Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baraboo Nazi salute photo

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. postdlf (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baraboo Nazi salute photo[edit]

[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)

A single incident of a group of teens doing something dumb in a viral photo is not worthy of its own Wikipedia article and fails WP:N (the mention of this incident in the article on the school is sufficient). This article also raises concerns re BLP and the privacy rights of minors Tornado chaser (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As proposer. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ~~local coverage only~~, nothing that passes WP:NEVENT. I also share the nominator's concern re privacy. SITH (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is national coverage from NYT and Yahoo in the references and here, found without any real effort, is some more [1] [2] [3]. I am still considering my !vote (though leaning towards delete) but wanted to be clear that there's not just local coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck local coverage only per further research, however I'm still !voting delete due to a lack of sustained coverage to suggest passing WP:NEVENT. SITH (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created the article.

Regarding "local coverage only," the incident and its aftermath have been covered in their own right (that is, in articles devoted exclusively to the incident and its aftermath) in multiple high quality national and international newspapers. See the current sources in the article (The Guardian Australia, CBS news, New York Times, NBC, Yahoo! News) but also do a simple Google News search: there's over a hundred other national and international WP:RS articles devoted to this incident. It meets WP:GNG.

As for "the mention of this incident in the article on the school is sufficient", if we were to include all the basic noteworthy details about this incident and its aftermath in the article on the school, it would overwhelm the school article and fail WP:DUE. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically just a grab of all the news coverage at the time on a single, non-notable event. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strictly on WP:BLP grounds. The persons are not identified, but the refs lead directly to copies of the photo in which the persons can be identified. Since it's a marginal article and these are minors, it's not fair to these kids to memorialize this forever.

If it wasn't for the BLP considerations, the article'd be fine. It easily meets the GNG with detailed coverage in the main Milwaukee paper and CBS News, and has all the other attributes needed for an article to exist. Sorry, User:Anthonyhcole, I hate to see work destroyed, and I don't agree with the above editors, and thanks for the article which is a legit article IMO, but just for me the BLP consideration is the deal killer. Herostratus (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: like Herostratus, I agree that the significant coverage in national media makes this meet WP:NEVENT. However, I disagree that deleting the article will do anything safeguard the privacy of the minors involved in the incident. For instance, the first page of Google search results for "Baraboo Nazi salute photo" does not bring up this article; instead, it turns up 10 news articles discussing the incident, most of them with the picture in question. We could do better by providing an NPOV article whose picture has the faces blurred, so that internet searchers would be less likely to happen upon an identifiable image. Catrìona (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mnmh that's an interesting point that I haven't heard before... often enough you hear "Well that cat's out of the bag so doesn't matter if we pile on" which is basically "all the other kids are kicking that dog anyway so I guess it's all right for me to". But what you're saying is different, to essentially googlebomb for the students by keeping the article, letting it rise to the top, and blurring the faces. Interesting! I always like to see new ideas. OTOH it's maybe outside our mission parameters. Herostratus (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a section in the school's article is enough. funplussmart (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts and funplussmart. Nobody will care in a few months. --Bduke (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previously expressed concerns about BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. The mention within the school's entry is sufficient. Pegnawl (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, a perfect example of the worst of wikipedia creations using the weak guidelines. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2019 (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.