Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beating of Hillary Adams

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. My rationale for deletion is similar to the one at AfD for William Adams (judge). At the moment, this is passing news. However, if it produces some lasting singnificance, it can be brought back. Tone 22:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beating of Hillary Adams

Beating of Hillary Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (events), since it lacks "significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time." Edison (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable event, requires expansion certainly but deletion, I think not. Hideki (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it describes a fact, not an opinion. Although, it could have two sections, one for those who agree, and another one for those who disagree with Hillary's father punishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.164.41.156 (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that is not a reason for keeping at all. A Wikipedia article is not some sort of forum for people to debate their opinions. Neither agreement nor disagreement with what has happened on the part of Wikipedia editors has any place in an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your saying "and break out if and when the story becomes more notable" indicates that you do not think it is yet notable enough for an article. That being so, there is no justification for keeping the history of this article. We do not have articles because their subjects may possibly become notable one day, and a redirect should not be used as a cover for preserving in its history material which does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability ("viral video" is not mentioned at WP:GNG, and the echo-chamber news reports are typical of events that violate WP:NOTNEWS). When 18 references are added to a short paragraph consisting essentially of "I lost my temper", it is clear that the article attempts to right great wrongs. There are thousands of events everyday that are worse than a bad-tempered man hitting his daughter, and there is no evidence that this particular event will have any long term encyclopedic significance. If reliable secondary sources have articles devoted to the topic in three months, the article could be considered for recreation. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Using the same justification noted in Wang Yue. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to Death of Wang Yue is inapt. The focus in Death of Wang Yue is on the reaction in China to the death. Only two paragraphs (one of which is only one sentence long) deal with the incident itself. The majority of the article deals with the substantial public reaction and the suggestion that reforms may be made to the law as a result of the incident. That last part is, in my mind, a substantial distinction between that article and the case here. Death of Wang Yue is about an incident that is perceived as requiring a change to the law of one of the largest nations on the face of the earth. Beating of Hillary Adams is about some jackass who beat up his kid. TJRC (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Deor (talk) 08:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic textbook example of BLP1E Collect (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deor, Collect, Johnuniq--the old-timers get it right here. Not notable, BLP1E, news, name and shame, etc. I'm sure all participants here are aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Adams (judge), no? Drmies (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and the biography for which this is a fork per WP:BLP1E. Per WP:ATTACK, this should be speedied.WTucker (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and TJRC and...pretty much everyone above. Adams is not notable, this incident is nothing but transitory news at this point, and I see no reason to presume at this time based on the nature of this incident that it will be anything but transitory news. If it turns out we're all wrong, then come to DRV in six months when you can show sustained significant coverage. postdlf (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Speedy delete per BLP as an attack page; also a non-neutral POV fork ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Speedy declined. This article does not satisfy requirements of CSD-G10. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Had I been quicker, I would have beaten you to it, Jim - and I was going to close this as Speedy and delete the article. I did remove the youtube description, though, as that's a clear BLP violation - someone's opinion from a non RS. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I originally deleted it, but restored it as I felt it does not satisfy the requirements of WP:CSD G10. It serves a purpose beyond disparaging, threatening, intimidating or harassing its subject. While it presents biographical material about a living person that is negative in tone, it's a sourced account of events. I believe the main issue here is that WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:INDEPTH has not yet been demonstrated (so delete under those arguments). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Whatever coverage is appropriate for this topic, the present article ain't it. Discussion is ongoing, in far more detail, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Adams (judge), and I would defer to whatever consensus emerges there. Note also that the title comes awful close to violating BLP - though I have no suggestions as to a better one. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The attention this is getting is just temporary tabloid-style news reporting. Peacock (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Widespread coverage is not sufficient. There has to be some persistence to the coverage or lasting effect. patsw (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has gone way beyond your average BLP1E. It has been a lead story on most of the major national media outlets for two days now. Also, it has resulted in the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, for the first time in its history, issuing a public statement confirming that it is conducting an investigation. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just news, BLP one event, etc. This could change if the story gains enough traction to establish long-term notability outside of a news cycle. