Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Charlie's prostitution of a child

Add links
From 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. Keep arguments based on GNG don't really show how EVENT doesn't come into play. On that basis the delete votes reflect a more accepted view of policy. Spartaz Humbug! 13:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Charlie's prostitution of a child[edit]

Stephen Charlie's prostitution of a child (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)

A crime that has no noted legal or social consequences. Of course, it was widely reported in the news, but all major crimes are paparazzi fodder. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Clarification, since one voter found my nom nonsensical. Legal consequences: some crimes became notable because they set precendent and cited in other cases or even directly change the law. Social consequences: A crime rises awareness for certain neglected social issues or becomes "the last straw" or leads to riots, or to establishment of a "Foundation in Defence of Something", etc. The event in question has no such (or other) kind of notable consequences. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - first for the fact that the nomination is nonsensical. And secondly because the article passes WP:GNG and WP:GNG. Also WP:IDONLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • re: DONTLIKEIT: And how about a bit of WP:AGF, if you like alphabetsoupspeak? I explained my arguments, didn't I? If you think it is nonsensical, please explain. May be my English not good, but I think I had reasonable reasons. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm getting really tired of seeing editors throw WP:IDONTLIKEIT around inappropriately. The nom had no WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Perhaps you should read WP:IDONTLIKEIT again and see what actually is and isn't an argument to avoid. ― Padenton|✉   04:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as i am concerned Padenton it is logical to come to that conclusion when you nominate a GA for deletion, one can only assume you are not "improving" the encyclopedia by doing that. GuzzyG (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • And if/when GA has anything to do with an article's notability, perhaps that will be valid. ― Padenton|✉   12:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An archetypical instance of WP:1E involving a perp who isn't independently notable. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Pax 08:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not temporary Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY, horrible name aside , if it had enough coverage to be a good article what has changed? User:Раціональне анархіст's One event rationale does not apply to this discussion as this is an article about the event and not the perp. WP:ONEEVENT is about not having a biography when there is an article on the event. From the sources it passes GNG. Crimes don't have to have consequences just pass GNG. GuzzyG (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes notability, and passed the GA review. I took the trouble of reading the sources. All looks in order. As for consequences, you have to only read Kathy Rochlitz's comments. She made it clear that this event was the watershed moment for small communities to realize that crimes like this can happen.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crime of essentially local impact and significance. No indication of any significance beyond the area and people directly involved. Newsworthiness isn't equal to notability, especially for somewhat routine events like crimes.  Sandstein  13:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were a world encyclopedia? If it is of local significance in a village in Gabon then we should cover that too. Obviously this passes GNG as it would've when it passed the GA review. GuzzyG (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|✉   12:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ROUTINE. Regarding GA, GA does not determine whether or not a subject is notable and/or merits its own article. GA is only to assess the article's quality. See: Wikipedia:What_the_Good_article_criteria_are_not#Beyond_the_scope. Being a world encyclopedia does not mean that we ignore policies (such as notability) in an attempt to balance coverage. It means that editors should put extra effort into making articles for notable subjects that aren't likely to receive as much attention. Nothing more. ― Padenton|✉   17:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:EVENT, no lasting effects, local scope. Sex trafficking is a crime, people caught trafficking get convicted and sent to jail, there's nothing out-of-the-ordinary about this event. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes GNG, and is not ROUTINE as suggested above. I'm not sure EVENT even applies, as it's essentially a bio - it could be renamed "Stephen Charlie." --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was a bio, it'd be a slam-dunk deletion on WP:1E grounds. Tarc (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read WP:1E thoroughly, and there is nothing in it that clearly sets out a criterion for deleting any article. Can you explain your reasoning? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then you clearly haven't comprehended 1E. Tarc (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:1E begins "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Neither is not one of the options. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes "neither" is one of the options: "unclear... or both".Staszek Lem (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well Sammy, hopefully your attention span can carry you through the rest of the section, namely the part that begins with "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event...". WP:BLP1E is what we use to bar articles on people who only receive coverage in the context of a single event. That is why things that grab a piece of news for a few days such as a woman who walks into a mall pool while texting, a guy that mounts his dead cat onto a drone copter, or a woman who hiccups 24/7 do not get Wikipedia articles. There will never, ever be an article titled "Stephen Charlie" based on what we know at present about this individual. But since that articles does not exist anyways, this tangent is largely academic. