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. There were 29 participants in this discussion and the opinions broadly fall into five categories, with overlaps between all of them (except between outright "keep" and outright "delete" for obvious reasons):

• Keep both articles because they are independently notable. 12 editors expressed clear preference for this, plus 3 others who are fine with either keeping or merging.
• Remove this article by deletion or redirection because the controversy lacks independent notability from the artwork, or because of POV fork / BLP concerns (see below). 11 editors expressed clear preference for this (7 delete, 4 redirect), plus 2 others who are fine with either keeping or merging this article into Mattress Performance, and 1 other who is fine with merging either way.
• But this is juxtaposed against 3 others that argued to merge Mattress Performance into this article because the artwork lacks independent notability from the controversy, including 1 "keep/merge this way" and 1 "merge either way" as described above.
• POV fork concerns: 5 editors (including 1 "per above") argued that this article should be deleted because it is an unacceptable POV fork, but this is juxtaposed against 3 others who argued that it is necessary to preserve both articles so that we can provide appropriate NPOVs for both the controversy and the artwork.
• Delete due to BLP concerns - raised by 4 editors including 1 "per above". "No consensus, default to delete due to BLP concerns" is sometimes an acceptable AfD outcome, but only in cases where the predominant concern for deletion is BLP, which isn't the case here.

I find that the dispute between the artwork lacks independent notability from the controversy and the controversy lacks independent notability from the artwork actually weakens both arguments and supports the notion that the two topics are independently notable. The slight but significant majority (16 of 29) favouring outcomes which require us to have an article about the controversy also means that, in the absence of an overriding policy concern, as closing admin I should enact a "keep" outcome.

So, weighing up all the arguments against each other, I'm closing this as keep. I also doubt that a further RfC [or AfD on the Mattress Performance article, for that matter] would be fruitful at this stage, because this discussion was advertised on Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) and actually carried on for exactly a month. It is unlikely that consensus can be reached to remove either article from this Wikipedia. Der yck C. 23:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Columbia University rape controversy

Columbia University rape controversy (  | 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 entry mostly duplicates content that is either already included on the entry for Mattress Performance, or that was rejected by community consensus as being unwarranted. This article covers, in detail, an unproven sexual assault allegation dealing with a non-notable person who has made a concerted effort to keep a relatively low profile, and raises serious BLP issues. There was previously pretty strong opposition to a similar proposal for a page move proposal on the Mattress Performance page, and this sort of seems like an even more problematic version of exactly the same idea.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Nblund ( talk • contribs)

• Comment, this article is regarding the case presented plainly and fairly, with accusation, defense, outcome, reception. The goal is to present the events leading to the Mattress Performance neutrally. Nungesser has been vocal in defending himself publicly, releasing both lawsuits and having multiple interviews with news media outlets such as The Daily Beast. As per NPOV we must present both sides with neutrality, at the end of the day he was found "not responsible", his views must presented otherwise the BLP violations will always exist. I do not feel Mattress Performance is the best location for the details of the case. There is more than enough information to warrant a WP:SPLIT. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article is about a notable controversy with a world wide coverage, Mattress Performance on the other hand is about the art piece which is a crucial part of the controversy but not the only part. Information that was rejected in the Mattress Performance article was rejected because the article focus was the art piece and the surrounding controversy was a tangential part. I would agree, now that this article exists, the Mattress Performance article should be focused more on the art piece and the "controversy" coverage should be minimal in there. Also at the time of the move proposal mentioned above, the controversy was still developing and the article was about the artist herself, not the art piece. It was later renamed per Blp1e and we still don't have an article about the artist for same reason. Darwinian Ape  ^talk 22:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Details regarding "the events leading to the Mattress Performance" seem well-suited to go in to the Mattress Performance entry. To be clear: i'm not raising a neutrality issue. The concern is that this topic isn't independently notable and doesn't warrant an independent article. The denial, outcome, and reception are all mentioned in the Mattress Performance entry, and "new" information in this entry seems mostly composed of block quotes, unwarranted biography, or play-by-play recounting of a non-notable sexual assault accusation.