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It probably deserves mentioning on another article, but it doesn't seem to warrant its own article. Trektosaturday (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not "list of" such judges? Do we have any articles like News stories in 2011? Almanacs typically have a roundup of the big news stories of the year, if we had such articles they would no doubt be the default repository of every BLP1E case.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with William Adams (judge). This is international news now appearing in a multitude of major national and international news outlets. The real question is whether the article will server as some resource or good for Wikipedia and its users, and the undeniable question is yes. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ATTACK. Trusilver 20:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but change the name to something less slanderous. The article needs a lot of work, but the subject itself has received widespread attention in major media outlets and is a very notable situation. Wikipedia may not be the news, but that doesn't mean we don't document decidedly notable stories. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above statement seems to contradict itself; saying that Wikipedia is not news and then going on to say that we should "document decidedly notable stories." Where in WP:NOTNEWS, or anywhere else for that matter, does it say anything about an attack, and very recent news story, page not being deleted because of "notability." Gwickwire (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Where did I say that I support keeping an attack page on Wikipedia? I made it clear that the article's name ought to be changed, and that the content of the article needs a huge overhaul so it does not exist solely to slander the subject. "Decidedly" was probably the wrong word, but my point is that the incident itself has received enough attention to warrant an article. Others may disagree, but that's my stance on the matter. This isn't really breaking news anymore, and I don't think there is anything wrong with Wikipedia having an article about something that has had national news coverage. We're not a primary source, in that we don't report the events to the public, but we do create and maintain articles about noteworthy events for informative purposes. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, I'm changing to delete. The more I visit this page, the more convinced I become that the subject of this article simply isn't significant enough in itself for inclusion. I don't necessarily support a rigid application of Wikipedian policies and guidelines, but the spirit of BLP1E is to not include articles about living people who are notable for only one relatively minor event. Widespread media attention doesn't in itself quite justify inclusion, especially if it's a flash in the pan. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ATTACK, and WP:BLP. This article at the VERY least should be semi-protected for a long time, because of the attacks being made on Mr. Adams through this page. I believe that it is better to just delete the article for now. There isn't enough attention yet, in my opinion, to find enough good sources to make this pass WP:NOTNEWS. If someone wants to prove me wrong, feel free and I'll rethink my decision. Gwickwire (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite the headline-grabbing "child abuse", this is still just typical WP:NOTNEWS. All this is working out to be now is an attack page on the judge, as well. We're not here to chronicle every sensational news item of the hour. Tarc (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename Beating of Hillary Adams video. The video is notable (global news coverage), not the beating in itself. Mocctur (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others above. — CharlieEchoTango — 23:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly an unfortunate event, but not one that will likely have a lasting effect or significant impact on anything other than the private life of a family. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Notable event, important in the history of child abuse awareness, also Judges Behaving Badly. Richmondian (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your Keep arguments boil down to WP:ADVOCACY. TJRC (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to cover the reaction to the video. I think the amount of coverage throughout the world and the already extensive online discussion raises it beyond the threshold of a single non-notable event. I further strongly disagree with those who characterize this as an 'attack' page on the judge. It is reporting verifiable facts. If you consider that beating your daughter is wrong, then the judge has behaved badly, but this doesn't change the fact that this occurred, was video taped and is now the subject of considerable discussion. Francis Bond (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The threshold that one event has to meet to no longer be considered one event is very, very simple. It is called "two events". There ain't two events here, only one; the alleged abuse. Tarc (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't be snarky. The events are notable because both what happened on the video and because of the now-global reaction to it. ~ UBeR (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be as snarky as I please when faced with the absurdist comedy that passes for keep rationales around here. This is all one event. Period. Everything event that happens in the world has "a reaction" to it, that "reaction" is called "the news". If we separated everything into "event" and "reaction to event" as counting for 2 and not 1, BLP1E would be rendered meaningless. Tarc (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "But a lot of people watched the viral video!" is not, has never been, and never will be a legitimate criteria for inclusion. Nevermind the fact that the news announced charges aren't going to be pressed against him, making this a non-issue and potential WP:BLP problem. Trusilver 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major news event. Will be a long story. Involves a judge who primarily ruled over child abuse cases himself. Patcat88 (talk)
  • It will be a long story? We have a policy for that. We don't keep articles on the concept that "well, it might be notable later!" This is totally beside the point, because a "major news event" (by who's standards, exactly?) falls pretty firmly into WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E.