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, of local interest only, also per Padenton, Tarc, Sandstein, and Pax. GregJackP Boomer! 06:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. The notability largely comes from the fact that the police intentionally made this a public example, to warn people about a broader problem. (At least according to one RCMP officer.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Famous is not the same as "notable". It says that quite clearly in WP:1E, which you apparently didn't read completely. Tarc (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did, and please don't get excited. I think you fundamentally misunderstand WP:1E, which is entirely about the question set out in its first line. On another note, I'm arguing that the event is notable in part because of the social significance the RCMP intended to place on it, not just that the perpetrator is "famous." --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have successfully deleted scads of articles over the years on 1E grounds, son, so my understanding of it is quote solid. But that's besides the point, which is a discussion here about whether the event, not the person, is notable. Thus far there has not been a good counter to the deletion argument that it is just routine news. Tarc (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate vote: BabbaQ (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.― Padenton|✉   18:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Babbaq, did you forget that you cast the first keep vote above, back on April 25th? Tarc (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A horrible crime but of local interest and without larger implications. It just involved two people and the sentencing was 3 years and is probably over at this point. If he commits additional serious crimes, it might be deserving of an article but this is way too much detail on a local crime story that reads like a feature article in a newspaper, not an encyclopedia entry. And, yes, the article title is atrocious. Liz Read! Talk! 17:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sandstein and others. WP:1E applies here - Cwobeel (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:1E is about whether to write an article on the person or the event, not whether to delete them both. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to offend you as your English is certainly much better than my Polish, but you unambiguously misread that sentence. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on any grounds. Peter Damian (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Weak Delete - Don't know. Looks like there are a lot of references from reasonably high quality WP:RS which would seem to indicate it would pass WP:GNG. However, WP:EVENT is pretty clear here with "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes ... are usually not notable". Funny policy question really, b/c it seems like WP:GNG and WP:EVENT will probably conflict at times. But then I guess conflicts probably won't be too uncommon. As a side note here, if we do keep, the title of the article has to change, b/c at the moment it seems a bit ridiculous. NickCT (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon reflection, I think I'm leaning delete. WP:RECENTISM seems to come into play here too. NickCT (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally routine. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an article about a nasty but routine crime that fails WP:EVENT. There is nothing about this run-of-the-mill though disgusting crime that merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. As a side note, the title is forced and bizarre, and the prose is repetitive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bizarre title is an additional argument it was nonnotable: usually paparazzi are good at making catchy monikers. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. Routine crime reports. Clearly a POV and unencyclopedic topic to boot. Carrite (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carrite's reasoning. I came here for this discussion after seeing a post about it on Jimbo's talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:EVENT, local event, has not had a lasting effect or historical significance. GA status does not exempt an article from the deletion policy. Esquivalience t 01:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EVENT. I think the indication of the merit of such an article lies in the "Responses" section at the end of the page. For this article, there are a couple of quotes from a police officer, but nothing regarding changes in laws, government policies, public opinion, or anything else that suggests the event has had a notable impact. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:ROUTINE Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know why the whole Wikipediocracy machine has turned out to get this deleted, but BLP1E is not a rule that bans covering an event in any way, only against presenting it as a balanced biography of a person. The case abundantly passes GNG. The three-year sentence doesn't make the case less notable - if anything, it is an elegant demonstration of the usual judicial rule that it is apparently less culpable to rape a little girl a thousand times than to rape her once. Wnt (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wnt, we know your raison d'être is to be an unhinged paranoid when it comes to anything to do with the Wikipediocracy, but you cannot dismiss the entire breadth of deletion arguments and lay it on their doorstep, as most of the editors above have nothing to do with that site. So please, after entering your vote to keep, which is a right any editor has, kindly shut up. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    re "an unhinged paranoid" - There's good old Tarc, showing all how to behave civilly again. NickCT (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    wikt:what's good for the goose is good for the gander, my dear wiki-stalker. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tarc: - Don't flatter yourself Tarc. I'm here because I stalk Jimbo. I'm commenting on your post b/c it's the most ascerbic thing on the page (as usual), and b/c you keep ECing me.
