Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy (2nd nomination)

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. Malinaccier (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am nominating this article because I do not believe it meets notability guidelines.

Note that this article was previously deleted and then undeleted.

WP:EVENT - this content has no enduring historical significance. This does not have widespread national or international impact. This is arguably routine in the sense of shock news/water cooler stories/viral phenomena.
There are no lasting effects
The geographical scope is limited to Duke
The duration of coverage is limited to 2010 with one more article a few months later
There is one NYTimes article surveying the person in question but the focus is on the aftermath rather than the event in question or even the controversy in question
WP:NOTNEWS -
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 and Wikipedia is not written in news style."
In the original AFD, the author wrote

This is not an article about the faux thesis, it's an article about the controversy that the faux thesis generated.

However, after 10 years, I think it is fair to say that one of the responses to that is quite accurate

But most of the coverage was not commentary on the controversy (and "media discussion over routine privacy breaches" is also very routine and needs a fairly high standard to pass WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, is there evidence that any reliable sources have assessed this controversy within the field of "controversies over privacy" and concluding this is a significant one?). As a controversy, is this seen or will this be seen as a controversy of "enduring notability" (WP:NOT) that changed, shaped or defined the debate on privacy compared to a thousand other private communications that someone's friend posted to the world and went viral?

There are also WP:BLP considerations but I am more reluctant to specifically cite policy because this is not a biographical article. I invite others to do so if they are more confident on the matter. Transcendence (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sexuality and gender, Education, Internet, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, there's no indication there is lasting interest in this event, even at Duke. Campus controversies like this seem somewhat common at this point. I don't think it's even worth a mention at History of Duke University#Recent history: 1993–present, and it also seems undue weight to list at even Template:Duke University. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this has already been brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the matter is properly cited to multiple reliable sources, including indeed The New York Times, which has covered the matter more than once actually: the one in the article is from 2018, eight years after the 'thesis' went viral, so the concern about a brief news event is incorrect. The matter has been covered by numerous other newspapers and news sites so its notability is not in doubt. ~~I'll add~~I have added a few more sources and descriptions of reactions by The Daily Telegraph and The New York Times (including in later years) for good measure, but the article is already correctly sourced and summarizes the story clearly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable sources confirms this event's lasting notability. Add doi:10.1177/1045159514558412 and this to the list of sources. Esculenta (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added both of those, and came across yet more useful sources when I did so. One other point: the 2010 AfD only had sources from that year, so it was actually too early to tell if the matter had a wider effect. We now have five substantial sources from later years, in multiple disciplines, so we know that it did. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable sources (and artistic responses) confirm notability. However, I agree with "deletes" it probably does not belong prominently in Duke University templates any longer: the coverage and artistic response does not seem to emphasize this as a notable event for Duke specifically but rather for the Internet and contemporary sexual patterns in general, as an epitome. It may make more sense to attach this page to general Internet events or sexuality templates rather than to the Duke template. RowanElder (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with user above who pointed out the event got reliable news coverage eight years after it happened, making it notable. XwycP3 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought this was a SNOW KEEP by now, as we have a) transformed the article with many new sources b) demonstrated multi-year notability and c) different editors have advanced sound reasons for keeping the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nom's WP:EVENT assertion - reliable sources were citing this faux thesis years after its publication. Also, as Chiswick Chap has noted, its notability is not in doubt.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Reywas92's reasoning. desmay (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Aside from the possible BLP considerations (i see the person has apparently maintained a private life since and cannot be found via this article), alas this is plainly a notable event. Many news articles are still available on the event and I believe Wikipedia's rules mean we cover controversial events better on average.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ongoing significant coverage in reliable sources from 2010 through 2018 shows this was not a BLP1E situation. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2025 (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.