This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This line of copy was removed due to standards set by BLP guidelines not to use poorly sourced sensationalist materials from tabloids. The Burden is on the editor who wishes to restore it to the article to show otherwise......Here is part of the line of copy for reference "Additionally, in 2005, Shawn Upshaw Brown, a woman whom Cosby admitted to having an extra-marital affair with in the 70's, publicly accused Cosby of drugging and raping her the last time the two...." It's sourced at the Daily Mail with sensationalist headline and other tabloid material.The article also suffers from the insert of the material as there is no context for it in relation to the Constand case. It should be promptly removed per BLP. 66.235.36.153 ( talk) 01:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor
User:Super48paul, I'm having second thoughts about that content. See my comment above. I think the IP may have a point about it not being on-topic. Do you see any connection with Constand, or should it go? If it's related to the Constand case, that needs to be more apparent. It's not clear from the present wording. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 08:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Should this article not have a section suggesting that the Main Article is Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations? In any event, I have updated the section about the charge vs. Cosby in the Constand case. I am surprised that BullRangifer had not already done so; he is very active in the main article edits. No problem. Done now. Peter K Burian ( talk) 16:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your note ( User talk:Vesuvius Dogg) I am heavily involved in the main article about the charges vs. Cosby and I just happened to quickly read this one about Constand. When I noticed that there was almost nothing about the criminal charge here, I added that. But I am NOT familiar with the entire story divulged in the civil suit, so I am not the one who should be adding such information. If it would be useful, why not go ahead and add it yourself, with solid citations. Cheers! Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Vesuvius Dogg, there is a lot of interesting info in the Washingto Post article. I added a short sentence about the citation, but others might want to add more to the rticle about the contents of it. This is what I added in my edit: The original complaint contained a great deal of additional information now available to the press. Chokshi, Niraj (December 30, 2015). "'Taste the wine': What prosecutors say Bill Cosby did, in graphic". Washington Post. Washington, DC. Retrieved December 31, 2015. Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I did find it eventually and added it to the text. Peter K Burian ( talk) 19:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this the Andrea Constand article with a new title??
If so the title makes no sense. It is a bio about her and events in her life re: Bill Cosby. NOT just about her lawsuit at all.
REVERT TO THE TITLE ANDREA CONSTAND. Peter K Burian ( talk) 20:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Peter Burian. My phone cannot make the tilde symbols.
Agreed. A very small part of her relevance is the lawsuit. Revert to the original title. Peter K Burian ( talk) 20:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The article is presently titled Andrea Constand v. William H. Cosby, Jr.. Isn't the "official" name of the legal case Constand v. Cosby, or something along those lines? I am not 100% sure. But looking at other Wikipedia articles about lawsuits, that seems to be the norm. (See [[Category:United States lawsuits]].) Does anyone know for sure? And should the article title be changed? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 09:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2015. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This line of copy was removed due to standards set by BLP guidelines not to use poorly sourced sensationalist materials from tabloids. The Burden is on the editor who wishes to restore it to the article to show otherwise......Here is part of the line of copy for reference "Additionally, in 2005, Shawn Upshaw Brown, a woman whom Cosby admitted to having an extra-marital affair with in the 70's, publicly accused Cosby of drugging and raping her the last time the two...." It's sourced at the Daily Mail with sensationalist headline and other tabloid material.The article also suffers from the insert of the material as there is no context for it in relation to the Constand case. It should be promptly removed per BLP. 66.235.36.153 ( talk) 01:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)Respectfully A Contributor
User:Super48paul, I'm having second thoughts about that content. See my comment above. I think the IP may have a point about it not being on-topic. Do you see any connection with Constand, or should it go? If it's related to the Constand case, that needs to be more apparent. It's not clear from the present wording. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 08:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Should this article not have a section suggesting that the Main Article is Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations? In any event, I have updated the section about the charge vs. Cosby in the Constand case. I am surprised that BullRangifer had not already done so; he is very active in the main article edits. No problem. Done now. Peter K Burian ( talk) 16:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your note ( User talk:Vesuvius Dogg) I am heavily involved in the main article about the charges vs. Cosby and I just happened to quickly read this one about Constand. When I noticed that there was almost nothing about the criminal charge here, I added that. But I am NOT familiar with the entire story divulged in the civil suit, so I am not the one who should be adding such information. If it would be useful, why not go ahead and add it yourself, with solid citations. Cheers! Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Vesuvius Dogg, there is a lot of interesting info in the Washingto Post article. I added a short sentence about the citation, but others might want to add more to the rticle about the contents of it. This is what I added in my edit: The original complaint contained a great deal of additional information now available to the press. Chokshi, Niraj (December 30, 2015). "'Taste the wine': What prosecutors say Bill Cosby did, in graphic". Washington Post. Washington, DC. Retrieved December 31, 2015. Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I did find it eventually and added it to the text. Peter K Burian ( talk) 19:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this the Andrea Constand article with a new title??
If so the title makes no sense. It is a bio about her and events in her life re: Bill Cosby. NOT just about her lawsuit at all.
REVERT TO THE TITLE ANDREA CONSTAND. Peter K Burian ( talk) 20:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Peter Burian. My phone cannot make the tilde symbols.
Agreed. A very small part of her relevance is the lawsuit. Revert to the original title. Peter K Burian ( talk) 20:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The article is presently titled Andrea Constand v. William H. Cosby, Jr.. Isn't the "official" name of the legal case Constand v. Cosby, or something along those lines? I am not 100% sure. But looking at other Wikipedia articles about lawsuits, that seems to be the norm. (See [[Category:United States lawsuits]].) Does anyone know for sure? And should the article title be changed? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 09:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)