DariwnianApe: The entry is primarily about the Mattress Performance because the consensus was the Mattress Performance made this case notable. There's no indication that this view changed, and it's patently obvious that no consensus in favor of a split developed in the 6 hours between the opening of the split discussion and the creation of this page. Nblund ( talk) 00:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

How are you defining non-notable? This case has been covered by multiple reliable sources and appears to pass WP:GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree the creation of this article was a bit hasty, I would have preferred to wait for additional voices. But I believe having a separate article is a better solution for documenting the controversy. Neutrality will suffer as long as the focus of the sole article about the controversy remains an art piece, which by the way not at all the focus of the most reliable sources. I don't believe we should delete the article about the art piece. It has independent notability,(i.e praise/criticism it got from the art world) but so does the controversy. Darwinian Ape  ^talk 01:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I appreciate that acknowledgement. It really sounds like you're making a case for changing the main focus of the Mattress Performance entry. I think that's perfectly reasonable and should be considered, but it's not an acceptable reason to create a separate entry. We didn't agree on changing the focus of an existing entry, so a new entry was created and it's been filled with stuff that was previously rejected. This is more or less the definition of a POV fork. It lowers the quality of the encyclopedia and it undermines the consensus building process. Why not merge in some of this content to the existing entry, and then discuss whether or not a split is necessary? Nblund ( talk) 23:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I believe the focus of the Mattress performance article should not change because the art piece has a notability of it's own regardless of the controversy. I too was afraid of a POV fork before when the mattress article was the only article, but the successful implementation of the sister article Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol convinced me that we can focus on the subject of the art on the mattress performance article(as the aforementioned article is) and document the controversy in it's own article. As I said, I would have preferred more eyes before creation, but I will not endorse deletion of this article on procedural grounds now that it's created, because I believe this is the best solution there is. Perhaps I can convince you that withdrawing this nomination and starting an RFC to keep, merge or remove this article would better suit our needs instead? So that we can have more eyes which we did not have the chance the first time. Darwinian Ape  ^talk 00:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Can't see any reason to duplicate already existing content, nor include all this new material that's at best skirting the line with WP:BLP. I'm going to delete some of the more obvious stuff that's unsourced, for now. Hopefully this will be uncontroversial. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 00:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

What is duplicated? There is a great deal not mentioned in the other article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The case is notable, it's not independently notable and the new article seems like it reflect that fact. Without the art project, this is a run-of-the-mill sexual assault allegation, and we don't have entries for any of the dozens of other men who have filed similar lawsuits alleging unfair treatment. Readers probably would get by without the detailed knowledge of Nungesser's upbringing, or verbatim transcripts of Sulkowicz's Facebook exchanges. The truly new stuff here seems simple to incorporate in to the existing entry, and I don't see any reason this wasn't at least attempted first. Nblund ( talk) 01:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Run-of-the-mill sexual assault resulting in extend international media coverage? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep International most highly qualified sources cover this topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseeart ( talk • contribs)

Hey Caseeart, just to be clear: no one disputes that the topic as a whole is notable, but this topic is already covered in the entry for Mattress Performance. The question is whether a separate entry is justified. Nblund ( talk) 23:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The information here contains the documented outcome of the allegations based on trial and investigation. It is not covered in the other article nor should it be covered there. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The Mattress Performance entry does cover the lawsuit and the investigation, but the lack of mention of the outcome of the suit seems to be an oversight. I'm very confident no one would object to that being added to the existing entry, and that seems like a great solution to this issue that would allow us to avoid this content fork. We could even start a page move discussion that would allow more balanced coverage of the suit alongside the performance. What do you think? Nblund ( talk) 23:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Title of article needs to be about "Columbia University". Majority of all sources have a title similar to "Columbia University rape". Very few are titled "Mattress Performance". Even if we were to merge - we should merge Mattress Performance into this article. CaseeArt ^Talk 08:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 17:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 17:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 17:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Merge with Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (the article it was forked from), though possibly under a title more like the one above ("Columbia University rape controversy"), since a majority of the content even of the Mattress article is about the rape and various university and legal proceedings rather than the art piece. (Or delete/redirect, since there is not much to merge.) -sche ( talk) 01:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC) -sche ( talk) 05:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep or Merge Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) to this article, not the other way around. There is enough coverage in reliable sources of both and the fact that there are very different aspects to the story, both the artwork and the tie-in to the campus rape controversy. The fact that there are reliable sources that focus commentary on the art-worthiness of the project and reliable sources that focus on the rape allegations with no commentary on the mattress as an artistic project in and of itself strongly suggests that these are two distinct subjects. The articles for The Massacre at Chios by Delacroix and the Chios Massacre are able to co-exist. If, however, the consensus is to merge, it should be merged to an article title that is related to the underlying controversy. It is correct to say that most rape allegations don't become notable topics, but it's also correct that criminal allegations that are related to a notable controversy are more likely to be notable than a college student carrying around a mattress; the rape allegations may or may not have been notable when connected with the underlying controversy without the mattress carrying, but the mattress carrying would almost certainly not have been notable without the allegations. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 15:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I think the reverse is true—the performance art would probably have been notable without the allegations, but the allegations would almost certainly not have been notable without the performance art. Anyway, these kinds of hypotheticals are impossible to prove and probably not very good arguments. — Granger ( talk · contribs) 15:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Not sure I agree. Without the underlying, larger controversy (both the wide campus controversy and the specific incident), it's just a student carrying around a mattress. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 16:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment do we really like a merge is option? -sche CoffeeCrumbs, would there not be NPOV violations? The article would be written with the first have stating the outcome of the case then the performance. The Mattress article focuses on the performance with minor details of the case, this article focuses on case with minor details on the performance. My question is can we portray the performance fairly if too much detail is given to the case? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Also this source here gives Sulkowicz's defense, I did not have time to include it fully as the article was fired out in 6 hours, but if we include a strong defense for her this article would be even longer making a merge less viable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I much prefer Keep to Merge, but if we do in fact agree on Merge, I rather it be connected more with an article title reflecting the larger controversy rather than specifically the performance piece. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 16:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

