Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desiree Washington

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 and redirect to Mike Tyson. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desiree Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Deletion rationale:

1. WP:BLP1E—She was only a contestant in that beauty show, didn't win any other awards either (at least the article doesn't mention any other notable award that she won). So basically she is known only due to her being raped by Tyson. OneEvent bio.

2. The BLP isn't balanced:covers only negative aspects of her life. (Don't tell me to fix it; I couldn't find any RS discussing her other biographical details.) --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 06:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The one event of this “one-event bio” was culturally quite significant. And “balance”, for the purposes of Wikipedia, is determined by what is available from “reliable sources”. —SlamDiego_←T 08:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "culturally significant" incident (wait, what's 'culturally' significant about it?) is already in Mike Tyson's article and if the event is significant, and there is much content then make a separate article about the incident. Desiree's biography here is nothing but "She was a contestant, was raped by Tyson and Tyson was sentenced". Reliable sources are important, and in this case they are limited to covering the rape incident. What else about her do you think makes her notable other than the rape? --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 08:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rape brought very pronounced attention to a number of things, including the differences between being an able athlete or an economically successful member of an ethnic minority and being a proper rôle-model, and the relationships between men and women that prevailed in their shared community.
      Essentially, you're introducing standards here (got by a strained reading of actual policy), and want us either to argue that “Desiree Washington” does not fail your standards or to agree that it should be deleted. I don't feel any need to show that Desiree Washington or Madge Oberholtzer have any importance beyond being the sole legal victims of notorious crimes. I don't feel the need to show that Lee Harvey Oswald would be at all important without one event, nor to find “reliable sources” that talk about whatever fine things he did when he wasn't taking pot-shots at officials. —SlamDiego_←T 09:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the incident was quite high-profile. There must be limits to the "one event" principle e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald is only famous for one event. Is there pro-Tyson POV-pushing here? PatGallacher (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assume good faith. —SlamDiego_←T 09:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:AAGF. PatGallacher (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See your question: “Is there pro-Tyson POV-pushing here?” Assumption of an assumption of good faith is an initial position, not to fly in the face of the evidence. Meanwhile, it is rather pure speculation to propose that there is pro-Tyson POV-pushing here, especially as PirateSmackK has expressed a concern that Ms Washington is being presented in an inappropriately negative light. —SlamDiego_←T 09:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the incident is significant, (perhaps it deserves its own separate article, there is a lot of information of the incident that is missing from Washington's article) but the person who got raped is not notable. There is no detailed biographical coverage at Desiree Washington, just news about a rape incident and its court's findings. That's how WP:BLP puts it

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.

The woman is otherwise non-notable, and I see no reason to have a negetive-ish BLP hanging around. As for "PoV pushing"-I didn't even know about this incident until yesterday when I read Tyson's article, and I don't think my views towards him are positive. --PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Having a separate article on the incident itself operationalizes as the “Keep and rename” proposed by Malik Shabazz below. Shabazz draws our attention to “Tawana Brawley rape allegations”, so let's look at that article. It offers biographical details about a living person (Ms Brawley), and does not offer the sort of balance that you have insisted should be present. (I remind everyone that WP:BLP is not simply about articles intended as biographies per se.)
  I don't see that it makes a whole lot of difference whether the article is named “Desiree Washington” and goes into considerably more detail about the rape, or is entitled “Michael Tyson rape of Desiree Washington” and retains the present level of biographical detail about Washington while adding more about the rape. —SlamDiego_←T 01:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The case for an assumption of good faith is inadequate in the face of some of PirateSmackK's other actions. He has been indefinitely blocked for various acts, including an attempt to swindle special privileges from a bureaucrat. —SlamDiego_←T 14:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:Avoiding harm, unless suitable further information about her life can be found. Otherwise, should be covered in Tyson's article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The beauty pagent comment is almost a red-herring. We don't normally have articles for victims of violent crimes, even committed by celebrities. Why should this one be different? eaolson (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename Change the focus of the article to the incident, as opposed to Washington herself. Examples include Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's enough to say about the incident to justify a separate article; certainly, not one as long as those two. Moreover, it's worth noting that in both those cases, the people accused of rape were not notable in their own right (and neither were the accusers), which means there was no alternative to having independent articles. In this case, Mike Tyson certainly is notable, so we can avoid having this article by merging the content there (where, in fact, it is already covered). Robofish (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What name would you propose, and would “Desiree Washington” redirect as does “Tawana Brawley”? —SlamDiego_←T 01:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (a) There certainly isn't as much to say as there is about those cases, but there was plenty of ink spilled over the Tyson/Washington incident. (b) I think possible names might be Rape of Desiree Washington or Mike Tyson rape case. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first title is right out, IMHO. The second one is better, but that might open things up to be even worse on the BLP front than the current article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mike Tyson. Per WP:BLP, we shouldn't have an article on this person - she's non-notable except for this one incident, and so our article is hardly a fair and neutral picture of her life. On the other hand, her name appears in Tyson's article, and it is a plausible search term, so it should probably redirect there instead. The rape incident is covered in his article to the extent that it needs to be; there's no need for this separate article. Robofish (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect the victim to the rapist? What a spectacularly poor idea. Hopefully the victim doesn't Google. 122.49.173.240 (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable for her pagentry and the Mike Tyson incident. Plenty of sources about to feed and improve this article as well.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.There is nothing on this page that isn't on the Tyson page. Change a footnote if you have to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.24.32 (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThere is tons here that is not on the Tyson page. Did you actually read that entry??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.17.179 (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. I know we normally don't relist an article with this many comments, but I really think that this could benefit from a few more eyes. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The nominator is indefinitely blocked.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reasons some of which lend credence to a notion that the expressed concern for Ms Washington was a smokescreen for the sort of PoV-push that PatGallacher feared. —SlamDiego_←T 14:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mike Tyson. Robofish's answer is persuasive.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She is not a notable person. No need to redirect anywhere. If there is an article on the case, that is no problem. But there is no need for an article on its victim. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BLP1E clearly applies here, no reason to redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Plausible search term, surely.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Mike Tyson- the person is not notable. No problem with producing a rewritten page on the incident. TerriersFan (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect- no need to delete, not enough infothis should redirect to Mike_Tyson#Rape_conviction.2C_prison.2C_and_aftermath Pahari Sahib 17:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect- While I think a keep and a rename is a better option, the redirect (with a possible protect of the redirect, if it comes to that) is certainly a reasonable compromise. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per WP:BLP. She is not notable for her pageantry and the article is not neutral. The only source is to the news story of Tyson's lawyer pointing out that she's lied about being raped before. We needn't preserve the history of such an article. Relevant information is located here and thus the page should redirect there. Additionally, this discussion should utilize {{afd-privacy}} and {{noindex}} upon close. لennavecia 21:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-neutrality is not a reason for deletion; it is a reason for revision. Further, your treatment of the claim that she lied as simple fact is grossly inappropriate. —SlamDiego_←T 05:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per WP:BLP. Eusebeus (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2009 (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.