    And wikt:two wrongs don't make a right NickCT (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this is about, but there is no doubt that offsite canvassing is occurring that distorts vote counts. And I can't help but be gobsmacked by the mindless bias behind the "NOTNEWS" brigade. I mean, if you want to talk about a "routine" event, how about any one of the fucktillion items on the List of WWE pay-per-view events, some of which are honored as Today's Featured Articles. Yeah, yeah, I know - national newspapers covering a police case of widespread interest are local coverage, tabloid journalism, maybe you'd allow an article if only we took all the facts out of it ... whereas wrestling trade journals covering an event like SummerSlam are, oh my goodness, the highest and most exalted sources on Wikipedia, more than sufficient to provide comprehensive and absolutely reliable coverage of topics of the highest import to our civilizsation. There's no honesty here, is there - just some unfathomable morass, an echo chamber of spin for spin's sake. People who regard it as too simple-minded, too gauche to let people cover what seems important rather than the things that have promoters and sponsors behind them to keep them going. Wnt (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid AfD argument. Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, "But other stuff" arguments are quite unbecoming, you know better. Nominate any of those silly WWE lists you care to, I'd gladly vote to delete. Tarc (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERCRAPEXISTS may not be an article, but what about OTHERCRAPWASRUNONTHEMAINPAGEASTODAY'SFEATUREDARTICLEONSEPTEMBER92013? (See Talk:SummerSlam (2003)) You can't tell me that people just haven't gotten around to deleting that yet, not after this. It seems to me that decisions like what is "routine" end up having nothing to do with philosophy than with the strength of the lobby behind the subject matter. Wnt (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wnt: - Assuming everyone calling for delete is part of the Wikipediocracy machine is a bit unfair. Agree with your assessment of WP:BLP1E, I was a bit confused why people were citing that as well. WP:EVENT does, however, expressly advise against the notability of routine crimes. I think WP:EVENT should be worked on a little, b/c it begs the question, what constitutes a "routine" crime, but regardless, it would seem that most feel this crime is routine. I agree that off-hand it would seem WP:GNG is passed, but given WP:EVENT and WP:GNG seem to conflict a little here, I'm inclined to lean towards the policy which more specifically applies to this situation. NickCT (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt has every reason to question an off-wiki site lobbying to get an article deleted, if that's what's happening here. I just saw this mentioned on Jimbo's talk page, looked at the article and the deletion discussion, and came here. I think this is more problematic if people off-wiki are combining (as I have seen) to protect their friends and their own website. But I see no COI or misconduct here. Coretheapple (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple: - Oh he can question it. It's not right to assume it that everyone weighing in is part of some conspiracy theory though. NickCT (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apple, his broad brush included you, Liz, Sandstein, and Pax, who as far as I know are not part of the Wikipediocracy. It was an ugly attempt as poisoning the well, and in no way a legitimate comment. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right, I'm just expressing empathy for his position. This article, on its merits is actually quite a doozy. What I'm saying is that off-wiki lobbying is a valid point to raise. In effect, I am here indirectly because of that. But in this instance it doesn't matter, as this is a deletion discussion of an article that should be deleted, it is not a case of WP:OWN coordinated off-wiki, which I have indeed seen in the Wikipediocracy and MyWikiBiz articles. Coretheapple (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course they do, as anyone has a right to discuss anything, even off-wiki. We...we as in certain elements of this project...need to start tearing down these walled gardens that have been erected over the years. People with no presence on-wiki whatsoever are free to criticize whatever they like, and those who are actual Wikipedia editors are free to follow their advice and criticism if they feel it would better the project, and they should be free to do that without some two-bit yahoo waving a McCarthy-like blacklist in teir faces every time. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes everyone has a right to say what they want off-wiki, just as it is perfectly possible for a checkuser on this project to be an administrator of a website that engages in "outing" of people on Wikipedia. That checkuser should not be a checkuser, and there should be consequences when persons go off-wiki to WP:OWN articles about people or institutions they like, or dislike. This "McCarthyite" stuff is simply horse shit. Wnt is raising a very good point, though I don't happen to feel that it is a reason to vote to keep a bad article. That point needs to be raised where it is relevant. But sure people can assemble anywhere, say what they want. But Wikipedia doesn't have to respond by sticking its head up its ass. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If someone does something bad on-wiki, then follow the appropriate steps at dispute resolution or behavioral referrals (ANI, RfC/U, and so on). The problem here is a certain core of old hand Wikipedians who seek to discredit any offsite criticism. Recall how this started; I don't know why the whole Wikipediocracy machine has turned out to get this deleted... along with other moronic comments that I see now on Jimmy's talk page such as Wikipediocracy is a cancer - it's dominated by trolls, griefers, egotists, banned editors with a grudge and washed-up malcontents who spend their time dripping poison into Wikipedia.... The sentiment in these comments is "If the Wikipediocracy supports X, I will support !X. I'm heartened to see that you yourself don't fall for that BS, but sadly others do. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Coretheapple: - re "off-wiki lobbying is a valid point to raise" - Oh, agree. Valid point to raise for sure. But the way it was raised was more of a brush stroke, than a pointed concern.
