Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodnariu case

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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bodnariu case

Bodnariu case (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)

The article describes the details of a single case of the Norwegian Child Welfare Services. All members of a client family (two parents and their five children) are identified by their full names. I do not think that clients of any welfare service should be identified in this way, especially when children are involved. Anonymisation might be an alternative to deletion, but I cannot really see how an article that consists of a single case study should be fully anonymised and still be relevant and able to provide documentation. In my opinion, there are three independent (although not necessarily 100% conclusive) reasons for deletion:

1. The article violates the Wikipedia guidelines on privacy (WP:BLPNAME), which state: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases [...], it is often preferable to omit it". Official sources in Norway have "intentionally concealed" the names in this case (as in all other child welfare cases; they are obliged to do so by law). While the names have been "widely disseminated" by news media in some countries (not in Norwegian media, which use to anonymise their coverage of such cases), this does not justify adopting the same practice in an encyclopedia (such as wikipedia).
2. The article uses exclusively news media and campaign websites as the sources of crucial information, violating one of the requirements for notability (WP:N, WP:EVENT). It is hard to see how this situation might be remedied, for the very reason that cases such as this are subject to strict rules of confidentiality on the part of the Child Welfare Services (and other potential official sources).
3. In addition to these formal reasons, I think there is an important ethical reason: the children involved certainly haven't asked for this kind of publicity (whether the parents have asked for it, I do not know, and it does not really matter). I cannot help thinking that this is a violation of the personality rights of the children, and that this public attention potentially represents a serious (additional!) burden for them.
   Hanno (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norvegian and any other state laws are not basis for deletion. IFAIK Wikimedia even won some court case in Germany against some crook who had his bio in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has mentioned any law as the basis for deletion. I mentioned that official sources have "intentionally concealed" the names, which demonstrates that (a) wikipedia's privacy policy is violated, and that (b) no independent sources will become available in the immediate or foreseeable future. Hanno (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Privacy issues are easily fixable without deletion. (b) I doubt your abilities to forsee future. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(a) If you can think of a way to anonymise an article that is about a specific family, you are welcome to go ahead; the article in question is open for editing. (b) That's exactly my point: since none of us can foresee the future, we cannot base articles on the assumption that independent sources will become available in the future. Hanno (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is certainly notable. Upon the privacy issues: I'll pass. The couple itself sought broad publicity, it is thanks to them that the genie is out of the bottle. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP. We shouldn't base articles, particularly those about living people (whether they are directly named after those people or not), on primary sources such as news reports. If this gets into secondary sources such as history books or legal textbooks then it can be recreated. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP !votes are disregarded in wikipedia. Not to say you have no idea what you are talking about. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous IP address has made some constructive and objective points. That is more than can be said about your response to it. Hanno (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Staszek, unless you can provide any evidence for your first sentence the second sentence describes you rather than me. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • what "NOT"? Please make a meaningful, specific statement. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The case have been elevated to intergovernmental level and widely publicised in international media. All privacy is gone. It is easy to remove unnecessary detail, such as children's names. Otherwise this deletion would smell like sweepin criticism under the rug. Norway child services is notorious for jumping the gun with immigrants' children without prior warning and education. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 short comments: (1) Even if some news media have violated privacy rights, that is no justification for doing the same on wikipedia [the children are easily identifiable even with their first names removed, since the family name is unique in Norway]. (2) Even given that a certain claim is true or valid, that does establish the notability of the topic for wikipedia. Hanno (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes WP:GNG says it does establish notability for wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:GNG does emphatically not state that every true or valid statement should have its own article (which was my point, in response to your argument). GNG even states that articles need secondary sources to achieve notability. Hanno (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes WP:GNG does emphatically state that is multiple independent sources exist for a true an valid statement then it is very probable the statement is of public interest and hence encyclopedic. And newspaper articles are actually mostly secondary sources. Otherwise all wikipedia articles about events will be deleted. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The mother is a native Norwegian, only the father is an immigrant. She should have known better. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This only means that this couple is abusing international relations, but says nothing that this case is nonnotable.Staszek Lem (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and rewrite as a trimmed-down part of a larger article, International protests against the Norwegian Child Welfare Services. This is a phenomenon which is certainly notable and covered in academic journals; this particular case may not be. Geschichte (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG satisfied good and big. An event must not be in books and journals to be notable. Otherwise we may as well delete articles about 90% events of 21st century. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rewrite" is not a reason for deletion. If you see the subject must be covered in wikipedia elsewhere, the valid options are rename or merge. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an anonymised summary of this case in the last bullet point of the "National and international criticism" section of the article on the Norwegian Child Welfare Services. Hanno (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek, I do not find it the least relevant what the "options" are. This is an open debate, not a vote. I've got a WP link for you too, it's called WP:BLUDGEON. @Hanno, as soon as the criticism section is spun off to a separate article, which will happen if it grows further, then we are good to go. Geschichte (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This deletion discussion is about whether the "case" should be treated in article-length in wikipedia. This discussion is not about whether one (or any, or which) of the parties in the "case" is right. I have no qualification whatsoever to participate in a discussion of the latter question. All my utterances on this page have been concerned with the former question.
  Allow me to put the situation in the following way:
  • If the Child Welfare Services are right, the article is about one of some ten thousand sad cases where parents do not see the best of their children. If so, this case has nothing to do on wikipedia.
  • If the parents are right, the article is about one of some hundred sad cases where the Child Welfare Services have overreacted. If so, this case might have something to do on wikipedia in the future, viz. as soon as it has consequences over and above its coverage in news media and the campaign initiated by the suppporters of the parents (e.g. if the case leads to investigations against the Services, results in peer-reviewed research on the handling of the case etc.). As yet, this is simply not the case. Hanno (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. This article is very important to the people that is actually prosecuted by his religion. It is not a single case, is a Rosa Parks's case. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has taken the case. Cmarziali (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCE, please. The sources already cited (including a Christian newspaper and Bondariu's own Norwegian church) agree that there is no persecution of Pentecostals in Norway. So crying persecution is in this case like the boy who cried wolf. There are real persecutions against Christians in today's world, but not in Norway. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many people asks how Donald J. Trump has won the latin vote in the U. S. presidential election, many christians says because they are prosecuted by Obama´s and Trump has promised to stop the christian incarcelation by his believes. So, this article refflects the world government prosecution against christians. Cmarziali (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC) The article is redacted against the Bodnariu family, so is not an propaganda article. Cmarziali (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Full name is for deletion? Why do not delete articles about Hitler, Mussolini, or any other person that is mentioned by his name? Cmarziali (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP, and WP:OUTCOMES. We usually delete settled cases, and almost always erase material concerning children who have come into the news through no fault of their own. Even if this did make 24/7 media coverage, it's such a BLP violation that it needs to be erased and started from scratch, at best. Even if news media violate people's privacy rights, we do not. We are not Wikileaks! Bearian (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2016 (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.