Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce McArthur

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 and improve. ansh666 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Bruce McArthur

Bruce McArthur (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)

This is a WP:BLP of an alleged, but not yet convicted, murderer. Per WP:PERP, however, a mere allegation and arrest is not sufficient grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- due to the extremely high BLP sensitivities involved, such as the fact that we can actually be the cause of a mistrial if the article puts a foot wrong, we need to wait until the alleged criminal is convicted before we start an article about him. And furthermore, an existing redirect for a person with a stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name was deleted to make way for this, after an anonymous IP tried to blank it on the spurious grounds that "the serial killer should not redirect to an unrelated topic". Which isn't what was happening, because the redirect wasn't intended to represent the alleged (the word the IP missed) serial killer — it was intended to represent the inventor of the redirect target, and the alleged serial killer is not automatically primary topic for their shared name just because he's currently newsier.
I want to be very clear here: I live in Toronto, and while I knew neither of them personally I did have mutual friends with both Andrew and Skanda. Everybody I know is shook with a capital SHOOK, and we all want Bruce pitched straight into the fires of hell if he's found guilty. But that's exactly the danger here: in an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, nothing's stopping anybody from tarting this article up with inappropriate content that violates WP:NPOV and WP:RS and WP:NOR. And the danger isn't even just inappropriate content about Bruce, because there's also an underlying current of anger at the police for many aspects of how they handled the investigation, dovetailing in turn with another badly bungled missing persons case.
If and when he's found guilty in a court of law, then yes, obviously an article will be appropriate. Right now, however, when he's still only an alleged murderer who hasn't gone to trial yet, and there's still far too much that we don't know about the police's actual case yet, and people's emotions and speculations about it are still raw enough to be dangerous, is not the time for this yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Keep with stricter monitoring of page: I don't think an alleged criminal needs to be found guilty before being featured in a Wikipedia page. I have not seen any Wikipedia procedure about this as colleague Bearcat wants to argue. In cases like this, the criterion is more like existence of overwhelming evidence of him being the alleged perpetrator based on ever-increasing evidence coming out almost on a daily basis including discovery of bodies of murdered victims in his property and official police forces implicating him directly in multiple murder cases. Having said that, I am with Bearcat about necessity of having a separate article concurrently with the McArthur article about the phenomenon of disappearance and at times murder of a number of gay men throughout the years in Toronto and the Toronto police's response over the cases. Of course nobody is linking all the disappearances solely with Bruce McArthur. werldwayd (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If we keep this article on a mere allegation of criminal behaviour, one mistake of verifiability in its content can cause a mistrial that sets him free. Do you really think that's a risk worth taking? Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that's a relevant argument. The same could be said of the numerous media report - some of which are undoubtedly wrong (easy assertion to make given scope of reporting). The relevant thing to assess here is whether the "cat is out of the bag" in terms of amount of reporting - has he become WP:WELLKNOWN (negating WP:BLPCRIME)? Are the violent deaths of the five deceased notable irrespective of the suspect (in which case - we can have an article on the string of killings)? I suspect the cat is out of the bag on this one - and if it isn't - given the degree of coverage - it most probably will be soon.Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