I'm sorta curious whether there are people here who were legitimately off-wiki canvassed, or whether it's just idle speculation. NickCT (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here because of this discussion on Jimbo's talk page, which was clearly for the purpose of publicizing the Wikipediocracy discussion. It's perfectly OK to raise the point that Wnt is raising, which is that off-wiki discussions are influencing Wikipedia. Let's not split hairs between what is canvassing and what is not. Even so, as I said, at the end of the day this article has to go. I'm not going to vote "keep" because people off-wiki want this deleted. That's daft. What needs to be watched very carefully are attempts to hurt Wikipedia, such as by the allowing articles on the website and its friends/regulars from being allowed to remain as puff pieces. But this is just a clearcut case of a bad article, so it seems silly to keep it just because there is some kind of off-wiki campaign against it, if there is. Coretheapple (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple: - re "watched very carefully are attempts to hurt Wikipedia" - I think we can all get behind that NickCT (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we want Loyalty Oaths now? I came here because I peruse the day's AfDs most every day and comment on the interesting ones, and this title is certainly unusual. I am no longer a active member of WO, read it a few times a week though, and Jimmy-bob's talk page is off my watchlist for obvious reasons. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't want "loyalty oaths." An editor has expressed suspicion that an external website has motivated this AfD, and that concern is valid, regardless of why you or I came here to vote. In fact, since it was posted on Jimbo's page for the express purpose of drawing people here, and I am here for that reason, I certainly am indirectly here because some people outside Wikipedia don't like the article. Whether that's good or bad is a separate issue; I do feel the article should be deleted but I also think the "keeps" have made some valid points. This prostitution scandal seems to be a big thing in Canada. Part of the problem is the writing of the article and its title, which is off-putting. Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is the part you still don't get, it seems; whether or not an external website has motivated this AfD is entirely irrelevant to the discussion itself. All you're doing is perpetuating one large ad hominem here...in effect still fighting the old WP:BADSITES ridiculousness from years back. Tarc (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's got nothing to do with whether a site is "bad" or not or an "attack site," whatever that is supposed to mean. An external website can be as benign as a newborn baby. If content decisions are instigated off-wiki, people resent it and I don't blame them. You seem to have an immense blind spot on that point, given your wild rhetoric. Coretheapple (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has everything to do with the mindset that still supports wp:Badsites. If people resent a content decision based on no other rationale than where the discussion was held, then that is a logically flawed and fallacious position. Period. Tarc (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a red herring. I'm not seeing anyone here supporting the existence of this article based solely upon the fact that this AfD was initiated off-wiki. I'm just seeing considerable unease, especially on the part of one yes !voter, and also expressions of cynicism by others on the same point. If that "mindset" bothers you, well I think you may have to lump it. Coretheapple (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: delete on any grounds. Fylbecatulous talk 14:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficently notable one-event fodder. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NOTNEWS. That said, I wonder if Wikipediacracy is going to start targeting the myriad of news story only "articles", or if they are going to continue to be highly selective on what articles they oppose based only on whether or not they can harass editors they dislike in the process. Resolute 14:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:EVENT, specifically WP:ROUTINE, refers to "crime logs," not "routine crimes" as stated above. (And a crime may be typical but not routine - this one was, and so was the beating of Rodney King.) WP:1E is totally irrelevant. WP:GNG is clearly satisfied. The only other policy that has been brought up as a reason for deletion is WP:NOTNEWS. As for this one, condition #1 clearly does not apply here as this is not a firsthand report. Condition #2 asks for enduring notability and excludes routine news such as announcements, sports matches, and celebrity gossip. This article continues to get about 10 page views per day, so is certainly still of interest to people, evidence of its continuing notability. Multiple stories were written about different aspects of the case; it is not routine news. Condition #3 is a reason not to have a separate article on the perpetrator (just like 1E). Condition #4 doesn't apply at all. So, in spite of the overwhelming number of delete votes, I can't see that there is any policy-based reason for deleting the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crime happens every day. In any local news outlets you fill find dozens upon dozens of stories about fires, met labs, stabbings, shootings, and so on. Bad things happen to innocent people day in and day out, including, yes, rape and prostitution. Real news stories appear about this stuff, not just police blotters. Local example; Joseph Lawrence, 62, has been charged with shooting and killing his wife, Darlene. WMUR, local CBS affiliate, and NECN have coverage. This would never be something we'd have an article on though, it is run-of-the-mill crime reporting of no compelling national or global interest. