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. WP:BLP, a policy, has precedence over WP:GNG, a guideline. None of the keeps seriously engaged with the BLP argument. T. Canens (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acquittal of Bassam Al Rawi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a mess from a WP:BLP point of view. The acquitted person is prominently named and thereby linked to an accusation of which he was found not guilty. It is one of exactly two such articles on Wikipedia; the other is Acquittal of O.J. Simpson (which redirects to the "murder case" article). Simpson, at the time of the murder case, was already notable as a sportsperson; the person named in this article otherwise is not notable. The article also is an incoherent collection of largely unreferenced information, partly wrong, partly based on opinion pieces. There are better sources than the ones cited in the article, but it still only amounts to routine coverage of an ongoing court case (the acquittal is being appealed). It may even be possible to write a valid encyclopedia article about the case (if we presume it is notable, which seems doubtful), but doing so would amount to rewriting it in its entirety; WP:TNT applies, particularly given the presumption in favor of privacy. Huon (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 03:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree entirely with nominator. Rogermx (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article was Kept through a AfD process as late as in April 2017. I can not see a reason for deletion, sure the article could need some upkeep but that is not a reaaon for deletion. Clearly within notability per coverage and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 07:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As I said above, it may be possible to have a valid article about the topic. This is not that article; it basically alleges that the acquittal was a miscarriage of justice - a gross BLP violation. If it were a little more coherent it would likely qualify for speedy deletion as an attack page. The arguments in favor of keeping it were: a) It's analogous to other acquittal articles (it's not), b) we can't judge whether there's any lasting notability, so we should keep it (not a policy-based argument), and c) it meets GNG (without showing how the available coverage doesn't run afoul of WP:ROUTINE). I find that unpersuasive. Huon (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If a reason for deletion cannot be found, I must assume the article and the nom's deletion statement simply were not read. This newer statement touches on aspects not addressed in the past AFD so simply saying "This article was Kept" signals to me that these new points were disregarded. However, we cannot afford to have a BLP (or any article for that matter) in such an irreparable state. The coverage some will inevitably argue passes GNG but I fail to see how any of it isn't routine in nature.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. The case is CONTINUING to be still in the national news, in part because the appeal of the case is still pending. Moreover, there has been IMPACT; here a January 2018 Globe and Mail story: Nova Scotia hires two Crown attorneys to focus on sexual-assault cases; Note, that this Globe & Mail story states that "a paper published by the Canadian Bar Review, Elaine Craig, a professor who specializes in sexual-assault law at Dalhousie University's Schulich School of Law, said the acquittal "suggests a failure of our legal system to respond appropriately to … sexual assault." Moreover, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:DINC. XavierItzm (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ongoing coverage/protests of this case - [1] - due to the exoneration reportedly being based on "clearly, a drunk can consent". Deletion is not cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- At this point, the case still falls under WP:NOTNEWS. The nominator makes a great point about having an article titled "the acquittal of". If we're going to have such an article, its would seem at the very least the subject of the article should be notable enough to have his own entry. It's my understanding that the ruling is being appealed. If the appeal leads to some precedent setting case, then that case can get an article, but even at that point having an article titled "Acquittal of Bassam Al Rawi" would not be appropriate.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:BLP mess. If there's a notable topic here somewhere (of which I'm not convinced), the article should be nuked & paved in any case. Right now, it fails WP:NOTNEWS with no apparent lasting significance or societal impact. If this is still remembered a few months down the road, then maybe, but not now. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per BLP, an otherwise nonpublic figure should not be linked prominently to a crime he was acquitted of. Also a WP:MILL criminal case followed by routine news reporting, which we don't need to regurgitate per WP:NOTNEWS. Sandstein 09:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein errs in that he dismisses WP:SIGCOV but he is absolutely correct that «an otherwise nonpublic figure should not be linked prominently to a crime he was acquitted of». In fact, it is probably this simple issue that has caused this article to be nominated twice, since, quite reasonably, it may look odd to those who do not realize the breadth and depth of coverage the case has garnered. I think the solution proposed earlier to move the article to Regina v Bassam Al-Rawi properly re-focuses the article to its proper framing and makes it 100% congruent with the numerous Wikipedia entries for legal cases that have received widespread WP:GNG, such as Rylands v Fletcher, Entick v Carrington, Dietrich v The Queen, Roe v. Wade, the Dreyfus affair, etc. XavierItzm (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that national coverage has been intense. Here: [2] are links to the Globe and Mail coverage of this case. I have added a search bar on the name of the judge, and one on the name of the accused. Note also that the [Canadian Bar Review], journal of the Canadian Bar association, has published an INDEPTH article about this case Judging Sexual Assault Trials: Systemic Failure in the Case of Regina v Bassam Al-Rawi. This is a case in which BOTH the alleged rapist and the judge are accused of wrongdoing - in articles and opinion essays that have run nationwide. We Suggest moving article to Regina v Bassam Al-Rawi. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This case is now studies at the university level, a book has been published on the case and the national news still talks about it, cause it is reshaping consent laws in Canada.Snowy Badger (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[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.