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 - speedy-deleted (G10) by admin Orangemike (non-admin close) Stalwart111 00:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Dumler Rape Scandal[edit]

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

Exquisitely sourced article about a rape case involving the "Scottsville District representative to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors". In case someone is wondering, that's in Virginia. WP:NOT#NEWS applies quite nicely here, as does WP:BLP1E, not to mention this would merit nothing more than a paragraph in the bio of the person involved, were that bio to actually exist. It doesn't, which is another indication this doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all. This isn't even a national news story, which is the argument used routinely to keep articles about shootings or accidents. It's a coatrack and the largest case of WP:UNDUE I've seen. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a ridiculous WP:COATRACK and seriously lacking in notability in any meaningful sense. Note also the previous AfD on the individual. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A nasty, vindictive piece of work, which brings shame on the whole of Wikipedia. I can see nothing worthwhile in the whole page. Kiltpin (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of doubtful notability to me when I reviewed this new article, so I am pleased to see this AfD. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged this as an attack page. I'm not perfectly familiar with this area of policy at the moment, otherwise I'd delete it immediately myself. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A G10 is a stub along the lines of "XYZ is a poo-poo head". This is not that, although the ultimate purpose might be the same. We assume that the creator of the article (who has invested a lot of time in crafting this) feels this merits inclusion in the encyclopedia, and the AFD discussion serves as a clear, unambiguous policy-based reasoning as to why it does not. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I see it, the attack criterion says "This includes libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." The article is sourced, and probably not libel, but could well be "material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person". Negative stuff may be posted (when reliably sourced) about people who are notable enough for an article, but here we may well come into WP:BLP1E territory. I'm not sticking my neck out for a speedy, but would not object to a delete here under coatrack or undue - or even BLP1E. Peridon (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This will surely be closed early as WP:SNOW; that's a better outcome than a speedy, as it makes any future re-creations easier to deal with. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is highly slanted against the subject, non-notable, and should be deleted ASAP. Ducknish (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2013 (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.