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're still not making reference to the actual policies. The ones cited so far don't refer to such situations. The kinds of crimes you cite are excluded under WP:109PAPERS as they did not receive lasting coverage, but the reports on this case spanned a few months so that policy doesn't apply. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I and many others have referenced WP:EVENT on numerous occasions, and how the subject matter runs afoul of it...routine coverage, local scope, duration of coverage, and so on. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • By "routine coverage" you mean WP:ROUTINE - this refers to "crime logs" and clearly not to cases such as this. This is a crime log: [1]. By "local scope" you mean WP:GEOSCOPE - this incident made national news in Canada. By "duration of coverage" you mean WP:PERSISTENCE - the reports on this case spanned months, not a news cycle. By "and so on" you mean to exclude the possibility of your argument being refuted. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sam, your tendentiousness is getting tiring. The policies I cited above are the reasons to delete this article, the same arguments made successfully over the years in dozens upon dozens of deletion discussions; most were successful. There is nothing special, unique, or newsworthy about this story. A smattering of Canadian press covering a routine crime over a period of a few months is not a topic that is of encyclopedic value. bad people do bad things, and reports talk about it, all the time. We make decisions on what is and what is not appropriate for this encyclopedia, and by the norms of the project and the guidelines agreed to by a consensus of the community. Maybe when you've been here a bit longer, you'll understand that. Good day, I will more tan likely not be addressing you on this matter again. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ad hominem arguments, assertions of your superior expertise, WP:OTHERSTUFF, vague general statements about what you feel is encyclopedic, a holier-than-thou explanation of what Wikipedia is, and an ultimatum. This one has it all, except explicit reference to policy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammy1339: Can you please stop commenting on every !vote? It is becoming disruptive. Let the AFD run its course. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sammy1339's comments seem right on the money to me, and I'd ascribe any tendentiousness to someone who takes the argument to a personal level rather than conceding or disputing the policy points. Wnt (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, that applies to BLP's and advises that the article should be written about the event instead of the person, which this one is. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd never heard of "wikipediocracy" before. Now I have. The article under discussion is criticized here: [2]. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the above. Soldier of the Empire (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is demonstrated by the sources. Everyking (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a one-time event. WP: NOTNEWS. Dogbert (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neither BLP1E nor ROUTINE applies here. BLP1E applies to BLPs (which this one isn't) and ROUTINE is about run-of-the-mill events, not a crime case that has received coverage that spanned several months. I'm not seeing how the rape and forced prostitution of a minor and the conviction of the rapist is "routine". If anything, the fact alone that the rapist got caught makes this case extremely unusual because only a tiny fraction of rape cases, let alone cases of forced prostitution, lead to convictions. If ROUTINE really meant what many editors seem to suggest, Wikipedia's content would be severely biased in favor of false reports of crime and wrongful convictions because they are rare statistically and therefore not "routine". Parents murder their kids, (semi-)famous athletes gang rape woman, JPMorgan Chase broker involved in million dollar fraud – meh, "routine" crimes that happen every day. But parents/athlets/stock brokers wrongfully convicted or falsely accused – now that's rare (and therefore notable). So the argument goes. While counterstereotypical crimes (e.g., small kids murdering parent, girlfriend beating up boyfriend, ballet dancers sexually assaulting the football team) may indeed get more coverage, this criminal case was obviously atypical enough to receive extended attention. Good article in line with our notability guidelines, so keep. --SonicY (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Peeling the onion to evaluate the significance of this relative to the broad topic of prostitution in Canada, I removed this article from {{prostitution in Canada}}, which was used to draw undue attention to this living person. Looking at what left in "what links here":
    • Stephen (where notable persons with the given name are listed): Stephen Charlie (born 1990), Canadian criminal – Having a criminal record does not, by itself, make a person notable
    • Charlie – Is he notable for being the only notable person with that surname?