  • Uhh, BLP1E specifically argues for the inclusion of this type of article, in preference over the William Adams (judge) article. WP:NOTNEWS is a depreciated redirect to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which cautions against the inclusion of "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities", which isn't really what's going on here. This clearly meets the General Notability Guideline, and qualifies for a meticulously sourced article. Buddy431 (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone make the case this isn't a routine allegation of child abuse? The explanation for the massive amount of coverage in the 2011-11-03 news cycle was availability of a video of it. In this case, the test of non-routine is not met. patsw (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (don't redirect to the judge): This is the proper article, not the BLP, which falls under WP:BLP1E. This event clearly meets the notability guidelines "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list". Buddy431 (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Paul 1953 (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Currently, it is a clear WP:BLP1E subject. If coverage continues in the future or more events happen involving this subject, then an article can be made. But, for right now, it's just a news blip because of public outrage. SilverserenC 05:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not true. There is plenty of content to be added to the article. Just because it hasn't been added, doesn't mean it can't be added, and we don't delete articles that can be improved by normal editing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think so. I have not seen any news story (yet) which goes beyond a very basic reporting of the facts, which are scant, and are repeated time and time again in every source. The concise, encyclopedic, version of prose would require 3 sentences. Beyond that would be puffery. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Including the words "beating of" in the title does not alter the fact that this is an article about a person, whose only claim to public interest is one incident. This is a person of no notability or public interest except for being involved in one incident which has been in the news for a while. We don't have articles on every person who was once involved in some news story. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability, Advocacy, BLP, BLP1E, NPOV, NOTNEWS, COMMONSENSE, take your pick. Swarm X11|11|11 14:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above, take your pick.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there's no evidence that this event is of lasting significance and thus notable.  Sandstein  18:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS applies in spades. Prioryman (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of the more obvious applications of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER to come along recently. I held my vote back to see if there was any reply to the issues raise by Delete voters from the Keep voters. There were none. The guideline that people alluded to earlier is WP:CRYSTALBALL This certainly doesn't apply here because the statute of limitations for crimes depicted on this 2004 video passed years ago. There cannot even be speculation of further factual disclosures in a trial, as there will be no trial. patsw (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : This is significant news. This has been on several major news networks and thereby made both the father and the daughter notable. Buddy431 (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.73.165 (talk) [reply]
Why is my name signed on the above statement? That's not mine. Buddy431 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IP did it. They are clearly trying to impersonate you. SilverserenC 18:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to impersonate anyone. I copy/pasted and didn't notice. I don't have a clue in hell how to edit wikipedia, but think you should keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.73.165 (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking out the forged !vote. TJRC (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the IP's explanation (that it was an honest mistake), I moved the strike-through to the signature. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge William Adams (judge) here. The judge may not be notable per se, but the beating of a child by a judge presiding over child abuse cases certainly is, as evidence by sustained international news coverage and subsequent analysis. Here's my argument from the judge's AfD:

Keep or Merge into the event (currently titled Beating of Hillary Adams, also subject to AfD). While the subject doesn't make the bar as a county rather than state judge, they are still an elected official and have an amount of presumed notability already — in any case they are a public figure so the BLP claims carry a lot less weight. Being a judge and having the police chief state that they "believe that there was a criminal offense involved" is, in itself, notable, particularly when you're a judge working on child abuse cases and the claim against you is child abuse. Then being quoted saying "It looks worse than it is" guarantees you additional notoriety, as evidenced by deep and diverse international news coverage extending far beyond the usual short news cycle. I think we'll be analysing and referring to this as a case study for the foreseeable future — indeed we already are.

I find the string of WP:NOTNEWS delete !votes above unconvincing given that when you dig deeper you see that "events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" (as has already been the case). I'm also not convinced by WP:BLP arguments given they are an elected public figure. Finally I'd argue that WP:CRIME does apply too given a police chief stated that "there was a criminal offense" — the perpetrator is a renowned national or international figure and the circumstances certainly sufficiently unusual as to warrant widespread coverage. -- samj inout 11:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there evidence of the coverage being sustained beyond coverage of the disclosure of the 2004 video? Where is there evidence of this being anything more than a routine child abuse case but for the publicity commencing on 2011-10-27? patsw (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If national or international impact is likely, and you want this article considered on that criterion, then articulate what that impact could be.