e.g. - the disappearance of "Andrew Kinsman"+"Selim Esen" was notable prior to the connection to this subject - [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] - and a whole raft of other hits for "Andrew Kinsman"+"Selim Esen" (time filtered to prior to 2018) on gNews.Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The newspaper reporting is not an open door that can be freely edited at will by absolutely any random dillhole who doesn't understand or respect the tight line we actually have to walk in a situation like this. Newspapers have an editorial control chain and staff lawyers to minimize the risk of error, and publish corrections on the record when they do make mistakes — but we have none of that, which is precisely why the WP:PERP rule exists (and precisely why even newspapers that normally allow open commenting on their articles close it on their reporting about accused but not convicted criminals.) The existence of media coverage is not in and of itself an exemption from having to follow PERP: media coverage always exists for every accused criminal, so no accused criminal would ever be covered by the PERP rule if "media coverage exists" were in and of itself a reason to ignore PERP. There are special complicating principles that require a much higher burden of significance than "media coverage of a criminal accusation exists" before a Wikipedia article about the accused criminal is appropriate — if an accused criminal was not already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for more traditional reasons before they were charged with a crime, then there are exactly zero circumstances under which a Wikipedia article ever becomes appropriate prior to a conviction in a court of law. "Media coverage exists" simply does not cut it as a reason to ignore PERP in and of itself, because media coverage of accused PERPs never, ever doesn't exist. If "media coverage exists" were all it took to declare one particular accused but not yet convicted criminal a special exception to PERP, then every accused but not yet convicted criminal on earth would always be a special exception to PERP. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Well put. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 04:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Undoubtedly this series of murders is sufficiently notorious to support an article (and one ought to be created). Regarding the BLP concerns, in this case McArthur's name has been so widely disseminated by WP:RS that he can support an article, and McArthur's "fame" as a suspect means that privacy concerns are trumped by as per WP:BLPNAME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Very nearly any accused criminal could always have the same claim, that they'd been covered enough and were therefore "famous" enough that we were free to ignore PERP, made about them. The existence of media coverage is not in and of itself a reason to suspend PERP, because media coverage of accused criminals never fails to exist. When it comes to accused but not yet convicted criminals, we require a much higher burden than "media coverage exists" to justify an article — there are much more important legal and ethical principles at stake than just the fact that it's been covered in the media. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Consider rename to something that covers the killings and not the BLP. The disappearance of "Andrew Kinsman"+"Selim Esen" was notable, per NCRIME/SIGCOV, prior to the connection to the subject. The disappearance of "Skandaraj Navaratnam" also seems to satisfy this criteria (and was linked to the other 2 previously). The possibility of a serial killer was also out there prior to being linked to the subject - [9][10][11] (and denied by the police a month or so prior to the arrest of the subject). It is clear the crimes themselves were notable individually and linked as a group before being linked the subject. Coverage of the subject himself, since being linked, has been extremely wide - arguably making him WP:WELLKNOWN. It is clear to me that the wave of gay disappearances in Toronto's gay village is notable. Regarding whether or not to place this on the accused BLP - it is more iffy - however as time goes by it will probably become more and more due (and it seems to be there at the moment as well).Icewhiz (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This appears to be the same situation as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Nassar, and that was a delete. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The article was deleted - it was also subsequently re-created. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Right. It was deleted while he was accused and recreated after being convicted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but there was a USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal in the interim that covered the case. In this case as well (where the case is clearly notable) we could possibly settle on an article name for the case and not the BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The interim was maybe 9 months. The USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal article existed only a month before Nassar pleaded guilty. The premature Larry Nassar article came and went around 23 February 2017. The USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal article did not exist for around 8 months because it was started many months later on 19 October 2017‎ only around a month before Nassar pleaded guilty on November 22, 2017. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per Werldwayd and the others. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

See WP:PERX. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep but rename and rewrite. An article about the killings and giving more information about them (there is almost none in the McArthur article) would be much more informative and appropriate, at least at this point. I remember a case when a small bomb was placed in a Brazilian jetliner, killing a passenger who was ejected from the plane by the explosion. Investigations soon found a very likely suspect, not a terrorist but a man with mental problems. The following weekend, the country's largest weekly newsmagazine ran a very detailed cover story on the man, basically grilling and destroying him before millions, at a point when he had not even been formally accused yet. The man committed suicide a few days later, the investigation was closed for lack of further evidence, and nobody ever knew if he was really guilty. This goes to show that presumption of innocence is in all civilized legal codices for a good reason.

I don't live in Canada, but I have several good friends in the Ontario LGBT community and I certainly want McArthur to rot in jail IF he's found guilty, but even if Wikipedia's guidelines didn't caution against this kind of article about a living person who has not yet been convicted after due process, my own sense of morality would require me to propose this solution. In the meantime, the killings and disappearances are very much relevant and should merit an article of their own. UrsoBR (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2018 (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.