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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marsden-Donnelly harassment case[edit]

Marsden-Donnelly harassment case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Speedy deletion of this article was overturned at WP:DRV and is now here for full discussion. Another prior to consider is this arbitration case. I'm only the poor admin doing the clerking here, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 06:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, no real reason to delete. Very sorry that you got stuck doing the clerking. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked for it... :-} ~ trialsanderrors 06:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This was a significant news event and a complex story with wide repercussions. The references consist mostly of the most well-respected news outlets in Canada. See the article talk page for an earlier deletion discussion. Kla'quot 06:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As far as I can tell this is not a widely-cited landmark case, not quoted in the law reviews, not regarded as a legal precedent. Some minor local sensationalism is not a reason for having a long article which is detrimental to the reputation of a living individual, it constitutes undue weight. Wikipedia is not Private Eye. Guy(Help!) 07:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you criteria for an event being serious national news as opposed to minor local sensationalism? Kla'quot 17:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only local. Almost all of Canada's national newspapers have articles about this case. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete Both sides have a point, but for me the privacy concerns overwhelm the case for relevance. Stammer 13:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be saying the same thing if Rachel Marsden had not later become famous? Kla'quot 17:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Actually I did not realise she was famous. That modifies my take on it. Stammer 19:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further For me the fact that she is famous increases the event's notability and tilts the balance towards Keep. As for accuracy, as JGGardiner points out, it's always an issue. Stammer 07:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She's not particularly famous. If she was, is that a reason to libel her? Please read ArbCom material. The decision says this should be stubbed. Are you trying to over-rule ArbCom? 206.191.39.205 20:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed Arbcom decision does not say that, and the case is still open anyway. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep due to its local importance (it is a HUGE story here) and also because it is extremely notable, judging by how many reliable sources there are for this case. Any problems with the article can easily be fixed, if that's the case. There's no reason to delete the whole article altogether. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 17:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• While keeping this article may be opening a can of worms, the same has been said about the entire Wikipedia project. I don’t think that we should shy away from a difficult topic. I agree with the anon.’s concerns and I feel that it should obviously conform to WP:BLP and that it can be radically cut or stubbed if it does not. But I think that should be said of all of our articles that relate to living persons. I think we can’t begin excluding articles just because we can get them wrong because I hate to say it but we can get them all wrong. That said, I understand that we have indeed gotten things very wrong in relation to Marsden but I think we should fix it rather than pretend that she doesn’t exist (or exists only as a stub). So I’d keep this article and hope that a few vigilant editors keep their eyes on it as well. Thanks. --JGGardiner 19:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Arbcom. Too many problems. If kept, should be stubbed. 206.191.39.205 18:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - uhm, given the high level of sourcing whatever problems this article may have, AfD is not the place to bring it. Sourced, Encyclopaedic. WilyD 22:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean that any court case where sources can be cited is encyclopaedic? That would be most of them, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you seem to think this issue involved criminal or civil law. This was handled entirely within the university system, and as the article lead indicates, it led to a rewriting of procedures within that system. There was no court case. Kla'quot 03:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Not quite - but in general, court cases that receive this level of media attention are encyclopaedic, in the limit that Wikipedia is not paper. As much as I hate to use the word notability, press coverage is a reasonable measure of it for modern court cases. My point was more about the quality, quantity and nature of sources, rather than their mere existance (though WP:V is always the first test I apply at AfD). WilyD 13:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes primary notability criterion: multiple, nontrivial, independent, secondary sources. Widely reported, non-local sensationalism at worst. Inclusion of this material in Rachel Marsden would grossly imbalance it; that's why it was spun out. —Cryptic 00:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cryptic and others. Bucketsofg 21:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The subject meets notability criteria. If it needs to be edited to make sure it's done encyclopedically, NPOV, and tastefully, that's a different problem.Bobanny 04:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Don't see reason to delete. Follows usual criteria for inclusion. --Oakshade 16:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move to Marsden-Donnelly case - is there any need for 'harassment' in the title? Particularly when all the references refer to it as the "Marsden-Donnelly case". Proto::type 10:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per WilyD (notability is unquestionable), and because the good of the encyclopedia comes before making things a little easier for Arbcom (not that they need it, as the case in question has been closed). --Aaron 15:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable case, though the less salacious the article the happier I'll be. WMMartin 16:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the poor current state of the article is not grounds for deletion, as far as I can see. Lankiveil 03:30, 29 November 2006 (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.