Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Gail Mangum

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 of the debate was keep. W.marsh 01:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Gail Mangum

Not notable, at best merge with 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal Kotepho 15:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You say it's not notable, yet you have posted FORTY ONE comments on the discussion page! Sounds like you feel the subject is worth a lot of your own time and that you have a lot to say about the subject. How can you say that it's not notable?
  • Merge and Redirect Seriously, no notability beyond this scandal, as your supposed 22,000 Google hits amply demonstrate.--BradPatrick 22:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep The people suggesting deletion are trying to force their morals and ethics onto Wikipedia.--This unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.103
  • Merge and Redirect All notability is in relation to the scandal - would be better to keep it there Trödel 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I feel this whole AFD is a little premiture. Her name has only recently become formal public knowage so trying to guess how notable she is will be somewhat tricky.Geni 23:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect The relevant WP:BIO standard is "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." My test for this is that if she has received renown/notoriety (as Monica Lewinsky did) then news/blog mentions of her would not need to specify her role in the event. I checked the hits for her name at Google News, and all made it very clear that they still feel the need to say who she is. Thus, I conclude that she has not yet achieved the appropriate level of "renown or notoriety". The article has found a WP:RS for her name. I expected otherwise because most news organizations that have the requisite staff and policies to be reliable sources also have policies against revealing the names of reported victims of rape. GRBerry 01:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the Katelyn Faber precedent. Calwatch 02:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Such special incidences are often referenced to in common language by the name and not by the events --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 03:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Scented Guano 05:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect - not notable in her own right, and probably unlikely to be so. --AlisonW 12:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... are you freaking kidding me?!?!?! ESPN still wont shut up about the Duke Lacrosse scandal, its still being talked about by all the major media outlets... she definately is notable, as is her obvious lack of credibility.  ALKIVAR™ 16:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ESPN still wont shut up about the Duke Lacrosse scandal -- No one is suggesting we delete Duke Lacrosse scandal. Tell me, what facts about Ms Mangum are likely to appear in her article that would not be better in the Duke Lacrosse scandal article? -- GWO
      • Nonsense. Why not just merge everything here into a single article about the universe while we're at it? You do realize that we have, not including those in subcategories, 115 articles in Category:Fraudsters, don't you? Are you implying we merge each of those into an article about the hoaxes they perpetrated? Silensor 20:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the months roll by and the heated rhetoric continues, it should be amply clear that Mangum is in for more than "fifteen minutes of fame."--Snorklefish 20:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, keep per the Katelyn Faber precedent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.74 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 June 2006
    • I disagree that this is the proper precedent to use. In the Kobe case, there is no separate scandal article...summary information is merged into Kobe Bryant, while the Faber article is essentially used for the rape allegation. In this case, a scandal article is available for the details of the case, perhaps because the alleged perpetrators are similarly non-notable. In any case, with an article available for the details of the case and the alleged victim questionably (I say questionably because other editors seem to disagree with me, and I respect their right to do so) notable outside of the case, merge and redirect is the appropriate course of action.--MikeJ9919 22:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is no reason to delete this article, it is highly notable and has been verified. Yanksox (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's OFFICial - Keep it - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Because MikeJ9919 suggests the Faber case may not be a good precident, here are four others (found in just 30 minutes of cursory research). Though not as sexually titilating or racially charged as Mangum/Faber, they nontheless highlight stand-alone articles for people who are known for one--and only one--scandal, crime, hoax, etc:
Steven Hatfill 2001 anthrax attacks
Bruno Hauptmann Lindbergh kidnapping
Mary Carey California recall
