Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acquittal of Bassam Al Rawi

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acquittal of Bassam Al Rawi

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. It has shown no lasting notable impact. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - hard to prove lasting impact when it just happened. The reactions/protests/press articles have been popping up about this story in many publications to show WP:GNG, and there is some great national-level coverage, so not your average local assault case [1] [2] [3]. And much like People v. Turner, I would argue it is likely to have a lasting impact on public discourse. Perhaps a renaming would be in order, to draw less attention to Al Rawi and instead bring attention to the case at large (as he wasn't actually proven guilty according to the law, circumstantial evidence aside). Yvarta (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually happened two years ago. The coverage, even though it's national, is routine coverage which is still within WP:NOTNEWS. If it does later have lasting impact, the article can be reinstated. As it is now, it is too soon for an article. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is consistent with other acquittal articles on Wikipedia, but unlike many it has been in the news for over two years and made national news for two straight weeks. The case is far from over and will have more content in the coming months. JBignell (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:RAPID applies.~~ Very persuasive sources exist [4], for example.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually doesn't. That refers to something that happened a few days ago. The beginning of this was two years ago. SL93 (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It was created on March 8 and I nominated it for AfD on March 31. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I assumed it was recent. However, WP:RAPID still applies because...

Keep March 7, 2017 Headline: "Crown appeals acquittal in taxi sex assault case where judge said 'drunk can consent'" [5], no wonder womens's groups are all over this case. It's notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm perfectly fine with people voting how they see fit, but March 7 was almost a month ago. I don't like people telling me I broke a guideline or policy when I didn't. I still think it's non-notable also, but I'm not the final deciding factor. SL93 (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the guideline says "days", and you respected that by waitng a month. but with the prosecutor bringing a case, I think we should treat it as a developing story likely to draw ongoing attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a gNews search [6] showing extent of recent coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason for deletion. Extensively covered case. lasting notability is at best a matter of magical ball were someone can predict the future.BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 5 April 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.