Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malka Leifer

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, consensus is that substantial coverage of this matter makes the article suitable for inclusion, although a rename may be in order. There is no consensus on that point, so a separate move request should be initiated. bd2412 T 04:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malka Leifer[edit]

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

subject is facing charges but has not been convicted - only notable for crime. Edaham (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that’s a weak reason. Plenty of people, both guilty and innocent, have been accused of a crime but never convicted. Look at OJ Simpson and all the coverage he received during the trial for the murder of his ex wife and Ron Goldman. According to your rationale, all wiki coverage should be deleted because OJ was never convicted. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a story that has broad ranging implications in the Jewish community in Australia, and with Israel-Australia relations, relating to the extradition. Numerous politicians have been involved, and it has been reported widely across the world. There is also the civil case where a record compensation package was demanded. So she is a very notable figure, and worthy of her own page. I fail to see how she is not smellytap 04:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page Edaham (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BLP1E, WP:N/CA and WP:PERPETRATOR represent wikipedia policy in this area. It is very common that articles about individuals associated with an event are brought to AfD, and equally common for a determination to be made that an article about the event is a better choice than an article about the person. Please read through the policy and come back to us with your thoughts. A rename of this otherwise very reasonable article may be the way to go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – looks like someone notable for one event, and it's too early to tell if the event itself will have a major impact. The article can be recreated in the future if it is discovered that this had a significant effect on Australia–Israel relations. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tentatively - I'm the nominee. I'm sorry for not filing the alerts properly but I got called off on business almost immediately after making the nomination through our page reviewer tools.
- I nominated this because 1) accusatory terminology is used regarding things with which the subject has not been charged. I quote as an example: "This was the environment that Leifer exploited in order to abuse the children" - While this sentence is sourced it violates WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERP 2) Certain facts are ambiguous pending the results of the ongoing court cases. In this case it was a particularly difficult article to scrutinize as it is abundantly sourced. However almost the entire article is written without taking our policy of innocent until convicted into account.
- I'm quite familiar with the policies pertaining to this article, I understand it's well sourced and not suitable for speedy. I am putting it through the AfD process to ensure it gets the scrutiny it deserves and see this as an opportunity for editors to challenge the way it is written as much as have it struck from our pages.
- Pending a rewrite which takes these into account, I think the best thing to do is have the article removed per BLP until such time as it is rewritten to address the above. Move to draft was not the appropriate move, nor is permanent deletion. I simply feel that there are too many BLPCRIME issues there to leave it there until it has been resolved.
- Apologies to the article creator once again for not notifying more quickly. btw the article also requires cats etc - had these been added, other editors might have come along and fixed the issues making this nomination unnecessary
- In summary this underlines the importance of making articles visible by adding cats and by adding articles to wiki projects to allow swifter collaboration.Edaham (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Language can be edited to suit your (or anyone else’s) standards. Feel free. It is one of the things I like best about Wikipedia. If you feel you can improve an article, you can. Postcard Cathy (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-ish, but I'm sympathetic with the nomination. I think this is too significant to brush under the carpet but at least the article should be renamed to be about the event, not the person. It is the event really that matters, not any individual and ten years (almost) is a long time (even my standards) to wait for a verdict. The sources are good and the article is OK too though it needs to have a few slight suggestions of individual guilt removed. So, actually, I'll go with keep in the end. The article set me thinking rather a lot so I'm glad to have read it whatever happens in the real world, and here. Thincat (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded things a bit but in doing so I've discovered a judge has made some extremely damning remarks which I think could, quite legitimately, be made fuller use of. Thincat (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the direction of my vote, I'm mostly in agreement with your summary. There's 100 percent change that this case will have lasting impact and notable effects. I just hope that editors will keep a level head with regard to policy when writing it. The fact that in rare cases our policies might seem to be (temporarily) detracting from an accusation against a particularly unsavory character, isn't a reason not to keep them in mind. This article is practically a text book example of a debatable and unusual case in this respect - and was as thought provoking to evaluate from a policy point of view as it was to read about. Edaham (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I explained above the events are highly significant within the Jewish community, and has mobilised numerous politicians including 2 Prime Ministers. The events are being played out at the moment. However if the decision is to change the name, I would suggest something along the lines of Malka Leifer Sex Abuse Affair/Scandal, since the events are so closely tied to Leifer herself, and known that way in the community. smellytap (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage both in Australia and in Israel (Hebrew and English). Subject had indeed not been convicted - however this is because she chose to become an international fugitive - preventing her trial due to her residing in a country that is not willing to extradite her. Presumption of innocence, in Wikipedia, shouldn't extend to a situation in which the suspect as fled (which would be a situation where the suspect concedes he was very likely to be convicted in the country he fled from).Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per significant coverage in Australia & Israel. Fugitive status is choice of the suspect so a sentence or not ir irrelevant at this point.BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this falls under WP:BLP1E (she's only notable as a result of the criminal investigation), the event itself is probably still notable and the page could be renamed to be about the event. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons outlined above, although I do think it would be an improvement if the article were refactored into an article about the incident and subsequent extradition attempts, rather than a coatracky biography. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - significant coverage. No objection to a rename. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 10 January 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.