Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brock Turner

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 keep. I am exceptionally closing this early, after only a bit more than a day, because a quite exceptional number of comments have already been made, and they indicate a clear consensus at this time to cover the case and the discussion about it in an article. The automatic head-count is at 56 "keep" to 10 "delete", with a trend towards keep. Although this process is not a vote, these numbers do make clear that a consensus to delete will not emerge from this discussion.

There is also a trend towards consensus to focus the article on the event instead of on the perpetrator, and currently the article has already been moved to Brock Turner sentencing controversy, but that is a matter for further discussion on the article talk page.

This "snow" keep closure does not rule out another deletion nomination at a later time when the article has stabilized and the news coverage has subsided such that the topic's importance can be examined at more of a distance, but any such renomination should be well considered in view of the discussion below.  Sandstein  19:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Turner

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

The subject of this article fails notability guidelines and strains Wikipedia's neutrality stance and determination not to be viewed as a source for news and current events. The article's subject is known in reliable sources for a single event; his arrest and conviction for sexual assault charges. As the key player in a low profile event, (no article exists for the event itself), this person does not warrant a stand alone article in Wikipedia. --castabile (User talk:castabile) --Castabile (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is an ongoing criminal matter, you are innocent until proven otherwise. 70.178.54.15 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this *vote must be ignored, as the argument is entirely incorrect. this is not an ongoing criminal matter. the person has been found guilty. there is no rationale to protect the perp based on presumed innocence. i will point out that an argument to not unfairly publicize, and thus overly emphasize, the perp is in some cases a valid form of argument (which i dont believe applies here). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. An earlier poster notes correctly that "Enough coverage transforms routine news into history." He has become the face of slap-on-the-wrist sentencing for acquaintance rape and thus is at this point notable. --50.162.3.154 (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. There is literally no reason to delete this. The fact that I came to this page by searching "Brock Turner Wikipedia" shows that it is a very relevant page. This is a historic case that has a lot to it. The point of wikipedia, among other things, is to have all the info in one place rather than trying to track down a bunch of random details all over the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.96.222 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. This entry is not merely about news and current events. It is, as others have pointed out below, a landmark case in the history of policy-making around campus sexual assault, especially insofar as conviction and sentencing are concerned. (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree strongly with the above opinion for two reasons. First, the inclusion of the subject is in no way a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality stance. The basic facts of the event in question are not in dispute, and have been conclusively settled in the American legal system. While the subject might not appreciate the fact that this episode is documented on Wikipedia, that unhappiness is irrelevant to the question of neutrality.
The second reason that I disagree is that campus rape--as well as the role of alcohol--is a major topic in the campus culture of the American university in the early 21st century. For this reason, this episode is worthy of documenting on Wikipedia for precisely the same reason that Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight) is. This is also true of the mention of Owen Labrie on the entry for St. Paul's School. All of these articles and mentions document this important social issue affecting colleges and universities across the country.
All of this said, I do agree that the article needs two improvements: First, Turner's side of the story--that he thought it was just some drunk hookup--should be provided. Second, framing information, similar to what I wrote in the previous paragraph, needs to be added to provide context making clear why this article is not just newsy ephemera, but worthy of documenting for the longer-term record. But these suggestions boil down to "mend it, don't end it." Thebigpug (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Whenever policy is set aside to allow undue coverage of a single event within the biography of a living person who is otherwise a low profile individual, that coverage is inherently biased. A neutral presentation would exist if the information was duly placed within a related article; as was done regarding Owen Labrie's mention in the St. Paul's School article. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - User: Thebigpug says "For this reason, this episode is worthy of documenting on Wikipedia for precisely the same reason that Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight) is." The referred-to article says "The student Sulkowicz accused was found 'not responsible' in 2013 by a university inquiry into the allegations." Bus stop (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. The history of his actions should be documented in as many ways as possible, to ensure they are accessible to anyone who wishes to research this person's behaviour in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.30.185 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Campus sexual assault is a significant and important aspect of both tertiary education and criminal justice, and this case is a rare example of where a perpetrator was not only charged, but convicted in a court of law. The article as written does not strain the neutrality guidelines, as it relates only well sourced, verifiable material and those events of the case which have been tested in a court of law. Unlike the commenter above, I do not think that unverified he said / she said versions of events should be included, as that would push the limits of neutrality of a living person article. Cwmagee (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. This article is significant not just for the rape itself, but--perhaps even more so--for the miscarriage of justice that followed. That makes this in no way "a low profile event".