    • List of people from British Columbia: Stephen Charlie, criminal convicted of prostituting a child online
    • Anthony Palmer (judge) – hmm, this strikes me as an undue cherry-picked selection (i.e., WP:SYNTH, WP:OR) of cases that appeared before this judge. Not very becoming for a BLP.
    • Prostitution in Canada § Prostitution issues by province: In 2012, Stephen Charlie of Victoria was convicted on charges relating to the prostitution of a child online. He was sentenced to three years in prison. – No context is given for why this is particularly significant. Was this the first such conviction? Was the sentence unusually lenient or harsh? If this is one of many such convictions, then mentioning it here gives it undue weight.
    • Prostitution of children § Survival sex: In Canada, Stephen Charlie was convicted of charges relating to the prostitution of a child online in 2012; Charlie had encouraged her to prostitute herself as a means of making money, kept all of her earnings, and threatened her with violence if she did not continue. – It's unclear to me whether Charlie, the underaged girl, or both, are doing this to "survive". This case isn't mentioned in the detailed article on the topic, which brings into question whether it merits a mention in the summary of that detailed article which is given here. "Survival sex" occurs when a child engages in sex acts in order to obtain money, food, shelter, clothing, or other items needed in order to survive. In these situations, the transaction typically only involves the child and the customer; children engaged in survival sex are usually not controlled or directed by pimps, madams, or other traffickers. – It's unclear to me how Charlie's case even relates to the topic.
Wikipedia should not hang this permanent badge of shame on this living person, given the three-year prison sentence they served. They have a right to be forgotten and to start a new chapter in their life. If the local authorities want to hang such a badge on them, fine, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to do that. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that the "good article review" seems to be simply a local consensus; the GA was awarded by a single editor? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Literal facepalm on this one. You're seriously worried about this guy's "right to be forgotten", which is why Wikipedia can't index the news about him in an article, or indeed, anywhere. What is this, Be Kind To Pimps Week? Pimps are sort of like biting flies, perhaps it is un-Christian to take too much pleasure in their suffering, but to do so would not be high on the list of crimes against humanity. If you think the article, which cites many sources, is biased (which is certainly possible, but you've cited no proof) then find some sources that back up that POV. Wnt (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, and if this guy made thousands of dollars (6+ figures) from running his "pimp business", and did the same thing to several girls, and not just one, I would likely agree. However, reading stuff like: "It is probable that he was born with fetal alcohol syndrome. He grew up depending on food banks and living in homeless shelters. His relatives were former victims of the Canadian Indian residential school system who drank to the point of blackout and also underwent failed suicide attempts. At 9 years of age, Charlie began consuming alcoholic beverages. He became part of Canada's foster care system when he was 11 and became depressed by the time he was 14. He had begun using cocaine on a daily basis by the time he was 19." gives me more sympathy for his plight. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I shouldn't have bitten on the red herring here: my real point is that we shouldn't be trying to judge whether we like or don't like people before deciding whether to detail media coverage of their notable and widely publicized criminal cases. The data is out there, we cover it, end of story. Is that cold? Well, not as cold as putting someone in jail or printing the newspapers in the first place, so I don't think we have to feel guilty about it. Whether to have an article or quash it, how to spin it for or against someone - these aren't plums we should be handing out depending on what we think of the defendant and/or victim, but simple documentation of what is out there. Wnt (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is not based on whether I like or don't like Charlie. I don't really know him. I don't like what he did, i.e., those things for which he is serving a prison sentence. My opinion here is in spite of the fact that I don't like what he did. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that the case has received on-going attention beyond coverage of the trial in local papers, hence fails notability. Some editors have said that the fact Corporal Kathy Rochlitz, head of Community Policing at the West Shore RCMP Detachment, talked about the case makes it significant. But police frequently comment on cases. It might have been noteworthy had the RCMP Commissioner called a press conference in Ottawa, but that did not happen. TFD (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: Oh, sure, nothing but local papers - like the Huffington Post, National Post, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail. True, three of these papers are local to Toronto... but these events occurred in British Columbia! Have a look at a map of Canada - you'll find one on the right side, the other on the far left. Wnt (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, national media picked up the story from the wires when Charlie was charged, and all the external media stories are dated Feb 1, 2012. The National Post article for example credits Katie DeRosa, who is a journalist for the Victoria Times Colonist. But they did not send reporters to cover the case or the trial, and probably did not even mention the verdict. Nor did foreign media descend on Victoria. TFD (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do our guidelines say an item is more notable, an article more worthy, if a newspaper sends a reporter in person rather than calling officials on the phone? Sending a mob of in-person reporters to read their blurbs while standing in front of the courthouse... that seems obsolete to me, dating back to the days when companies actually hired people. Now we should count ourselves lucky if it's a person making the phone call and writing the story and not an AI. Wnt (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our guidelines say so. And they are called "common sense". If reporters don't lift their ass, that's because they decide not worth effort. Yes, today bloggers generate lots of global "news" by simply regurgitating the feeds. So what? When some reat shit happens, they do flock in, cameras and all, hired or not. Calling a sheriff "hey boss, what's up?" is hardly a way of decent coverage even today. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That this article passes WP:GNG seems obvious to me. The national interest in this event is not impinged upon because external reporters were not sent in for additional coverage; what is relevant is that several of Canada's most major news outlets decided that readers across Canada would want to read a full article on the subject of this event. WP:ROUTINE is not relevant to this case; the closest thing that WP:ROUTINE guards against is articles based solely on crime logs, which this article clearly is not. There isn't anything else in WP:EVENT that suggests that we should ignore the applicability of WP:GNG in this case. As has been amply demonstrated above, WP:BLP1E is not relevant to this article as this article is not a biography but is about the event itself. Because a significant number of the "delete" comments above cite one of these inapplicable guidelines, and because of the canvassing concerns raised above, I would urge the closing administrator to be especially judicious in weighing the arguments and not the number of !votes on either side. Neelix (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLP1E relevant: (a) it says: "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." - clearly not persistent; already dropped and did not enter into books or other more "permanent" media. (b) The article de facto and "de-title" is a piece of Charlie's bio, so it is applicable even formally. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ROUTINE is a guideline; its list is not an exhausting law; just most common items. Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, if many people consider this case routine, you have to indicate what exactly makes this event outstandling, i.e., non-routine. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that national papers picked the topic is IMO a clear case of "tabloid journalism", actually covered by WP:ROUTINE; Again, it is just a kinky news, unless you prove otherwise. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, let us teach these sloppy admins how to do their job. I can do the same: "Because a significant number of the "keepers" above insist that inapplicable guidelines were used <bla-bla>...". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that this case was picked up by national newspapers, but in brief articles. That does not make it a "national story," and it is plain from looking at the coverage that this was indeed a local story. What I would suggest is that if this article is deleted, that interested editors keep a version of the article as a user subpage, and if attention to the case ever rises to the level that it warrants a Wikipedia article, that it be re-created at that point. Coretheapple (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "this article is not a biography but is about the event itself." That's a bit of a stretch, since you originally created this as a bio, and only moved this article to a title which reads like a sub-article (per WP:Summary style) of the main biography of Stephen Charlie in order to obtain "good article" status. Linking Stephen § Other, Charlie § People with the surname, and List of people from British Columbia § Others shows that you viewed him as sufficiently notable to have a bio. If you want to focus on "the event itself", then anonymize him, just as the authorities did for the girl. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the lead asserts no notability whatsoever. Delete per WP:ROUTINE, not-notable, one event, WP:NOTNEWS. Most of the coverage in the majority of citations is barely a paragraph in length. This article creator seems sadly bent on creating massive walls of text about insignificant localized events concerning prostitution, events which are better suited for a single journalism article or blog post, not for an encyclopedia. There is nothing remotely encyclopedically relevant in this article, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the tail end of the two-paragraph lead finally does get around to establishing the reason this particular case became "notable": "Corporal Kathy Rochlitz of the West Shore Royal Canadian Mounted Police asserted that many of the smaller communities in British Columbia don't regularly investigate similar cases, but the RCMP wanted to share information about this particular instance of child prostitution "to make people realize it does happen" and that "it may be seen more regularly in bigger centres." Given that, an article could cite this case as a reflection of the police's opinion about the frequency of child prostitution in British Columbia, and the frequency of prosecution of such cases. But, as this case was seemingly hand-picked by the police to set an example of what they believe to be an under-prosecuted crime in the province, that suggests that we should anonymize both the perpetrator and the victim. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a corporal in the local police detachment commented on the case does not make it notable. Police frequently comment on cases. But when cases are noteworthy to a community, the head of the local police (in this case an inspector) calls a press conference and it is attended by representatives of the media that consider it significant. I think there is an ethical aspect too, since the Wikipedia article draws attention to this individual, rather than merely reflecting the attention he already has. TFD (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A sadly routine crime, with nothing independently notable about the perpetrator, nothing unusual about the facts of the crime, and no big legislative or legal change associated with it. The sentence is very small which supports its being a fairly ordinary crime. Seems like an example case for something that happens every day. Might work as an example subsection in some larger article on child prostitution, but nothing about this warrants its very own article. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on the sources, it appears that this crime was given coverage over a period of several months by a number of prominent, independent newspaper outlets. The number of sources and quality of sources is sufficient to justify the existence of a Wikipedia article.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage was very brief, not significant (as required by GNG); the only significant coverage was in a local paper, the Times Colonist, so it still doesn't meet GNG. Except for that one entry, it's all just routine local coverage in February 2012. Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This story was covered by multiple news sources over a period of months. The arrest was covered, the consequences of the arrest, and finally the sentencing. This meets Wikipedia's standard for WP:GNG. Some reviewers are saying that this is WP:ROUTINE, which is a policy giving the example of news about an interesting animal in a tree. The persistence of coverage over months, updates on developments, and opinions presented from multiple perspectives make the coverage more than routine. Calling this typical news or a single event is a divergence from precedent on Wikipedia, where "one event" rules come into play typically when there is one story at one time, typically from only one perspective. The sources cited feature the concept for this Wikipedia article as their own subject, so they meet WP:RS criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage was very brief, not significant (as required by GNG); the only significant coverage was in a local paper, the Times Colonist, so it still doesn't meet GNG. Except for that one entry, it's all just routine local coverage (as for any crime) in February 2012, so it wasn't "covered by multiple news sources over a period of months". Softlavender (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender I hardly know how to respond. I feel like my interpretation is conservative. You seem to challenge that the sources cited meet WP:RS then further challenge that even if they meet RS, that collectively they do not constitute WP:GNG. I am not sure how you came to your views as I think my assessment here is routine and typical. If you have information which I am not seeing then if you shared I could change my mind.
WP:ROUTINE is a challenge to WP:RS. I would agree that the first reports are routine if they stood alone, but in the context of these reports being the first part of a continuing story published in multiple media sources over time, I do not agree that it would be usual to dismiss them. Collectively I would grant that all these initial reports constitute 1 reliable source, because they are based on the same content. Another reliable source could be the Colonist source, and then the two Goldstream Gazette pieces about bail conditions together make another source for me. I count three reliable sources here for the purpose of WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are you seeing that I am not? Do you think my interpretation is unusual as compared to the norm? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wbm1058, pointy WhatLinksHere spam, can be rewritten from scratch by somebody without agenda. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In what way do you feel the article promotes an agenda? Opposing the manner in which an article is written is not a reason for deletion, nor are incoming links. Neelix (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, surely uncontroversially. It's hard to credit that people are really suggesting that something purporting to be an encyclopedia should include a lengthy entry on an individual criminal act and subsequent trial, under this ungainly title, simply on the basis that it has been reported on primarily in a couple of contemporaneous news-in-brief stubs in local papers – and, by implication, that every such incident should have its own WP entry. Those who, as so frequently happens in AFD debates, are simply saying "Keep – meets GNG", presumably on the basis that "it has sources", need to read a little deeper and think a bit harder both about actual policy and this topic. GNG is simply a broad statement of the minimum standard for notability (and in any event requires "significant coverage", which is defined as "more than just routine news reports"; a further qualification states, "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage"). And even if a topic is deemed to reach the standard under that broad guideline, it still has to not fall short of the policy WP:NOT, which explicitly says "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Then, even if that hurdle is cleared, we still only have a "presumption" – not a "guarantee" – that a standalone article is merited.
    Further detail and clarification is provided at WP:EVENT, especially the section WP:EVENTCRIT, which explicitly says: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, 'shock' news, stories lacking lasting value such as 'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". Subsequent subsections clarify how the geographical scope, depth and duration of coverage, and whether the incident had wider lasting effects, affect notability. Can anyone seriously read those sections, review the pretty sparse coverage being relied on for this article, and say those requirements are satisfied here? N-HH talk/edits 13:42, 15 May 2015 (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/Stephen_Charlie%27s_prostitution_of_a_child&oldid=1138794390"