That would also violate NPOV by not giving due weight to the outcome of a highly cited legal case on which the performance was based. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I really don't think length is an issue. Portions of this entry appear to be composed almost entirely of extended verbatim quotes from editorials. I cut and and pasted the substantive portion of entry in to the the Mattress Performance entry in this sandbox. It comes out to just over 43,000 bytes, which is only a couple thousand more than the existing entry for Mattress Performance. That's within the recommended limits, even without removing the redundant and wordy prose. It would be very easy to create a spinout article down the road if it proved necessary and if community consensus supported it. Nblund ( talk) 18:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Please also add reaction to the allegations and lets see where we are at. That article is still missing massive information. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Adding the "reception" section gets to 47,000 bytes, again, this is without any editing for content or length at all. This is still within the recommended guidelines. There's no need for haste in splitting entries, and we certainly don't need to preemptively split articles. It really doesn't seem like you've made a plausible argument that length is the motivating issue here. Nblund ( talk) 23:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep It makes sense to have separate articles for the art project and the accusation/legal actions. Some of the latter could be removed from the Mattress Performance article, making it more about the art and the artist. Where necessary, "main article:" notations could lead to the article about the controversy/legal issues. Also, the Mattress Performance has ended, but the legal actions have not yet, so that points to a logical decision that these are interrelated yet separate events. LaMona ( talk) 19:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep - separate articles makes more sense. BabbaQ ( talk) 19:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is a POV fork created by Valoem after he argued on Talk:Mattress Performance that the article should be split in three. It also names the accused, which we had wide consensus to omit. If Valoem wants to argue for two or three articles, or to move the existing article to a different title, or to include the accused's name, he needs to gain consensus on Talk:Mattress Performance, preferably in a 30-day RfC, not via a seven-day AfD. The new article also violates Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia because some of the writing of Mattress was copied over without attribution. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply

SarahSV please link the discussion to omit the name of the accused. Also what is the POV I am pushing? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Here you go. Bromley86 ( talk) 02:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the link. There were several such discussions, including on one of the noticeboards, I believe the RSN. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Wait there was no discussion here, it was BoboMeowCat stating his views. I was actually looking for this discussion which allows his name plus full defense. It is a BLP violation to not include the messages as they have been cited by reliable sources, with authenticity and time stamps confirmed by both parties. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep, notable event with substantial coverage in reliable sources. It makes sense to have an article on the controversy itself as opposed to the "performance art". Kelly ^hi! 08:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete per SlimVirgin. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 04:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a POV fork as well as per PeterTheFourth's comments. Regards, James ( ^talk/ _contribs) 19:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect perhaps as I'm not seeing how this can be better enhanced as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect. Although I prefer Valoem's presentation of the subject, this is a POV fork, and he ought to seek consensus for including additional material in the existing article. It's also problematic that some text was copied without attribution. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 00:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect Comment (guess I should vote) but I agree that an RFC should be posted to discuss changing the focus of the Mattress Performance entry to include more material from the suit. The accusation motivated the performance, and the lawsuit is primarily about Columbia's sanctioning the performance. The bulk of the coverage discusses all three issues together. The split isn't definitely isn't justified by size, it isn't justified by content, and it was created in apparent disregard for consensus building. Nblund ( talk) 00:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ Nblund: FYI this is a duplicate !vote. The nominator is free to comment as much as anyone else, but the nomination itself counts as your bold !vote. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep It easily passes WP:GNG with widespread coverage in multiple sources, and the scope of this article extends beyond the focus of the other article which primarily covers the performance art aspect of this story. The Other Side of the College Sexual Assault Crisis; Allegations of Sexual Assault on Campus Are at Record Levels, as Are Lawsuits from the Accused, Including Paul Nungesser, Claiming Schools Discriminated against Them Based on Gender - Colleges face legal backlash from men accused of sex crimes - No Such Thing as Evidence of Innocence in Campus Sexual Assault Hearings - A Fine Line between Bullying and Free Speech - Former Columbia Newspaper Editor Admits Biased Reporting on Rape Due to Fear of Backlash.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment User:Isaidnoway, on that point: I notice that all five of these sources mention the Mattress Protest. I looked at the archives of several news outlets and couldn't find a single story that mentioned Nungesser without discussing the Mattress Performance.

