Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goler clan

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 keep. Yuser31415 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goler clan

Goler_clan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

I am not an expert at this, so I am sorry if I have over reacted, but I felt obligied to blank this article and nominate it for deletion.

1. Even if the Golers were found guilty in a criminal case (a statement which is not made in the article I blanked), referring to them as (mildly) "people who mistreat children" potentially opens Wikipedia up to liability for slander in a civil case. (The issue, for example, in a criminal case is guilt or innocent of particular criminal offences, not whether or not they were unsanitary, which could be the basis for a civil complaint.) Or so it seems to me, but then I'm no lawyer either.


2. In the States, there are some rape shield laws to protect the victim who comes forward with allegations that, usually, she was the victim of a sex crime. Even on Court TV, a rape victim's face is not shown. Using this as a baseline (holding Wikipedia to a higher standard, I would argue, would not go amiss), I believe it to be entirely inappropriate to actually list the name of a child would was allegedly sexually mistreated. I believe it to be inappropriate to name the child even if the child is now an adult and even if the Golers were found not guilty in the criminal case. (Naming children might discourage other children from coming forward if they see they will be listed in a Wikipedia article in the future; so it does not matter if the child in this particular case is an adult or not.) Because a child was named in the article (and hence, will always be listed in the article's history), I believe the only cure is a deletion of the article.

Respectfully, BenedictX 23:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

:Comment there appears to be a second discussion page for this article here. Flyguy649 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC). It was in the discussion page. Flyguy649 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. The case gained Canada-wide notoriety in the 1980s when Canada's leading investigative reporting TV programme exposed the story to the remainder of the country. It appeared that over the course of generations (roughly 100 years!), the family had practiced an unprecedented level of incest and inbreeding. I understand the desire to protect the innocent, but the case has gained such notoriety, and the name "Goler" is so well embedded in Nova Scotia culture, that the gesture is pointless. In fact, one of the siblings, under her own name, now gives public lectures about her experiences and about child sexual abuse. References to the Golers when discussing incest or abuse have entered common usage in Atlantic Canada and to remove the term from Wikipedia would amount to denying reality. The entry is relevant. I request it be allowed to remain. Denis 16:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Denis. The article could use better referencing, but there are other sources that describe the events, eg here. Flyguy649 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not censored. This article is on a notable case and is supported by a wide variety of reliable sources. --Charlene 20:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is pretty well known, just needs some expansion and sourcing. L0b0t 21:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • keep';' , as it was very easy to edit the article to remove BLP concerns about a minor. DGG 08:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject meets applicable tests for notability, and any other problems can and should be resolved through editing. (jarbarf) 20:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
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.