  • There can be no criminal indictment because the statute of limitations has passed.
  • Of course WP:BLP applies to elected public figures.
  • What guideline refers to "circumstances certainly sufficiently unusual"?
  • Where's the evidence that any coverage of this is sustained? patsw (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date of recording vs release is irrelevant — when the public discovered it there was widespread, deep, dedicated international coverage — publicity is notability.
Publicity is not notability. WP:N defines notability and publicity is not sufficient. The coverage was not deep or dedicated by any definition of deep or dedicated. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable — a review of the statute of limitations could be one such lasting impact, as would changes to policies & procedures for judges.
There is no evidence that this is going to be a precedent or catalyst for anything. This is conjecture on your part WP:CRYSTALBALL. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of criminal indictment (due to statute of limitations) does not imply lack of WP:CRIME.
Why cite WP:CRIME? It contains nothing that argue for inclusion, in fact, it supports the article deletion. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLP applies, but as an elected public figure they are by definition not "low-profile" so they have a lower expectation of privacy and should be held to a lower standard.
  • WP:CRIME refers to instances where the "motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual" — a judge ruling on child abuse cases being accused of child abuse is certainly unusual, as evidenced by the response (which certainly would not have been afforded your average guy)
Per our current practice and what WP:POLITICIAN states - Adams is at the level of judicial office where he is low-profile. He is not a state-wide or national political figure.
The beating of a child with a belt is evil, but not unusual. What is unusual is the availability of the video in 2011 from the 2004 incident. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. (WP:EVENT) — surely articles still being written almost 2 weeks after release exceeds a "relatively short news cycle"
  • An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. check
The coverage was not in depth. It was a one sentence summary and the link to the video. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. check
The coverage was not significant. It was a one sentence summary and the link to the video. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I think an article for the event (but not the individual) is warranted and given the level of coverage received already one more article will make little difference in terms of WP:BLP, and may even help by offering a balanced rather than sensationalist view. -- samj inout 20:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Judgments in articles for deletion under WP:ONEEVENT are not simply made by the amount of initial coverage. patsw (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to obvious and unquestionable notability and interest, but even at worst we would merge and redirect to Corporal_punishment_in_the_home#United_States. I can think of nor do I see any actually legitimate reason why would delete something covered in widespread media outlets concerning a judge. We are not a paper encyclopedia. We can and should cover anything and everything that is backed by reliable sources and for which a neutral fact based article can be written. If all these other sources are out there anyway, we need not concern ourselves with "protecting" someone whose actions are viewable online to billions anyway... --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every headline does not get an article in Wikipedia. It's not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia.
  • Should the fact that a judge is involved influence the application of policies here in any direction?
  • There was interest in the October 27, 2011 news cycle. The legitimate reason for its deletion is that the coverage in text was routine. Its global dissemination is explained by the availability of a video. patsw (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nomination is for failing WP:BLP1E criteria (as well as WP:NEWSEVENT criteria). None of the keep votes offer evidence that the article meets WP:BLP1E or WP:NEWSEVENT or offers an argument why these criteria should be ignored in this case. patsw (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Observation: Your sig appears on this page 14 times, which is 13 times too many by my count. WP:DE -- samj inout 00:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is only one vote. The rest is discussion. patsw (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing time? We're at nearly 4-1 for deletion, 7 days have passed, let's get this over with and get a poor article off of the project. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: All notions of merging with or redirecting to William Adams (judge) are now moot. That article has been deleted after a lengthy AfD and replaced by a redirect to the article under discussion here. (There is, perhaps, some content and sourcing in that deleted article that could be used to expand this article, should it survive.) - Dravecky (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NawlinWiki and MasterExpert's skillful and successful arguments. In any event, clearly no real need, reason for deletion. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In case you didn't notice, MasterExpert admitted that his arguments were incorrect or at least somewhat wrong, and on top of that changed his vote to "Delete". Also, NawlinWiki's arguments have been proven wrong right above your post. If you have something new, please tell me so I can better understand your position. Gwickwire (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beating_of_Hillary_Adams&oldid=1137603149"