• Every story on the New York Times mentions it
• Every story in the Washington Post (all five also include the image of Sulkowicz carrying the Mattress).
• Every story on Reuters
• Every story on CNN.

To the extent that the suit is covered by the mainstream press, it's frequently even referenced as the "Carry that Weight" suit. It's difficult to find reliable sources that discuss Nungesser or the suit separately from the performance, so it's really difficult to fathom why the two should be covered separately. Nblund ( talk) 22:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I guess by this argument we could merge Mattress Performance into Columbia University rape controversy as I can't find one source that mentions the performance without the rape allegations. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

User:Nblund - I would fully expect those sources to mention the mattress protest - it provides context and background, just as I would expect those sources about the mattress protest to mention why she carried that mattress on her back - it provides context and background. I don't see any compelling reason why these particular sources should be excluded or dismissed in this AfD discussion.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Valoem: I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, are you saying you support a merge? I can see a case for merging at least some portions of the Columbia University Rape Controversy entry in to the Mattress Performance entry, although I think the appropriate way to do that is through an RFC.

Isaidnoway: I'm not saying they should be ignored. My point was that the Mattress Performance, the lawsuit, and the sexual assault allegations are usually covered together in reliable sources, and so they should probably be covered together here. Nblund ( talk) 15:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I understand your point, but disagree with the argument that just because they are "usually covered together in reliable sources" means that "they should probably be covered together here". The first analogy that comes to mind is the Watergate scandal and Richard Nixon, they are always covered together in reliable sources, but we have separate articles on them, Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, they are always covered together in reliable sources, but separate bio articles for them as well. The issue here is whether or not the scope of this article is notable enough for it's own entry, I believe it is. Out of the 11 categories the Mattress Performance article is listed under, over half (6) are Art categories - Contemporary art, Feminist art, Performance art in New York City, Political art, Public art in New York City, Works about rape - that indicates to me that the primary scope and focus of that article is about the performance art aspect and her freedom of expression. Nungesser is consistently mentioned in reliable sources about campus sexual assault stories and “Reverse Title-IX” Lawsuit stories and Los Angeles Times and FOX News and U.S. News & World Report and Teen Vogue.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep this article is a necessity for maintaining NPOV on Wikipedia. There is a unanimous agreement that this article passes GNG. The question is POV fork lets looks at this argument:

• Wikipedia:POVFORK says:

  Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it.

I do not see disruptive editing. There has been no mention as to what POV is allegedly being pushed. The facts are the defendant was found "not responsible" on two fronts, both Columbia inquiry and legal inquiry. It is a blatant violation to not include Nungesser's defense. Before I included criticism the article Mattress Performance was written like this with barely any criticism and portraying her as an undisputed victim and heroine. A quick search clearly shows this is wrong. There have been tremendous disagreement with many sources believing he is the victim. The second issue is that Facebook messages have been confirmed by both parties therefore it's inclusion should be uncontroversial as long as we disclose both party's full defense. This source The Other Side of the College Sexual Assault Crisis; Allegations of Sexual Assault on Campus Are at Record Levels, as Are Lawsuits from the Accused, Including Paul Nungesser, Claiming Schools Discriminated against Them Based on Gender provided by Isaidnoway ( talk · contribs) shows a widespread impact of the lawsuit, clearly warranting a split. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• @ Valoem: WP:POVFORK also says

  In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.