This article does not fail notability guidelines, which state "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The sources to date include San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, the Guardian, and ESPN.com, which clearly meet the requirement. Those are the sources of news, so Wikipedia doesn't need to be. - Johnlogic (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:CRIMINAL is the most relevant notability guideline here. An individual who has received significant news coverage of their arrest and sentencing may still not meet WP:CRIMINAL. --McGeddon (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This case may be problematic under WP:CRIMINAL, but it's important to note that the victim's lengthy in-court statement has now gone "viral" [1] and has been covered in detail in important sources like The Washington Post [2] and The Guardian [3]. At this point, I don't know that the event can be accurately characterized as "low profile". --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - a straightforward failure of WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BIO1E. His case is notable for the symbolic value of his victim's letter, which "went viral" because many people and sexual assault victims felt it spoke for them, than for his specific crime. I think this would be better placed on campus sexual assault with a description of the events. He doesn't himself pass WP:CRIMINAL. His case has attracted attention not so much because his actions were "unusual—or ha[ve] otherwise been considered noteworthy" than because they were felt to be an example of of such assaults in general; not because his actions were unusual as they were felt to be all too common. Blythwood (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Brock Turner is a notable public figure, who has been covered in American national media and International media, and is well known both for his activities as a swimmer and a rapist. Strand (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Considering the wide dissemination of the victim's in-court statement and the controversy surrounding his extremely light sentence, this page is likely to be referenced more and more as the case is discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.116.130 (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. The intention of this article does not appear be the harassment of Mr. Turner, but to provide the public with information about an individual who's name is becoming well known in international media [4]. This article does not meet any of the criteria for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.148.79.30 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that a lot of editors don't like this guy (with good reason) and want to keep the page because it will harm him and his reputation. I don't think that's a good justification. This is a single incident (the rape) that generated significant media coverage, especially because of the statements made by parties in the case. I think that the article should be kept because it is a notable incident, but I wish that this standard would be applied in all AfD discussions, not just ones where editors don't like the subject. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete total violation of not news rules. He was not noted as a swimmer. He only got notice for being charged with rape, but no really reason that we should have an article on him and not every other convicted rapist whose name was published in the news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it could be renamed to be specific to the case which seems to have received a fair bit of press some of it international (Independent, Daily Mail, Guardian) since the time of event to now. Erp (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. This man is notorious. Personally, I think the judge should be notorious as well for such a lenient sentence. This is a disgrace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.77.214 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This crime is notable and this article should serve as a documentation of his crimes.Cssiitcic (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. The crime, is perhaps one of many examples of campus assault, but the judge's sentence and the survivor's letter, published in many media outlets, make it notable. This case will be referred to often in the future for these reasons and people will expect to find it on Wikipedia.Intheshadows (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. In response to the comment that "no article exists for the event itself", it should be noted that this crime has become notable now as the victim's court statement is published and sentencing concluded. The lack of an existing article is not a good indicator of notability. If such an article was created it would essentially duplicate the content of this one. The notion that this is a "low profile" incident is unsupported, it seems likely that the victim's powerful statement and controversy over lenient sentencing will ensure long term interest in the subject. RussHawk (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. I am writing this from Australia - this event has been worldwide news and has sparked numerous articles and calls for changing the way society views rape, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.17.158.11 (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. The information is true and accurate. Mr Turner is an athlete who has committed a criminal act, both of which are wiki guidelines for keeping an article. It is not reported as a news article, but is an accurate description of a person who has recently gained fame for committing a criminal act. 'Brock Turner' is becoming a popular search term due to the publicity around the case and the victim's popular impact statement letter. It is rightfully wikipedia's place to inform users on who this famous person is and for what he is famous for. The article follows all guidelines for wiki to keep it and I see no reason why it should be deleted. Anchor228 (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think any of those advocating for keep have referenced wikipedia guidelines, only that Turner is a bad guy and that campus rape is too common. True as both statements may be, wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and loads of "notable" people and events are rejected from inclusion every day. I've put hard work into articles that have been deleted, and it sucks, but it's necessary. Stroller (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Brock Turner is a notable public figure, who has been covered in American national media and International media, and is well known both for his activities as a swimmer and a rapist. He will continue to occupy a place in the conversation about rape on campus and their intersection with athletic politics. It is vital that his entry remains and enlarged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kierstenmounce (talk • contribs) 14:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CRIMINAL. As far as I know, there aren't any other articles about the victim's rape. Also, this is a crime that shouldn't be whitewashed, papered over, or shoved under the rug. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Brock Turner's actions have received ongoing, worldwide, contextualizing coverage from a diverse array of sources. The guidelines say that media coverage can confer notability on a criminal act, so long as it otherwise satisfies notability and reliability guidelines. It is clear, based on the scope and content of the coverage that this individual has received, that those conditions are amply satisfied. Cryptobiotik (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Given the impact this story seems to have had worldwide including the statement from his father, I believe this incident has had more of an impact on the discussion of campus rape and the perceived nonchalant attitudes of some males towards sexual assault. Coupled with his background and success in swimming, he has a public image albeit a small one which in my opinion qualifies this article to be valid. The article itself does not seem biased at this time and presents the facts as they have been presented in court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.28.220 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. All information is clearly factual and unbiased in that it reflects the facts of a trial in a court of law. Regarding the argument that the biographical information relates to a "low profile individual", which is not true. 1) The conviction of Brock Allen Turner represents a significant milestone in respect of sexual assault on college campuses given that he was tried AND convicted of such felony crimes. 2) The notoriety of the case itself in respect of this milestone judgement (and worldwide attention matters surrounding the case) highlight that the felon Brock Allen Turner is not and cannot be purported to be a "low profile individual". — Preceding unsigned comment added by LondonerInHongKong (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

  • Merge to Campus Sexual Assault. Delete if unable to merge. WP:CRIME is very clear on this:
  • "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."
  • "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:"
  • "For perpetrators: 1.The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. 2.The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
  • 1.The victim was not notable. 2.The motivation and execution is neither notable or unusual. "Rapist takes advantage of unconcious" is not special in any way. It is unfortunately all too common. The father's ridiculous comments aside, there is no evidence of any historic significance at this time. WP:BIO1E lays out the notability requirements and I cannot see this subject qualifies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A brief summary of some of the keep votes above not versed in policy: "His actions should be documented so his behaviour can be researched in the future" - wikipedia is not a criminal record, "Brock Turner is a notable public figure" - not until this event he wasnt, "to provide the public with information about an individual who's name is becoming well known in international media" - merely being well-known is not a reason to keep under BLP1E, BIO1E, WP:CRIME etc. "This man is notorious. Personally, I think the judge should be notorious as well for such a lenient sentence." - well no explanation needed. "This crime is notable and this article should serve as a documentation of his crimes" - individual college/university rapes are not in themselves notable with a few exceptions, again wikipedia is not here to be a public criminal record. "The information is true and accurate." - not itself reason to keep an article per *any* notability guideline.
  • The best arguments to keep are actually arguments to retitle and rescope the article - Londonerinhongkong states "The conviction of Brock Allen Turner represents a significant milestone in respect of sexual assault on college campuses given that he was tried AND convicted of such felony crimes. 2) The notoriety of the case itself in respect of this milestone judgement (and worldwide attention matters surrounding the case)" - this is a good argument for having an article on the court case with obviously inclusive details of the perpetrator. This is actually the usual format when a specific case becomes notable due to setting precedent etc. Intheshadows also writes "The crime, is perhaps one of many examples of campus assault, but the judge's sentence and the survivor's letter, published in many media outlets, make it notable. This case will be referred to often in the future for these reasons and people will expect to find it on Wikipedia" - again this is a good argument for having an article on the case, not the perpetrator. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per WP:CRIMINAL, to an article about the case, including the sentencing and the controversy over "Emily Doe's" statement. Yakushima (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The very clear fact is that the article was added in response to the criminal case. It was not added because of any other subject notability. Wikipedia is not a public forum for shaming. I don't care how bad someone is, electronically lynching a common but otherwise non-noteworthy criminal, who happens to be a momentary minor media obsession, is not what Wikipedia is about. -Jordgette [talk] 16:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it: this case is making international news and goes beyond the crime itself due to the discourses evident in the case for the defense, and now the letter from his father, which demonstrates astonishing entitlement, and issues of privilege, race and gendered violence. The strong statement by his victim already has worldwide attention and has huge significance in terms of self-advocacy and refusal to allow assumed entitlement to continue. I do not want to see wiki become a list of convicted felons. This case goes far beyond that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowyswimmy (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Campus Sexual Assault, as per Only in death's rationale. If that's not an option, then Redirect and refocus the article to cover the case as a whole, not just Turner. If that fails, too, then Delete. I strongly disagree with the many "Keeps" above (along the lines of "This man is notorious. Personally, I think the judge should be notorious as well for such a lenient sentence. This is a disgrace"), because "Wikipedia is not a public forum for shaming." Many of the arguments lack grounding in actual policy, and some violate WP:CRYSTALBALL. As noted above, WP:CRIME basically precludes the possibility of keeping the article as is, and we can't say now whether this will ever become a " well-documented historic event." That would require more CRYSTALBALL. I am about 95% sure that a concerted canvassing effort/sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry is going on here, but I won't waste time investigating that, and I'm confident the closing admin will realize this, too. GABgab 16:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Turner is internationally (in)famous, and fully satisfied WP:N as an All-American swimmer even before his current notoriety. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violates Low Profile individual policies on Wikipedia. WP:BLP1E. Additionally, claiming that this guy and this event is nothing more than a perpetuation of the ravenous, 24-hour news cycle is preposterous. The simple fact the article cites so many articles as references, which are mostly redundant in that they are news articles covering the exact same information from different media outlets proves that anyone interested in true crime gossip can find it elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SATEditor2016 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes notability guidelines. Here's a few snippets from policy.
