Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domenic Johansson custody 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. Secret ^account 19:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Domenic Johansson custody case[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm completing the nomination for an IP (68.0.215.230) that posted on the AfD talk page and the article's talk page. Their issue is that the article didn't pass several parts of WP:GNG, from what I can see, with the basic gist of the argument being "The notability is very questionable, there are virtually no sources that aren't primary sources or opinion sources, and much of the article relies on arguments of a single organization." I have no opinion on the notability of the subject myself, although I will say that the sources on the article do need a lot of work and I'm not pulling up a lot of hits to show that this really merits an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not finding much. There is some talk about this, but not enough to where I'd personally say that this passes WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. My personal opinion on this is that this should probably be userfied or deleted. There just isn't much out there. In any case, I've run down the sources on the article and the links in the EL section. My basic opinion is that there isn't enough to establish notability. There's a start and enough of one that I think it could be userfied and worked on in case it does pass notability guidelines in the future, but right now there just isn't enough. Most of the sources are either primary or on sites that aren't really considered to be RS per Wikipedia's guidelines. (The site is very strict.) Of the sources that I'd say could be used (about 3 of them), almost none of them are so overwhelmingly strong that I'd say that they could be used to show this passes WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[1] This is the Daily Mail, which is pretty universally considered to not be usable as a reliable source. I like the paper, but it's considered to be a tabloid as far as Wikipedia goes.
[2] This is a somewhat random magazine commenting on it. This just doesn't seem to be what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. However the person writing it does have a journalism degree. It's just such a dubious source that I'd personally recommend against using it.
[3] This is an article by the Christian Broadcasting Network, which I'd consider to be usable. It's a little bit of an opinion piece, but I'd consider it enough of a RS to help contribute notability although I'd want it backed up with stronger sources. Of course some could argue that it's too much of an opinion piece in that it seems to have taken a specific stance on the issue. I'd use it, but I admit that this argument would really weaken the source.
[4] This is a PDF from the Alliance Defence Fund and not something I'd say would be a RS that would show notability, especially considering that they're involved with the actual case itself. This would be a primary source at best.
[5] This is a newspaper article from 2009 and something I'd consider to be usable.
[6] This is a Yahoo article, something I'd consider usable enough. However the fact is that it's a Yahoo article and not something in say, the New York Times or a strong Swedish newspaper.
[7] This is a page from a homeschooling advocacy association and not something that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. It's an opinion piece, pure and simple, but the stronger thing is that it's just not a RS by Wikipedia rules even if it was neutrally written.
[8] Another PDF from the defense fund that is involved with the case, making it a primary source.
[9] This is another page from the advocacy group and not something usable as a RS.
[10] This is a court document. This can be used to verify things, but it can't be used to show notability. No matter how bad it might seem or how noble or not noble the cause might be, the existence of something is not notability.
[11] This is something that I personally wouldn't use as a reliable source. It's better laid out than some of the other sites of its kind I've seen (non-mainstream news-type sites), but in the end it's just not something usable as a RS.

Keep and improve article. There have already been discussions on the article talk page, and the point being made, if I may put it like this, is that the case has attracted the wrong sort of attention. But it has attracted attention nonetheless. I have found another reference which I will add. St Anselm (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, for several reasons. Although many of the sources are from homeschooling organizations, nonetheless the case also ties in with the rash of incidents in Sweden whereby other immigrants from India (the mother in the Johansson case is from India) have also lost custody of their children for questionable reasons, often very trivial ones. This has led to charges of racism against Sweden's social services. These cases have also raised issues about the power of the State to take custody from parents, and how far that power can go before the State becomes oppressive. I've read about a lot of similar custody cases in Europe over the past several years, and it is in fact a legitimate issue that has wide political ramifications, and not just in Sweden (the UN has been pushing for a global policy that is similar to Sweden's laws on child custody). But even if the case isn't the most prominent custody case of all time, what is the point of deleting the article outright when Wikipedia has thousands of articles on every video game character, every soap opera character, and other dubious articles. At least this case has sparked controversy, has generated discussion about the degree of accountability of social services in many countries, and is certainly more important (and encyclopedic) than a bunch of video game characters. One way to improve the article and increase its relevance is to expand the focus beyond homeschooling (which is only one aspect of it) and tie it in with the larger political issues that are involved. Ryn78 (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryn78, thanks for weighing in on the matter. The issue here is that there are no reliable sources to substantiate the claims that this case is (1) significantly discussed in any public sphere apart from that of homeschooling organizations, or (2) part of a larger trend of incidents in Sweden or Europe as a whole. I would also like to respectively point out that the existence/nonexistence of other articles should not be a factor in this decision. Any article that cannot meet WP:GNG or similar guidelines should be removed. 