Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Larry Nassar

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. There is consensus that this article should be deleted immediately. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Larry Nassar

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible BLP violation ( WP:BLPCRIME) - see this discussion at BLPN. Fyddlestix ( talk) 17:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 17:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 17:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 17:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete Even if convicted, the subject fails to have any significant notability outside of the crime, thus meeting WP:BLPCRIME and reason to delete. -- MASEM ( t) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - This does have a lot of coverage for the events surrounding the alleged crime. However, per WP:BLPCRIME "editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." At this time, there is no conviction. If a conviction is secured, this would also likely be a WP:ONEEVENT issue but we are not even there yet. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep. "Editors should seriously consider" does not mean "Editors should stick their heads in the sand and blithely disregard widely, extensively and reliably reported national news stories merely because they may reflect badly on a living person". We had a detailed article on Dylann Roof before December 15, 2016. We had a detailed article on Jerry Sandusky before June 22, 2012. We had a lengthy Grim Sleeper article before May 5, 2016. In this case, it's also not at all evident that BLP1E even applies, since the subject was arguably notable for his association with the gymnastic team, his academic credentials, and his scholarly publications (or in some combination thereof). This appears to be a bigger scandal than the Sandusky affair, and shouldn't be disregarded merely because the victims are young women. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 20:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

In all those other cases, the crime(s) were notable on their own, attracting a large deal of attention to them, and thus when the suspects were identified, they also got a great deal of attention - hence surpassing the requirements of BLP1E. We have no article on this crime at all (nor should there be one at this point), and thus BLP1E/BLPCRIME is not met. -- MASEM ( t) 21:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

That's just factually incorrect. There's been extensive coverage of the crimes in the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS News, USA Today, BBC News . . . The major difference between this story and the Sandusky story is that it involved Olympic-class adolescent female athletes rather than high school class adolescent male athletes. By reasonable standards, the Nasser story is much more notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 21:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

To add, even if it was the case that he was notable before this trial (as was the case of Sandusky), then the amount of coverage that article should have until the trial is over should be minimal since we operation on "innocent until proven guilty", no questions asked. If he ended up convicted, then maybe expansion would be appropriate, but if he is determined innocent, then it should remain a brief section. But that's presuming notability before this point, and I am having no luck finding sources; there are no SNGs that he would qualify under as a academic or as a support member of the Olympic team. -- MASEM ( t) 21:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFF. But Sandusky was notable before the abuse scandal, and we also have Penn State child sex abuse scandal (see my !vote below). VQuakr ( talk) 21:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - I see only trivial mentions of this person in news prior to the assault allegations. Rather than have biographical article that focuses on the criminal allegations (which is mostly all that we can verifiably have on Nassar), I think an article about the event (something like USA Gymnastics sexual abuse scandal) is more sensible. VQuakr ( talk) 21:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. In cases of doubt, WP:BLP is the operative rule. There's plenty of doubt that this subject is notable. This is sensationalism. I get that the guy's in a tight spot, but there's no need to trumpet his troubles to universe and keep this for future generations to know about and poder. Give the guy some space per WP:BLP, we don't need to do this. And of course WP:BLPCRIME is operative here, as well as WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. If when the guy is convicted of anything we can maybe revisit the issue. Herostratus ( talk) 21:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Immediate delete This is the first such article I have created, and now wish I hadn't. I wish I could delete it per WP:G7 but it is here at AfD. I did read WP:BLPCRIME and other policies and it seemed okay. But then I had doubts, and that is why I posted at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Alleged but not convicted to get feedback. Please, accept my apologies for creating this in the first place. Please, lets close and delete. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

It's OK. The existence of the article is arguable. It's a good article, and you didn't do anything wrong. I (and others) are being strident because here at AfD we go into "prosecutor mode", slash and thrust to win our points. It doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable case for the article, and it certainly doesn't mean you did anything wrong. It was good of you to post for advice on the BLP Noticeboard as you did, shows a find Wikipedian attitude. We'll keep at it and we'll learn and grow together. Herostratus ( talk) 02:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Thank you Herostratus for the kind and comforting words. I must have done something wrong when a dozen people show up saying "get rid of it, and quickly". I just went hot and cold this morning when I woke up and saw all of this. Next time, I will certainly get more familiar with outcomes of controversial BLP articles before starting another like that. Again, many thanks for being so kind. I just wish somebody would come along and close this as delete as soon as possible. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Immediately Delete or Userfy per 1E, BLPCRIME, NOTNEWS, NOTDIRECTORY, and ATTACKPAGE. There's no reason on earth Wikipedia should have an article which is solely a list of a living person's alleged and unconvicted crimes, and there are plenty of legal and libel reasons it should not. Softlavender ( talk) 02:30, 24 February 2017 (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.