly has gotten coverage, but I think that it is more along the lines of routine news coverage of the event. The standards for articles about events require more than this event has received, I believe. I think this falls under bullet four here. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• How often does routine coverage elicit an opinion piece from the NY Times and other news articles exploring the moral, ethical and legal ramifications of the video? Basket of Puppies 04:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The problem is that "routine coverage" vs "in depth coverage" is a bit of a grey area, it can be hard to define where one ends and the other begins. I'm generally inclusionist myself, so I'm sympathetic to your point of view here, but right now the coverage doesn't seem to be sufficient, IMHO. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I am usually a deletionist, which makes this whole thing much more confusing. I draw the line at inclusion when there is ongoing news coverage from multiple sources- something this article certainly meets. The NY Times editorial (and other editorials, including LA Times) indicates that the notability is certain based upon not just news coverage but news recognition. Thus, I am curious how this article fails in coverage. Basket of Puppies 04:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ok, I just spent some more time on google news and thought it over and I'm not sure my delete !vote was justified. I guess I'm now undecided as to if this meets notability for an event or not. This is kinda funny though, deletionists and inclusionists trading places. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree it's a bit hilarious we are trading places. Maybe I am more of an inclusionist than I ever thought? I appreciate this conversation- something AfDs are supposed to be but rarely are. Basket of Puppies 13:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(outdent) Comment - The whole idea of the concept of NOTNEWS is that "big" news stories like this one (cough cough) are apt to have a multitude of so-called "reliable sources" writing on the topic, thereby instantly establishing notability under Wikipedia guidelines. The policy implies that we are to step back and take a breath from all this breathless 24-hour news cycle frenzy and to make sure that a topic has a certain lasting, historical importance. To me, this is a classic example of a manufactured piece of titillating non-news: "vapid blonde girl says insulting things about asians on YouTube, gets owned by the world." If people are still talking about this "event" in a year, THEN it's a worthy topic. Until then, kill it and salt it. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge & Redirect - Content should be moved to article Ching chong and/or Internet vigilantism. Otherwise, article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Again, NOTNEWS. WP should not be a collection of incidents, and whether an incident is reported on in 5 or in 13 news articles isn't relevant. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. WP already deleted the article on the student, this is the same thing. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 03:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.