    • WP:NCRIME: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." It's indisputable that there has been significant media coverage on him.
    • WP:BLP1E: "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." He has been in the news since January of 2015.
    • WP:BIO1E: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." While we can argue about how significant the event is, it's become a rather big deal and as the perpetrator, his role in it is rather large.
    • WP:GNG: It's obvious that he passes all criteria for GNG so I won't even elaborate. Transcendence (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject has been covered by numerous articles in major new outlets devoted specifically to him. Many more references from respected news sources are available than the ones currently in the article, so there is ample room for improvement. He was originally only covered by local newspapers, the Stanford Daily, SF Chronicle, but now has articles devoted to him in national media, like USA Today, The Washington Postt, etc.as And the issue he's involved with (not just sexual assault, but the justice system) is continuing to garner expanding coverage long after the initial event---it's not a bright but disappearing new flash.Bruriyah (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Campus Sexual Assault is the wrong merge target — I'm reserving judgment on whether or not Brock Turner was independently notable, so I can raise a major concern about the merge proposals. (Note to newcomers, Wikipedia policies are often restrictive on this point, but that doesn't prevent relevant content about, say, Adam Lanza, from appearing on Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.) Both WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME guidelines question whether not-otherwise-notable individuals should be topic of an independent Wikipedia article, but the guidance they offer is about incorporating the available encyclopedic material. In general, this means merging to or creating a page about the specific crime. Thus we have Steubenville High School rape case and Sexual assault of Savannah Dietrich. Merging to campus sexual assault would require a massive and unnecessary deletion of encyclopedic content. So, those who favor a merge should back a renaming of the article to something like Sexual assualt by Brock Turner or January 2015 Stanford rape (although the latter may like precision).--Carwil (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carwil:Agreed! I looked at that page yesterday and tried figuring out where one case would fit in in a way that wouldn't overwhelm the article. I don't think it can if we do this topic proper justice. Jami430 (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. I strongly disagree that Brock Turner's page violates Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wouldn't a strain on Wikipedia's neutrality stance actually demonstrate a strong attempt to be neutral? Neutrality itself is not a fact--it is an aim that is embedded in the delivery of an argument. All writing makes some kind of claim. The veracity of that claim is what determines whether the source is being neutral. Is Brock Turner a convicted rapist? If a record of conviction exists, we can then turn our attention to the problem of the term "rape." Rape, by any definition, is not a 'neutral' phenomenon. As a concept, it raises all kinds of categorical challenges for writers--when is rape rape? What are the boundaries between the terms rape and sexual assault? Is there a such thing as "intent to rape" (which implies that intent is not sufficient enough to constitute the violation suggested by the term rape). Of course, there remains the question of notability. Who is Brock Turner, and why--of all the convicted rapists in America--does he warrant Wikipedia page coverage? On Wikipedia, the question of inclusion presents a problem for those who assume that notability could ever be discussed as a 'neutral' thing. Phenomena ought to be considered 'notable' if it becomes a widely circulated narrative. One *fact* of Turner's conviction that has generated enough media response to introduce his name to the masses involves the legitimacy of Turner's sentencing. A neutral stance that ignores the sociopolitical context in which meanings are made compromises its value as such. Age, race, and class clearly played a major role in Turner's very light sentence. Turner, then, has been transformed into a symbol of a stratified U.S. criminal justice system, which makes it of importance to anti-racist social movements and organizations from #BLM to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Furthermore, the victim was unconscious during her rape, which has caused some discussion about whether she was 'actually' raped. In addition to generating discussion about fairness and justice, the Turner case is part of a larger public conversation about campus sexual assault and alcohol abuse that cause people to vigorously debate how we talk about rape as a legal, social, and political issue, especially when victims are acquaintances. In sum, the Brock Turner case warrants inclusion and should not be deleted. Wikipedia's neutrality policy is flexible enough to withstand the relativity of perception and the reality of an event and the scope of its impact. Neutrality is not a matter of whether something is true, but whether the syntax of categorical claims about reality avoids expressions of value (e.g. good, bad, ethical, positive, negative). In other words, rape may conjure a number of value associations about 'bad character' (e.g. creep, criminal, dangerous violent creepy criminal), but that has nothing to do with the reporting of a legal status--however controversial. For the article to maintain Wikipedia's standard, it should acknowledge that the conviction of Brock Turner is controversial, and of relevance to a significant number of Wikipedia's publics--hence its inclusion. --JaneNova (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Notable both because of the seriousness of the crime and the current focus on sexual assaults in America, particularly on college campuses. Publicus 19:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refocus it. Turner was not notable (he had no entry at all until two days ago). The crime however is quite notable for a number of reasons, and deserves its own page.173.85.106.172 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a person who is involved in a high profile judgment which is bringing to light how these criminal cases are handled. Trilliant (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. This is an historical case on so many levels. Also, the words of the victim at the predator's sentencing are poetic and gripping, worth keeping alive for all to read. Wikipedia documents peoples' lives -- If, down the road, Brock Turner finally "gets it" and spreads a strong message against campus assault, the page will be updated accordingly. Only he has the power to change his future ... and Wiki page.24.148.43.123 (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that it would be helpful if not only this article was kept, but that there be a page INCLUDING a PICTURE of each person on the Sexual Predator list. It is public record. This person is convicted. There is no dispute on whether or not the crime was committed. The facts stated do not inhibit the neutrality of this website. Let's protect the victim and potential future victims. Let's not protect the rapist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.90.250.81 (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Brock Turner is a notorious person by virtue of the defense at his trial and sentencing as well as the light sentence assigned. His notoriety is quite likely to grow as the subject of sexual assaults on U.S. campuses gains more attention and the judge in the case becomes the focus of outrage on social media and possible recall. Wikipedia policy states that the perpetrator of a crime merits his own article if "the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Brock Turner meets this requirement. A great many people have their own Wikipedia article based solely on one notorious crime or trial. See, for example, Lizzie Borden, H.H. Holmes, Scott Carpenter, William Calley, and Ethan Couch. Shortynj (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it. Turner is not notable, although seems to have engaged in pretty reprehensible conduct. The crime however is a noteworthy example of campus rape of one drunk by another. This page has virtually no biographical information about Turner which isn't about his crime/conviction. I doubt we would be debating this if he had been sentenced to the full 10 years, or if it turned out that Ms Doe had given him a condom prior to passing out; what I am claiming is that this article is reactionary and not noteworthy.Abitslow (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Rosa Parks would not be famous if nothing had happened after she refused to give up her seat on the bus. She's really famous because of the subsequent impact of that action. Brock Turner is not special or interesting, his crime is not noteworthy, but it has sparked a global outcry (I am not in the US) which may well have a significant impact. It's much too early to judge, but would keep for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savkraft (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it for now but rename it, 2016 Stanford Rape or something like that. It seems to be evolving as there is now an attempt to recall the judge, which may go nowhere. But while the perpetrator does not deserve a WP page, and neither does the crime, it may in the near future if the recall gets on the ballot. Judges are not recalled often. Geo8rge (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. I do like the idea of renaming the page Sexual Assault by Brock Turner or some such as that is really what this page is concerned with. But I do not think it should be merged into campus sexual assault as this case has had hallmark actions associated with it from the sentence to the victim's statement and the father's letterm that merit a stand-alone page. This case will be taught and talked about in relation to the state of sexual assault on campuses for years to come. --tassieg (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

  • Keep Passes WP:N with flying colors. Rename as appropriate. --IShadowed (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - Seems like it would not be notable under WP:CRIMINAL or WP:BIO1E. Also under wikipedia is not news . This was not a nationally or internationally known criminal act or criminal until the unexpectedly light sentence was reacted to. The person is convicted of 3 counts of sexual assault and he happened to be a university level competitive swimmer. Neither of these justifies a wiki page to himself. His father's reaction is not surprising, "parent advocates for their child" is surely not newsworthy, nor should judges really listen when a parent advocates for their own child. It would be far more surprising if a parent said to the court, "my child should be punished severely". Merge into a page on sentencing for sexual assault convictions, and how this case generated a strong public reaction.Japanscot (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename it. I do not claim great expertise in Wikipedia's policies and I see that Mr. Turner is an imperfect fit for the standards of when an article is appropriate for a criminal. But isn't that missing the forest for the trees? The rape, the sentence, the victim's statement, and the father's letter clearly pass any reasonable standard of notability given the very significant press coverage. Isn't the obvious way to square this circle to rename the article something like "Controversy Over Rape of 'Emily Doe' at Stanford University"? I don't see how the crime, the reaction, the sentence, the victim's statement, the father's letter and all the resultant controversy and press coverage and possible attempt to recall the judge could possible fail to satisfy standards of notability in the same way that the Stuebenville rape case did. Why not recategorize the article and expand it with more about the controversy and the reaction? Everything in the present article would fit well in an article about the crime and resultant controversy, as would information about the victim's statement and the threat to attempt to unseat the judge.

