Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawana Brawley

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 snowball keep. While the nom has points, a simple move in this case would save trouble. The rename fits within policy now, and the name is now a redirect. Non admin closure. Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tawana Brawley

Per policy: WP:BLP. This policy was used to justify the deletion and merge of the article for Crystal Gail Mangum. If we are to be equitible in the application of policy, then the same should be done for this article. Tawana Brawley is only notable for one event, and elements are very similar to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case. The information could be merged into the article for Al Sharpton or a separate article documenting the event and not the person could be created. —M (talk • contribs) 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It has been pointed out that the article could be simply renamed. I think this is an excellent alternative to deletion and merge. It would remove the biographical aspect to the article (which would require inclusion of personal information not relevant to the case e.g. DOB, early life etc.) and be compliant with WP:BLP. I'm certainly not arguing for deletion because the other article was deleted but I'm looking at the application of the policy. Even the media has drawn comparisons between the two cases. —M (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable person and event; unlike the Duke case, this event is often referred to by her name. JJL 14:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it is interesting that this might be part of the reason that she has changed her name (in addition to converting to Islam). —M (talk • contribs) 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the same reasons given by JJL. I suppose the article could be renamed "Tawana Brawley case" or something, but I'm not sure what that would accomplish. This case is most widely known by her name, as opposed to the Mangum/Duke case. Videmus Omnia 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming would change the focus of the article as biographical to being one about the case. She's only notable for one incident and the article reports mostly the incident, not the person. A well rounded biographical article would have to include personal information which is not necessary if you're reporting the event and not the person. —M (talk • contribs) 16:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Propaniac 14:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as "OTHERCRAPEXISTS" is not a good basis for keeping a non-notable subject's article, "THERE WEREOTHERIMPROPERDELETIONS" does not justify yet another deletion of an article about a highly encyclopedic and notable subject which is fully in accord with all Wikipedia policies, including WP:N, WP:A and WP:BLP. The article could be renamed Tawana Brawley rape case. The New York Times alone shows 387 articles about the woman and the case [1] 1987-1998. There are at least 2 books about her and the case: "Outrage" [2] and "Unholy Alliances" [3] . A redirect to Al Sharpton would be wrong, because attorneys Alton Maddox Jr. and C. Vernon Mason were just as prominently involved in the false accusations against white officials, per Time magazine, 1988 [4]. The Brawley case remains important in the history of race relations in the US, and was frequently brought up in coverage of the false rape accusations against the Duke lacrosse players, and in other similar accusations of rape. Edison 14:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Crystal Gail Magnum honestly will be little more that a footnote to the Duke rape case, when compared with Mike Nifong, etc. As stated about there have been numerous publications about her, and countless amounts of news coverage. Wildthing61476 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Were there a "Tawana Brawley media sensation" article, I'd advocate a redirect, but there isn't. That being said, Edison is quite right: this case is overwhelmingly associated with Brawley's name, unlike the Duke case. RGTraynor 16:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per User:Edison's points. Someone needs to make WP:THEREWEREOTHERIMPROPERDELETIONS now, you know. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:20, 21 June 2007 (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.