Flick Shagwell Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me --Robertkeller 16:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An even bigger reason why the Katelyn Faber case is not relevant precedent was that in that case the major, national mainstream media were using her name. For all of these additional precedents the mainstream media is using the person's name. This is not true for this individual - her name appears to be out (I checked Google News again today), only in the blogosphere and local media. Since her name isn't being used, these precedents aren't relevant. And since her name isn't being used in the national media, we shouldn't have an article at her name. GRBerry 03:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic and irrelevant. The debate whether to keep/delete raged here Talk:Crystal_Gail_Mangum for over four weeks and many editors, including the Wikipedia Foundation, concluded Crystal Gail Mangum stays. Wikipedia need not follow mainsteam media's self-imposed reticence. The topic of this page is whether Mangum's notable enough to have her own page or merge with the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robertkeller (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep She is the point around which basically the entire scandal rotates around. Skhatri2005 18:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, now verifiable. -- Rjm656s 21:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I must agree with the keepers. She warrants a page of her own.
  • Keep should be added to the "Liars" category if we've got one of those too. And as for the person above who said we should have an article about her if the media doesn't use her name....Wikipedia isn't the media, its an encyclopedia, if she didn't want her name to be notable she shouldn't be lying about getting raped. Batman2005 00:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep No reason to remove other than a certain PC censorship impulse. This woman is already a very famous American, and will remain so for many years to come. Regardless of the case outcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.160.134 (talk • contribs)
  • Discussing cases under current judicial process is highly unethical in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.8.98 (talk • contribs)
Ethics isn't a criteria for deleting a page. Wikipedia is not censored nor does it subscribe to specifically one persons ethical code. Do you also think its highly unethical to have a page on the lacrosse case as a whole? Or just the "victim?" Batman2005 01:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she along with Nifong will be the catalysts to change VAWA and rape sheild laws --- not to mention if they succeed in their scam, they will file the largest civil suits in US history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.158.152 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The "merge" crowd suggests that she is not notable outside of this case. However the precedence has already been set with other subjects. David Koresh is not notable outside of the waco siege, yet he has his own page. Timothy McVeigh is not notable outside of the Oklahoma City Bombing, but he has his own page too. John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo are not notable outside of their criminal beltway sniper attacks and they have their own pages. It does not matter if Miss Mangum is not notable outside of this scandal, the precedence has been made time and time again here on Wikipedia. To give an exclusion in her case would show some sort of bias. Wikipedia should not be biased.
Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh, John Allen Muhammad, and Lee Boyd Malvo are notable as assailants. Crystal Gail Mangum is a completely different situation, because she is the victim, not the assailant. After this case is over, she'll probably be as non-notable as before. That is why the articles should be merged. Her notability flows from the Duke University lacrosse team scandal, and nothing else. Abe Froman 16:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The cause (victim vs perpetrator) of their notoriety is irrelevant. Cited above are nine stand-alone articles of semi-famous people known for one--and only one--event. Wikipedia evidence doesn’t support your assailant-only argument: within minutes we could find yet more stand-alone articles of accusers, victims, alleged victims and the like, including two cited above: Katelyn Faber and Steven Hatfill, plus four additional single-event, non-assailants Abraham Zapruder, Edwin Walker, Houston McCoy and Thomas Delehanty. --Robertkeller 17:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with ANON above. I have a hard time believing Brian when he says that she's non-notable given the fact that he's put in over 40 comments on her discussion page. Non-notable to who Brian? Certainly not to you. In fact, I'd say you're rather fixated. Furthermore, I feel that your assertion that "victims are not notable" is rather cold-hearted.

I'd also like to point out that wikipedia is not a crystal ball, therefore...none of the arguments saying "after the case is over, nobody will remember her" isn't a valid argument. She is notable at present as shown through consistent news agency reporting, numerous google hits, publicity, etc. She IS notable at present. Wikipedia is ever changing. Divine Brown was only notable for sucking off one actor, but she's still got a page. This person is notable for her allegations and pending a trial, perhaps for orchestrating a large fabrication, or being the victim of a horrible incident. Batman2005 19:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with the person above, if victims aren't notable why do we have pages for Natalee Holloway, Matthew Shepard, JonBenét Ramsey, Ronald Goldman, Kitty Genovese, Laci Peterson, Nicole Brown Simpson, Sharon Tate, James Jordan, Jennifer Levin, etc, etc, etc. Should I go on about how victims are notable? Batman2005 23:50, 26 June 2006 (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/Crystal_Gail_Mangum&oldid=1137746898"