Your version better complies with NPOV than the original, but is still a POV fork. It's also a problem that you unilaterally chose to name the accused student. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 01:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

What is the POV then? There cannot be a POV fork without a POV. Also I did not "unilaterally chose to name the accused student" there was a discussion here closed in favor of naming the accused based on attribution. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep: per above, this clearly meets WP:GNG because of its extensive coverage in the news, so the only question is whether it is a POV fork. I don't think it is, because the article that some have proposed merging this with, Mattress Performance, is clearly focused on the performance art aspect more than the incident and legal issues, which are the focus of this article. It seems likely to me that someone searching Wikipedia might want information on just the legal issues, not the performance art, or vice versa. Therefore, two separate articles seems reasonable to me. OtterAM ( talk) 17:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment I find it ironic that this article is being labeled as a WP:POVFORK (pushing a particular point of view) when the other article, Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), clearly has a POV Title about her senior thesis project, which is about what she considers to be the poor handling of her rape allegations by university authorities. That's her POV and the article is titled with that point of view. And it has also accurately been pointed out in WP:POVFORK that - The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. Here, the "certain subject" is her senior thesis project, the alleged rape and the way that the University handled that allegation; the facts and major points of view surrounding her senior thesis project are adequately represented in that article. But, let's not forget that Nungesser was also accused by two other females and a male of sexual misconduct, and those "facts and major points of view" surrounding those allegations are not reflected in that article. Indeed, Nungesser's rebuttal to those allegations are not even mentioned. In addition, the facts and major points of view surrounding his Title IX lawsuit (Columbia discriminated against him “as a male.”), are not reflected in the Mattress Performance article either. And finally, I don't understand what the issue is with naming the "accused student", when he has publicly spoke out - The New York Times, Newsweek, The Daily Beast.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

It's actually tough to find detailed coverage of the Title IX suit. Several papers mention it, but I had a hard time finding, for instance, any detailed coverage of how the recently re-filed complaint differs from the complaint that was dismissed earlier this year. Nungesser is one of dozens of men who have made this argument, and it doesn't seem like it was taken especially seriously outside of some questionable sources like the Washington Examiner. Nblund ( talk) 22:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Admittedly, what seems to have happened here is that certain editors exploited the pretense that the article was solely about the "art" in order to exclude certain information, and Valoem called their bluff. However, the fact remains that there are not actually two separate topics here. We now have two articles on the same topic which differ only in POV, and that's what is meant by "POV fork". The other issues, about his name and so on, need to be discussed elsewhere than at AfD. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 21:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

This will not be the case if we focus solely on the art in Mattress Performance as we do in Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol. I think mattress Performance, as an art piece, should have it's own article, especially since a less notable second piece has it's own. Darwinian Ape  ^talk 21:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment It's worth noting that this new entry is mostly copy-pasted from an old version of the Mattress Performance entry ( warts and all), so it's literally composed of a large amount of material that was previously rejected from the other entry. That makes it kind of tough to see this as anything other than a POV fork.

It's also worth noting that the version this was copy-pasted from is the same version that prompted the RfC regarding removing the accused student's name in the first place, so notion that the entry satisfies the criteria laid out by the closer in that case is kind of absurd. Nblund ( talk) 22:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The question is, was the content rejected due to NPOV, or scope? I think it's the latter and that makes the new entry a necessary content fork, not a POV Fork. Darwinian Ape  ^talk 23:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

No, actually. The content was initially removed over those BLP concerns. The "scope" issue was a content issue, but people cited a myriad of other content issues with things like quoting the Facebook messages, citing editorials from the NYPOST for claims of fact, and citing primary sources. Nblund ( talk) 00:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Do you agree, though, that there was a scope issue which prevented otherwise reliable and neutral information to be kept from the article? I believe the new article, though issues it may have, shows that the scope of the Mattress performance article was too narrow to document the whole controversy. Darwinian Ape  ^talk 00:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Not really. Most of the reliably sourced material is already cited in the Mattress Performance entry, and I don't think anyone would object to adding some additional detail to the sections on the allegation or the lawsuit. I do think people would object to stuff like citing Breitbart.com to make a claim of fact about a person, but I think that would be objectionable pretty much anywhere on Wikipedia. Nblund ( talk) 00:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I think a determination about the scope of the Mattress Performance article is a good idea. I don't know what the reason is behind referring to Nungesser as "the student" or "the accused student" in that article and refusing to document his side of the story, but if that's the case due to a local consensus, then a fork was warranted here. As early as December 2014, Nungesser self-identified as "the accused student" in the New York Times and offered his point of view about the allegations against him, and again in December 2015 he self-identified as "the student" in Newsweek, with extensive details about the allegations against him, and self-identified in the Daily Beast article, and self-identified in his publicly filed lawsuit as well. If there are allegations of a serious crime being levied against an individual, and that individual has self-identified and his point of view in relation to the allegations is being suppressed here, then that is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Naming him "the student" or "the accused student" dehumanizes him and may appear as if he is embarrassed or hiding due to guilt. Since his name is easy to find it is best to mention him per NPOV. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Totally agree, there is an implication that it "dehumanizes him", while her side of the story is told from a narrative that is personalized by using her name.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Hey now: no one "refused to document" anything. Valoem was encouraged to make a more specific proposal or a bold edit to the existing entry, but he closed the split discussion six hours after opening it. No one could have "refused" anything in that time period even if they wanted to.