Edited to add: As for Wikipedia not being a newspaper, I read that standard and it refers to routine news stories. The initial report of the rape would have rightly been excluded on this basis, but there is nothing routine about the story now. Enough coverage transforms routine news into history. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was news, but that doesn't change the fact that it was also a major historical event. This story is a now minor historical event, not mere routine news.The Peanut Gallery (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rename This is an instance where the crime, and reaction to it, are more notable than the perpetrator. The case passes WP:GNG but WP:CRIMINAL is relevant here.LM2000 (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would put this event under the Affluenza defense. Ethan Couch has his own page and I believe that Brock Turner should have his own page also. Further, I would link Brock Turner as a Notable Incident from the Affluenza page. While, unfortunately, the crime may be common, the 6 month sentence is appalling and noteworthy. davey.y2k (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How so? If there are unsourced claims in the article, then those claims should be cited or removed, but that is an article editing rather than article deletion issue and has no impact on the inherent notability of the subject, which is what matters in a deletion discussion and why the article should be kept. —Lowellian (reply) 01:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Factually correct information is not generally a BLP violation. Matthew Thompson talk to me! 04:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly keep as is for now, as it is very prominent in the news. A BLP, but not a violation, it is all well sourced, and appropriately written, certainly far better that what is all over the internet today. When the news cycle calms, a merge may be appropriate, per WP:BLP1E. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. News coverage sufficient to establish notability. —Lowellian (reply) 01:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

° "Redirect" - move this to an article that covers the case as it is an important case in this country's history that should be present on Wikipedia. If not Redirect, keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.178.87 (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to 2015 Stanford Campus Rape Case or similar, and redirect Brock Turner to the renamed article. As many have noted above, Brock Turner is not the primary subject of this article and if he was it would be deletable under WP:BLP1E. There has been significant national and international coverage of the case, the verdict and the subsequent fallout from the verdict, up to and including a circulating petition to recall the elected judge in the case; this indicates clear notability under WP:N. "Brock Turner" will remain a valid search term for this case (hence the redirect) and the conviction is a matter of public record and international news and therefore should not violate WP:BLP.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Respect the victim. Do not merge into an article which may become a forum for further assault on the victim. Deletion will compromise Wikipedia as a reference for notable events and persons. If the rapist had admitted guilt and had accepted responsibility for his actions, maybe his crime would have been a one-time, low profile event, unworthy of Wikipedia. Instead of choosing a low profile resolution, by falsely asserting his innocence at trial, creating a public spectacle and continuing his pattern of anti-social behavior, the remorseless, convicted rapist made himself worthy of Wikipedia inclusion. Please encourage contributors to include more information about Mr. Turner's continuing and present activities and accomplishments.
