- 2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The reason for the deletion was WP:NOTNEWS. In the discussion, it was explicitly stated that the article could be restored if the WP:NOTNEWS criteria is met. I believe that I found evidence to support that. Apparently, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit created an episode based on this case (see this article). I think this means that the story has now gone into popular culture, hence the WP:NOTNEWS criteria is met. Victor Victoria (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- undelete source listed above plus things like Atlantic covering this 2-3 months later make me think we are past NOTNEWS and have sustained coverage. I also think the original discussion was probably better closed as no consensus, but delete wasn't outside of admin discretion. Hobit (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted (disclosure: nominator of original deletion) - it has had no significant mention pretty much since the event. Now, it is now not the subject of direct commentary, significant coverage or analysis, but has merely been the inspiration for a TV episode - not even a major show but an episode of a show. Brief 1 sentence mention in the article on that show/episode if we cover the episode. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A massive story in the Atlantic 3 months later isn't significant coverage, or is that not long enough past the event? Hobit (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See the original AFD - long standing norms on matters are quite content to pass by huge volumes of news that get attention for a short time but really have no place in an encyclopedia. This was one of those. Significant coverage showing any kind of enduring encyclopedic nature was pretty much zero then, and coverage on a show that attributes its plot idea to an old news story, doesn't really change that. If we had an article on the episode, worth a one line mention. "Gave someone the idea for an episode of a tv show" doesn't make the original story itself encyclopedic. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Atlantic coverage, 3 months later, is IMO, exactly the kind of in-depth, after-the-fact coverage one would want when overcoming NOTNEWS. It takes the event as a starting point and goes into detail about how it illustrates issues with society--the massive increase in female binge drinking, the problem with the culture found at Duke (and other similar schools), etc. Could you explain why you don't find that coverage to be enough? In addition the SVU show is almost certain to spark some additional news coverage of the underlying indecent. Hobit (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is very similar to S Marshall's comment - namely it's a good example to include within a wider topic on internet privacy. But the standard for an event to be encyclopedic is lacking, this had no significant impact in the way encyclopedic topics do. It scoverage after the initial "OMG SEX NEWS!" splurge was one brief revisit a few months later, and someone based an episode in a series round the idea (verging on WP:NOTINHERITED). It isn't "significant coverage" or coverage of the event either). It just doesn't show (to me) it is encyclopedic. The rest - see AFD rationale. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just note that if you think the "revisit" was brief you probably didn't look at (or read) the article. It's more than 5500 words, solely on this topic 3 months later. That's a lot of words. An average NYT article is 1200. The industry standard for a "feature" article in a newspaper is 400-1000 words. It seems remarkable to be deleting an article here because it's "just news" when we have sources like that. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted. The TV show episode is not significant--every episode of that show is based on a news story. The basic situation has not changed since the AfD. Chick Bowen 05:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may disagree as to the relevance of the TV show episode, but I can't see how you can write "The basic situation has not changed since the AfD" given the Atlantic reference above which was written 2 months after the AfD. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted per FT2. The article cited says: "Truly (the writer of the episode) explained that he always ensures that the twists of his script deviate considerably from what happen in real life... Truly could only milk (the original incident) for four or five scenes—anything more would have felt like a stretch, he said. Caitlin’s murder was resolved well before the episode’s half-way mark... " The fact that the incident provided inspiration for part of one episode of a TV series, altered to be in an office rather than a university and to result in a murder, really does not mean that it has "gone into popular culture." Also, the BLP issues raised in the AfD still apply. JohnCD (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- undelete/allow recreation BLP was not the cause for deletion but rather NOTNEWS and a strong argument has been made that NOTNEWS no longer applies given the Atlantic article and the later use of the idea in a TV show. The primary BLP issue would be the people who are mentioned in the faux thesis, and the article shouldn't mention them by name (and appropriately does not). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted - Rubbish. All of these crime serials, the CSIs to NCIS to Law and Order, crib from the headlines of the day for interesting story angles, it doesn't make the underlying event notable by association. Once in awhile the cribbing makes the local news, but nothing more. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore it was a bad decision in the first place. The various stages of the incident raised very different questions (.i.e. , when it was thought real, and then when it was admitted not to be).It's mot news--it will continue being discussed, at least tin the professional journals, and certainly when the next comparable incident occurs. NOT NEWS has a purpose, but when it reaches things dealing ith basic social or education mores it's over=extended. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't take any issue with Mkativerata's close because it was quite accurate on the basis of the debate before him. I see that, as is happening more and more these days, there are matters that the debate failed to go into.
Notability isn't inherited from a Law and Order episode to its source incident, and Karen Owen's sex life is clearly of no encyclopaedic interest whatsoever. What is of encyclopaedic interest is the subject of internet privacy, which is of course what the one half-decent source we have is really covering anyway. And, oh look, there's a section of that article called internet privacy#specific cases, which is where coverage of Karen's thesis belongs. (I see that the same section should also mention Jessica Cutler.) On re-reading that, I think it suffices. I won't trouble to add any words in bold, because anyone who would have any business closing a DRV will know exactly what I mean and what I think should be done.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete, this is now no more "just news" than Claire Swire email. If a suitable place can be found to merge it too, then that is another matter. Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment To drive home the point that the WP:NOTNEWS threshhold has been met for this article, here are some additional references that discuss this topic after it made big news on October 7 and 8 of 2010:
- Additionally, I found a serious reference at Forbes which came out a week before the big news cycle of October 7 and 8 of 2010. The Forbes references discusses in detail the privacy aspects raised by S Marshall.
- The article could also be beefed up with a background on the faux thesis author from this reference by a local newspaper from her hometown. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not certain if bettyconfidential is a RS, but in any case, the original article appears to have been posted on or just before Oct 1 based on the comments section. It was updated in May. The other sources do seem to show ongoing coverage however. Hobit (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