I understand that people are unhappy with the state of that entry, but, again, creating a content fork is absolutely not the way to fix it. Nblund ( talk) 18:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

My comment was not in relation to Valoem or what he was encouraged to do. What I meant by "refused to document", is that as early as December 2014, Nungesser self-identified as "the accused student" in the New York Times, and again in February 2015 he spoke to the DB. In all that time, a major viewpoint on the unfounded allegations is conspicuously missing from that article. Editor's should not have to be "encouraged" to abide by WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The discussion that resulted in his name being removed came after both of those articles were published, several editors noted that he had been interviewed, so that was clearly a consideration. I don't think his view is missing from that entry, and I don't think it's productive to cast vague aspersions on other editors. If the Mattress Performance entry is biased and violates NPOV, then that issue hasn't been fixed, and we should do something about it. All entries are supposed to be written neutrally and in accordance with the BLP guidelines, and it seems like the appropriate thing to do, if you think the article has BLP issues, is to merge these two articles and create something more neutral. Nblund ( talk) 16:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. What is the reason two articles are needed on this subject? Why can't this all be covered under one title? Bus stop ( talk) 20:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Per the entire discussion above. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Why can't the material in this article be incorporated into the other article? The work of art and the possible wrongdoing are one and the same, are they not? A certain amount of language can be devoted to addressing the work of art. But it has to be balanced against the amount of language devoted to addressing the possible wrongdoing. I see no reason these two focusses need separate articles. Why can't they both be addressed in the same article? Bus stop ( talk) 03:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

One main issue is a double reception section one for the "performance art" and the other for reaction to accusation itself. This could get messy and it is hard to write both neutrally. If we look at this topic in its entirety initial response was overwhelmingly positive. There were three women accusing Nungesser of sexual misconduct and he chose remained silent until April 23, 2015. Many were confused as to how he was found innocent. However after he released his side many sources suggested that he may be the victim and the perhaps the injustice was against Nungesser not Sulkowicz. The case is still ongoing, the performance is over. The ramification of this could extend far beyond its initial implications. A great deal is still not included in this article including Facebook message, the defense of both parties and the second lawsuit from Nungesser. There are two separate issues here and we are a long way from NPOV. A merge (I am assuming you prefer that over delete) may be far more complex and difficult to write. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, merging is what I have in mind and I think a new title is called for. I would suggest a title such as "Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University". I agree that it is a difficult article to write but I think the reader should have all relevant information in one article. Bus stop ( talk) 12:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

"readable prose size" of the Columbia University Sexual Assault page is actually only 19KB, and 18KB for the Mattress Performance entry. So we could easily merge the two and come in well under the size limitations.

I think it's pretty unlikely that a whole lot of new material is going to be introduced here. We can revisit the idea of a spin out article if we need to in the future. As it stands, however, it seems like we're struggling to find decent sourcing for basic facts about this case: information about where the two students met is sourced to Breitbart.com, information about the accused student's mother appears to come from a primary-source German-language website, and vast swaths of the Columbia University entry are composed of block quotes and verbatim copy-paste from an old version of the Mattress Performance entry. The truly "new" material there is probably just a couple of paragraphs long at the most. Nblund ( talk) 21:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The title—"Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)"—is problematic. This is not a standard article on a work of art. "Sulkowicz — a visual arts major — has turned her senior thesis into a performance art piece that blends campus activism and personal expression." [1] "She has said she will carry the mattress around campus until the male student who she alleges raped her leaves Columbia, either by university action or his own volition." [2] A title for our article should acknowledge the disputed nature of the subject of the article as well as the setting, which is the little self-contained world of art education. The present title implies validity which is inherently non-neutral given for instance the lawsuits brought by the target of the artwork. Furthermore I don't think the title of our article should be lending inordinate weight to what is merely an unestablished artist's student work. Bus stop ( talk) 07:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete POV fork. -- DHeyward ( talk) 07:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep The events described here are well-reported and notable because of the success of the performance art. I don't regard it as a POV issue at all. On the one hand, the performance art made headlines. On the other, the events triggering the art also made headlines. The latter isn't appropriate in the performance art article, so a second article is reasonable. Phiwum ( talk) 14:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