    information Note: Wikipedia uses WP:CONSENSUS about deletion policies. This is not a place for voting based on emotional arguments, which will be ignored by the closing administrator. Matthew Thompson talk to me! 04:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not rename. The information is important and notable via a conjunction of WP:CRIME and WP:ATHLETE, which respectively define a notable person as a criminal who is otherwise notable, and an athlete who is otherwise notable. A criminal athlete sounds potentially notable, and the months and months of media coverage puts me over the edge. WP:BLP1E applies only to low-profile individuals: specifically, if an individual has engaged in any kind of self-promotion, they are likely to be considered high-profile. I'm inclined to count Turner's father as an extension of Turner for the purposes of this policy, given the close nature of their relationship, and the specific nature of the crime. As a case against renaming:The case in question is not well-known by any unanimous moniker: "the case with Brock Turner and the series of events and news coverage that followed" may be descriptive, but it's hardly convenient or useful. If instead, we decided to pick one of the names for the Event in question from the various news stories, it's possible we might technically be hewing closer to our rules on neutrality, but we'd also be making a choice at the whim of whoever titled the article, and that seems to violate the spirit of neutrality we should be reaching for. Comrade pem (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to Stanford rape case (or 2015 Stanford rape case) as with the Steubenville High School rape case and some others. The details of the perp are not the most relevant part from our perspective (he's not a serial rapist or otherwise notable person), but rather the fallout from the sentencing which makes this notable. its a news cycle item, of course, but it is getting significant enough coverage that we should allow it its own article. arguments about the victims rights, or even the perps rights, are not relevant. we are not creating the publicity, its our job to mirror media/societal focus, not amplify or judge and ignore it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create separate article about the case as there is likely a critical mass of sources that could justify both an article about Turner and an article titled "2015 Stanford rape case" or something similar. As has been discussed, the case is likely to inform future rulings about assault, both on college campuses and elsewhere.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are now calls to recall the judge in the case, further justifying an argument for two articles, as information about the repercussions of the event beyond how they pertain to Turner would only be appropriate elsewhere.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there sufficient coverage for a Brock Turner article in addition to an article about the case? The vast majority of coverage has been about the case, not about the rapist; if split, what would be included in the Brock Turner article to satisfy concerns of WP:BLP1E? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this information, even a single sentence summary, does not belong in the Campus sexual assault, nor should it be a redirect to that. that article is a broad overview, and the case we are talking about in this article is an entirely unremarkable campus sexual assault. what is remarkable, in the news today, is the judge's sentencing. the campus was not involved in that per se, this is an example of possible white priviledge, or high status priviledge, and of possible unfair sentencing. its also an example of popular response to a legal matter, and the tension between the protected status of judges and the will of the people. if someone wanted to create a list article of notable campus sexual assaults, that would be an appropriate redirect target, IF i didnt already feel that this is deserving of an article anyway.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to Stanford rape case (or 2015 Stanford rape case). This is now notable, because in 72 hours 5.5 million people hare read the victim impact statement on BuzzFeed. In addition it has been featured on a dozen large news sites, see the article, including internationally. It is now way past the bar for notability. Nick Beeson (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider renaming meets WP:GNG -- but WP:CRIMINAL a bit more in doubt. The event has generated significant coverage to justify an entry, just not sure if the perpetrator should be the center Matthew Thompson talk to me! 04:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactor, pretty much a textbook violation of WP:BIO1E and WP:CRIME at the moment. Turner isn't notable, but the sentence and the reaction may be. Lets then come back in six months and see if anyone is still discussing this case, with the benefit of some hindsight. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage and discourse about the issue by all notable news agencies. And these were all original news writeups, not cut-and-paste syndicated content. And to address the proposer's argument that the person is notable for only a "low profile event", I would argue that the subject and the case are inexplicably linked, and certainly neither of them are low-profile. Alternatively, as many suggested, rename the article to the "case name" but redirect "Brock Turner" to this article. As far as I know, there are no other notable "Brock Turner"s, hence any search here for Turner would be actually looking for info about this case.Zhanzhao (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But Rename to a title that does not include "Brock Turner" in the title. Have "Brock Turner" as a WP:REDIRECT. It is not Wikipedia's place to be heaping shame on an individual. Let me change this to simply Keep with the current title which is Brock Turner sentencing controversy. I find that title acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that the article should be renamed, it is not because of concern for shaming a rapist. Although this coverage of Turner is undeniably negative, WP:BLP recognizes that people do bad things and that that can be acknowledged when it is reported in reliable sources. Turner was found guilty of this assault; we should not be renaming the article purely to help a rapist save face. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is neither Wikipedia's job to shame someone nor to help them save face. In this case, anyway, we cannot possibly make his reputation any worse; his lenient sentencing plus the victim's statement and his father's have received prominent worldwide news coverage. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked for the name, using Wikipedia's basic Search function, expecting to find it under "containing..." but I was surprised to see it as the title of an article. Bus stop (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename and rework into an article on 2015 Stanford rape case (or something similar, not sure what the best title would be here). Brock Turner is not the notable element here; the majority of coverage is on the trial itself, Turner's father's alleged letter, and widespread response to and coverage of both. I think there would be value to revisiting this in six months, per Lankiveil's suggestion, but I also think the amount of coverage at the current moment is sufficient for inclusion in some form. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I should point that this was likely not the only Stanford rape case in 2015. For 2014 the university reported, as required by law, 30 sex offenses though this includes offenses other than rape (e.g., unwanted touching for the purpose of sexual gratification). I agree that renaming to reflect an emphasis on the case not the culprit. I suspect there will be some opposition to using the word "rape" in the name because California has a narrower definition of rape than the federal government (i.e., this will be reported by the University to the federal government as a rape but he was convicted of penetration with a foreign object of an unconscious person and attempted rape). Erp (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, and I acknowledge in my comment that that may not be the best title. 2015 Stanford sexual assault case? Or we could add the month and/or day? I am not well versed enough in various intricacies of federal/state U.S. law to decide this, though I do see that the article (currently) reads "Turner was convicted under California state law on three assault charges, two of which would be considered rape under U.S. federal crime reporting guidelines." Regardless of that, there is a way to unambiguously refer to this case, rather than write a biographical article of the rapist, and that is the approach I think we as Wikipedians should take. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there a case number or tite associated with the case? perhaps that would be a useful tool for establishing a name? Lachlan.00 (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename -- it's the case that's notable, not so much the perpetrator. The redirect should be kept. Nothing else about Brock Turner's life is relevant to an encyclopedia. Should he become notable for other reasons than just this case, then an article on him specifically would be justified. Also, the notable stuff here isn't just him; it's the victim and her well-publicized statement, the actions of the judge, the statement by the father, and whatever may happen in future (he's appealing the decision, and people are trying to get the judge removed from office for this). Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and modify accordingly: I agree with GorillaWarfare. The notable aspect of this incident isn't the perpetrator himself but the incident, the media coverage surrounding it and public interest in the case (e.g. at time of writing there are over 200,000 signatures on a petition at "change.org" asking for the judge overseeing the case to be recalled). Perhaps an appropriate article could be the "Stanford rape incident -2015" or something similar? Lachlan.00 (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Extensive international coverage pins this felon by name, not by court docket or case file. Highly notable individual, all refs verifiable. If there's a difference in precedent between this man and Ethan Couch, I'm not seeing it. Article does need refinement by some of the better editors afoot. BathCandles (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. This is not a newsworthy event, it is a crime and there are no distinguishing characteristics to make this worthy of inclucion in an encyclopaedia. Whiteguru (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite persistent, consistent, international coverage of the event? This has been in the media for quite a while. Matthew Thompson talk to me! 12:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I would recommend keeping the article due to the notoriety of the case as well as the athletic ability and potential of Brock Turner. He was a 3x All-American in high school, was a member of the USA Swimming National Junior Team before he got a swimming scholarship at Stanford, and there was a very real possibility he could have competed in the Olympics and maybe even medaled. This could have been someone who would have eventually had a Wikipedia profile for their accomplishment and fame in athletics rather than as a student athlete sex offender. I think this is a big case featuring a very talented person who now will not have a chance to fulfill their potential due to their criminal actions. Aoa8212 (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is not about the person or the crime, but the resulting widespread controversy, followed around the world, regarding the leniency of the sentence. UCaetano (talk) 13:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

  • Keep, or merge - Keep, or merge to Stanford_University#21st_century. There are dozens of references for this notorious case, and Judge Aaron Persky has been lenient on another 2007 case as well. Perhaps a new article entitled History of Stanford University can be created to encompass this case. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Is this still up for discussion? Changing the article to be about the crime rather than the person was a good move. I still prefer Brock Turner rape case to Brock Turner sentencing controversy, but I can see why we'd use that particular title. Jami430 (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article title is currently “Brock Turner sentencing controversy” which has itself become an event of note beyond the actions of Turner or the sentence he received for his crimes. The notability of the subject Turner or any measure of the newsworthiness of his assault are secondary to the reality of the impact the sentencing has had upon the public’s consciousness. May I point out that Rosa Parks was not a noteworthy person in 1955. Esjones (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the widespread coverage in conventional media sources and on social media this is a case that will clearly continue to have widespread impact in conversations around sexism and sexual violence in the U.S. mennonot (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wish to keep and rename this page, please join the conversation about what to call it at Talk:Brock_Turner_sentencing_controversy#Requested_move_7_June_2016--Carwil (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This issue has turned from a local issue covered by the Stanford Daily and SF Chronicle to one which is being covered by respected national and international news outlets. It does not appear to be a "news flash" but rather one that is engaging people in a national discussion. Bruriyah (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2016 (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/Brock_Turner&oldid=1071805585"