Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Wade

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. This does not absolutely rule out writing a new, policy-compliant article on the event, but consensus is that the current content needs to be nuked per WP:BLP, and what's left after deleting that is apparently a one-sentence stub. Sandstein 05:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Wade[edit]

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

This article is a WP:BLP nightmare, basically made up of unsourced and poorly sourced allegations against living people, based largely on original research. Moreover, I don't think the subject is notable by our standards. While the case did receive attention from various reliable sources at the time (broadly 1992-4), there seems to have been very little coverage since except in fringe sources. I don't think this case has shown long-term notability, and when you combine that with the major BLP issues, deletion seems the only answer. Robofish (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Delete as per the above rationale - Youreallycan 20:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little torn, as the event might actually pass muster if the flaws were fixed. I worked on this a little back in 2007, and Robofish was kind enough to notify me that it was going to AFD although he wasn't obligated to, but BLPs were handled differently back then. The question I have to ask is, are we wanting to delete this because of the flaws of the current article, or does it really not pass the bar for notability? If it is primarily because of BLP concerns, then I have to think this is more of a call for editing rather than deleting, but there are legitimate concerns as well. Several books were deleted after the nom [1]from the reference/links area, but I'm not sure if they were really unrelated or had mentions of this case in them. That would be good to know before a final decision was made, as it would push it passed the bar for GNG if one or more did so, but I don't know. As such, I'm not taking a stand, and will simply leave my !vote as a neutral comment for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BLP standards. That doesn't mean it could not be fixed, but we should not keep this hanging around while we gaze at our navels, it makes very serious allegations about identified individuals. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have remove nearly all of the article content as BLP-defying innuendo. The article as nominated can be seen here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename/Refactor to an article on the kidnapping, rape and trial with a different name that isn't just the name of this victim. (WP:BLP1E) There is some lasting coverage, much of it highly charged, but some serious stuff too. (e.g., possibly the first and third results, books via Springer, at [2]) There's a fair letter-of-policy argument that the refactored article would pass WP:EVENT. But I'd prefer deletion. WP:BLP gives us wiggle room in our assessment of marginal BLPs, and I'm going to also invoke my less-than-annual application of WP:IAR to suggest that both the encyclopedia and the victim, might be better served with deletion--this article will continue to attract a fair bit of agenda-driven attention, and if we keep it (even refactored), I'm guessing it's going to be a drama magnet and a BLP vio magnet. Is this event truly notable enough to make it worth that trouble? I'm going with "no". --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Refactor per Joe Decker. Seems to have had lasting significance as a crime. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2012 (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.