You say "The latter isn't appropriate in the performance art article..." Please explain. Why should we divide material between two articles? Isn't all the material related? It is an event which unfolded on a college campus involving art. Why wouldn't we tackle the whole subject in one article? Bus stop ( talk) 15:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Mattress Performance. I would very much like to be able to vote delete as per WP:BPL, because this "rape controversy" is in fact an allegation of non-consensual, non-violent intercourse made by an undergraduate against a fellow undergraduate she had dated and with whom, with whom she had an ongoing, friendly relationship (proven by texts) both before and after the alleged incident, and by her own account, with whom she had previously been intimate. The problem is that some things cannot be walked back. The University President has apologized for the ruin of the man's reputation. But it is now far too late to restore his privacy. We can, however, tone things down by condensing both this text and the text of the target article, editing carefully for NPOV, and consolidating the 2 overly long articles into 1. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment I am curious to know DGG ( talk · contribs) opinion here, there are arguments for POV fork yet no one has mentioned what the POV is. Is it better to merge the articles? Is this better than splitting? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 06:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

To clarify: your stated justification for creating the page was a belief that the existing entry didn't include sufficient detail about the accused student's POV, when other editors explained why, you effectively restored an old version of the Mattress Performance entry with minor changes, and used that new entry to include the materials you wanted. I think the primary "POV" here is just your own personal viewpoint about what should be in the entry. Nblund ( talk) 17:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

What is called for is merging the two articles into an article with a neutral title. This is not an article on a standard work of art. The title of our article should not be the title of the work of art. Bus stop ( talk) 23:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Redirect or merge to the mattress article (however titled), as a content fork. This is all part of one and the same notable set of events and people, and splitting off subarticles is not warranted by the importance of the whole issue, at least as long it doesn't continue to generate new coverage.  Sandstein  17:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Sandstein: yes it is receiving continual coverage, [3], [4], [5] and many more, the case is receiving ongoing coverage for over a year. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but even these stories are framed as related to the mattress performance, with photos of the student carrying it and everything. I don't know whether the proper title of the article should be about the mattress performance, or the rape allegations and related proceedings, or the artist herself who is a BLP1E it seems, but I don't see an easy way to disentangle the whole issue into several distinct topics worthy of an article.  Sandstein  17:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Revisiting this endless discussion, which seems to be trending towards Redirecting and Merging. This makes a great deal of sense because the performance art piece only got traction because of the rape allegation, and the rape allegation had a large media footprint because of the performance art. We cannot delete both articles because the coverage was extensive. But we need to remember not only that both parties were undergraduates (i.e., there was no power differential;) that there was no supporting evidence for the allegation of rape; that the art project, the drumbeat of publicity, the young man's consent to the releasing of exculpatory evidence (private text messages between the couple that he released only after it became clear that his privacy was irrevocably breached and reputation ruined,) the young woman's decision not to press suit, and the apologies by the University to the young man all took place in a sequence that is better understood by merging the two inextricably interconnected articles, retaining this title as a Redirect. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

What do you believe should be merged into the Mattress Performance article that is not already there? PeterTheFourth ( talk) 21:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The title - People will search for it. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

E.M.Gregory are you suggesting merging Mattress Performance under the title Columbia University rape controversy? The main issue with the merge is the exact reason you highlighted, the defendant was foudn innocent in the eyes of the law and public opinion. Evidence presented by Nuggesser favors his arguments, yet the Mattress Performance has been written in a tone which favors Sulkowicz's account. Here on Wikipedia we strive for NPOV, therefore we never give undue weight to the minority view. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Not at all. (As I stated in my first comment in this interminable discussion, my preference would be to delete both articles on the grounds that the entire thing was based the kind of angry relationship breakup that produced an evidently false accusation of rape months after the fact. IMO this whole controversy has been UNDUE and the New York press, in particular, ought to be ashamed.) A Redirect simply means that people searching for and clicking on Columbia University rape controversy will, when they click, find themselves on the Mattress performance page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

E.M.Gregory I agree with what you are saying, but people still come to Wikipedia for information our only goal is to make sure the information is neutral. The articles are never going to be both deleted, so it is best to recommend inclusion of both views and state the controversy so people can make their own opinion. NPOV is the truest form of freedom of speech I would recommend including messages and legal outcomes with the defense for both. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

We do not, however, refight long legal battles on Wikipedia. We summarize. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, of course. One article for all info on this entire event. With the hope that we can keep it NPOV, present both sides, and be reasonable succinct. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Looking back, it seems like some of this discussion (including my own points) are not totally relevant the question here. There are acceptable reasons for forking content. Editor conduct isn't one of them, and neither is NPOV (per se). I think the key considerations are: (1) article length, and (2) appropriate level of detail. In the interest of resolving this protracted discussion, could we focus in on these considerations going forward? Nblund ( talk) 02:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Respond We should Merge these 2 articles about an allegation/performance that will be remembered, if at all, as a tempest in a teapot. We have here a situation in which a severe case of WP:RECENTISM created 2 articles (needless Wikipedia:Content forking). Both articles fail WP:BECONCISE, violate Wikipedia:Article size and in their inappropriate level of detail give WP:UNDUE weight to this topic. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#JOURNALISM, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