68.0.215.230 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 68.0.215.230. I can look up the articles where I read about this case and related cases, but it's going to take time. The case is in fact part of a larger trend, and it's hardly obscure: even the Indian government has gotten involved, and the case was also submitted to the European Court of Human Rights, I believe. Others have presented media sources on the subject that pass RS guidelines, and non-profit groups like homeschool organizations would probably qualify as well (these aren't political action groups, I don't think). But here's a question: why doesn't anyone object to the endless numbers of articles on every minor Star Trek character and Lord of the Rings character, and the like? A few years ago, one of the featured articles was "Bulbosaur" from the Pokémon video games, which wasn't deleted (no, it was elevated to Featured Status). But articles about historical aristocrats below the rank of baronet are systematically deleted as "non-notable". I think this article is getting a similar treatment: people view the case as "non-notable" unless it meets a very high standard, and yet most other articles are never subjected to a similar litmus test. Wikipedia cannot maintain any credibility with such a process. Ryn78 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that such articles don't frustrate editors here on Wikipedia? I can't tell you how many times I've gotten frustrated when I've seen articles deleted because they didn't receive enough coverage in RS while you have pseudo-celebrities that get coverage just for barfing or going off the deep end. The problem with holding up articles that might seem frivolous or inconsequential is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean squat when it comes to AfD. All it means is that the article in question either hasn't really been nominated for AfD yet or it meets one of the various guidelines for notability. If you want to nominate the Bulbasaur article for deletion, feel free to do so but make sure that you put in one heck of a good argument. There have already been several attempts to delete it, so I'd recommend reading over those AfDs first to familiarize yourself with some of the more common arguments for keep and delete as far as Pokemon stuff goes. In anycase, saying that this is a symptom of a larger trend doesn't really mean that much as far as this specific case goes for the same reasons. This might be part of something larger, but the issue here is the specific notability. Just having government involvement isn't enough. It's the coverage that matters. Now if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that laws were changed specifically because of this one homeschooling case, that'd help a lot towards notability but the problem is proving it with reliable sources. It's rare that governments are so obviously transparent in creating laws that people easily connect the dots between the law and the specific person. Caylee's Law is one of the examples of a law that was created based on one specific event. The thing about such laws is that they usually get passed when the person/event in question is so undeniably high profile that they get a lot of media coverage on its own. Now as far as the homeschooling things go, the reason that those can't be used is for two reasons. The first is because many of those are acting as advocates on behalf of the Johanssons and are directly involved with the case. The second is because they aren't considered to be reliable sources because we can't verify how neutral they are, who is writing the entries, their qualifications, and so on. Feel free to run them through the reliable sources noticeboard if you wish, but I can pretty much say that the consensus will be that they don't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete (or Redirect). Regardless of how important the homeschooling organizations make this case seem, there are virtually no objective, reliable sources that satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines. Please recall that Wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:NOT). An article should not be used as a way of advocating a point. If charges of racism have been made, if this really is a case that is sparking a discussion about homeschooling rights and the role of the state in family life, then there should be reliable sources that discuss the issue and how it has sparked this discussion. But there are not. The only sources available are either (1) opinion pieces from non-neutral organizations, or (2) court filings by the parents. Neither of theses may be accepted as RS. If in the future there arises sufficient objective evidence, I would be very pleased to see the article recreated. Until then, however, the criteria for keeping an article are simply not met. 68.0.215.230 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.The article does not meets Wikipedia's standard for neutrality. It reads like an advocacy piece. If there are reliable secondary sources that comment on the case, then those sources should be used, but there do not appear to be any, and statements in the article are sourced from primary sources, from assertions by advocacy organizations, or simply not sourced at all. Eastcote (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Eastcote above. Had this been an article about an artist, it would probably have been deleted due to no notability... Le Lapin Vert (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Flaws in the article as written are no reason to delete: Deletion is not cleanup. This case has raised Swedish media interest (e.g. here) as well as very strong international interest, primarily among home-schoolers and among the Indian diaspora -- see here for British coverage, for example, and here for Indian coverage. -- 202.124.72.39 (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first link looks to be good (albeit a short magazine article), but the second one (the Daily Mail) can't be used as a reliable source. It's considered to be the British equivalent to the National Enquirer and that's probably one of the nicer comparisons I've seen people give it. This would bring it up to about 4 sources that could be used to show notability, so we're moving in the right direction. The main issue with the article that I would say keeps it from really passing notability guidelines is that the coverage is fairly light when you get down to it. I'm hoping that we'll get more sources as the AfD progresses, but offhand I'm heavily leaning towards redirecting this to Homeschooling_international_status_and_statistics#Sweden for the time being. I've written this up into a basic one paragraph summary for the case and placed it there. The main thing here is that there isn't really a depth of coverage in reliable sources. There's a lot of commentary, but not in places that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. Everything is either a non-usable blog or it's from a primary source such as the HSLDA. I do think that this should be mentioned somewhere, but maybe not in an article on its own. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree with that if it was only a homeschooling issue, but India is interested in the case for quite different reasons. -- 202.124.75.17 (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to [12] Världen Idag is a conservative Christian newspaper, which makes it something of an odd duck in Sweden. Published three days a week, with 8 200 papers a day, it's also somewhat smallish. My daily paper is published seven days a week, with a circulation of 285 700 on weekdays. Le Lapin Vert (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Need more opinions to establish consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After ignoring all of the obviously unreliable sources, I don't see significant and lasting coverage of this event (from the cited sources or my own searches) that would make it notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability being the primary cause. Neutrality is close after, if someone would have wanted to rewrite the article it should have been done by now... Meaningful Username (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet WP:GNG. The India Today article seems like the only independent secondary source, and it states that Domenic is "allegedly being held" (italics mine). Miniapolis 15:29, 18 July 2013 (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.