No, it is not a tempest in a teapot. A very interesting thing has transpired. A student attempted to employ performance art to get a fellow student ejected from a campus. That is unprecedented in art. "[S]he will continue the piece until the man she accuses of attacking her is no longer on campus, whether he leaves or is expelled or graduates" [6] There is no precedent in art for a performance piece focussed on getting a fellow student to leave a campus. Bus stop ( talk) 16:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

rename the redirect? User:Bus stop. You mentioned (above) renaming target page after we merge these 2 articles. Did you have a suggested name? Or does anyone want to propose a new name? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, I suggested "Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University." [7] Bus stop ( talk) 20:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• suggesting that the merged, redirected article be called Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University, excellent title! Thanks User:Bus stop. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge (conditional) or Keep If Merge I'd caution all to avoid a repeat of the behavior that led to this split, namely maintaining the allegations are secondary to the art piece (as suggested by the current title "Mattress Performance.") Since the majority of coverage in reliable sources concerns the controversy surrounding the art piece and allegation, an article covering the art and allegation comprehensively should do so as a controversy with a title reflecting that, e.g. "Columbia University Mattress Performance controversy" James J. Lambden ( talk) 20:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep this nomination is an attempt to remove everything that doesn't suit nominator's POV narrative. Alliumnsk ( talk) 02:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

If this article is kept, Alliumnsk, even this article's title should be changed. I don't think "Columbia University rape controversy" is the ideal title for this article. My guess would be that there have been other Columbia University rape controversies. Importantly, this incident involves performance art. Bus stop ( talk) 03:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Merge The two articles should be merged, under a title like 'Columbia University rape controversy'. The performance art is an aspect, albeit very prominent, of what should really be a single article. NPalgan ( talk) 17:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - simply notable and covers WP:GNG. The article has plenty of great sourcing and IDONTLIKEIT does not apply. BabbaQ ( talk) 17:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

No offense BabbaQ, but this comment itself kind of seems like an IDONTLIKEIT argument. I think we all agree that this topic itself is GNG, the question is whether it's reasonable to have a separate article that deals with the assault accusation and lawsuit independently of the art project. I think the relevant consideration here is whether this qualifies under the guidelines in WP:SPINOFF, or whether it's better to handle this issue with a single entry. Thoughts? Nblund ( talk) 22:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep or Merge -- as per GNG. (A very timely cautionary tale and societal marker, IMO, I must add.) Quis separabit? 04:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There is really enough here for two articles--ot as a POV fork, but for different emphases: the Mattress Performance article is about the subject as a work of performance art, not the alleged rape. Possibly some of the material from there should be moved here or removed as duplicative, but this in what should be the title for the basic article. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The work of art and every other aspect of this event are inextricably linked. We are kidding ourselves if we convince ourselves that there are two articles here. There is only one article. There was a romantic relationship. There was a claim of rape. There were tentative claims of that rape presented to both the college and the NYC police. Neither of those claims brought about the desired result for the person allegedly raped. That person was an aspiring artist. As part of that person's course requirement a senior thesis had to be created. That person decided to turn that senior thesis, by means of performance art, into a focussing of negative attention on the alleged rapist. The artwork ran its full course. Eventually the mattress was carried onto the graduation podium. The alleged rapist made known a collection of emails sent by both parties both before the alleged rape and after the alleged rape. The alleged rapist hired a lawyer to bring a lawsuit against various parties. The single article that should be written should expand on all these things. There should only be one article and it should not be only about the work of art. The work of art can be described thoroughly but the title of the article should not be Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). The title I would suggest is "Performance art rape allegations at Columbia University." That is what the article is about. The article is about "Performance art rape allegations". Bus stop ( talk) 04:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Comments about whether this article passes WP:GNG are kind of missing the point. We already have this article under a different name- the question isn't whether we should have this article, but whether we should have two of these articles. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 06:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The keep votes have taken that into consideration. Editors voting keep believe that there is no POV fork and has enough material to pass both GNG and splitting rationale, also if merged many believe this should be the primary title. The merge voter believe the is enough to pass GNG, but information may be combined. Redirect votes are unclear, and delete votes believe this information does not belong on the encyclopedia. I am not seeing any consensus, but the keep votes have certainly been more eloquent than simply passing GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:55, 3 June 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.