Talk:Goldman child abduction case

Sorry, but this case has been dominating Brazilian news for a while now. It was handled by the countries supreme court and high level government officials were involved in diplomatic discussions with US officialls. There are hundreds of sources, the article needs to be expanded and sourced not deleted. 189.105.77.223 (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I endorse the removal of the PROD. Because the prior article was deleted, it's not possible to compare this stub to it to see if they contain substantially the same content. However, the AfD referred to ended with deletion of Sean Goldman based on the policies WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Taking each of these in turn:

WP:BLP1E: This policy argues against an article on the boy himself, but not about the case. In fact, that policy calls for converting or merging such articles to articles about the event, such as this one.

WP:NOT#NEWS: This policy argues against articles that are "routine news reporting." This case, however, rose to being an international incident. Congress introduced H.R. 2702, legislation to suspend Brazil's Generalized System of Preferences trading benefits ([1]); the case was discussed on the House floor ([2]); and the U.S. Secretary of State treated it as a diplomatic issue of Brazil's obligations under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ([3]). This is not "routine news reporting."

WP:NOT#SOAPBOX: I don't know what the original article's content was that would trigger a soapbox issue, but it's certainly not present in the present article. TJRC (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

This article lacks a neutral point of view. There are other opinions regarding the merits of this case, the circumstances and the law. The case was notably motivated by religious differences between the families and it was also resolved through of the use of political extortion rather than on the merits of the case or the child's best interest. The article fails to adequately present these and other issues or to balance the point of view by presenting dissenting opinions or the other side of the case. --deBohun (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Two points, procedurally and substantively. First, procedurally, the PROD has been removed, and under WP:PROD, it can't be proposed for deletion again via PROD. So this is a done deal, and no amount of commentary changes that. It can still be deleted, but only via WP:AfD. If you still feel strongly that it should be deleted, you can go that route. Second, substantively, POV is not a ground for deletion, it's a ground for cleanup. So jump in and clean it up if you feel it needs it. I will say, at present it doesn't seem very POV to me; it's just including facts that have been reported. But again, if you have sources with additional facts, go ahead and include them with appropriate sourcing. TJRC (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

As someone with a deep interest in IPCA related issues I followed the Goldman case very closely. Religion never played any substantive role whatsoever and there is no credible reference to support such nonsense. Likewise claims of political extortion, failing to follow the merits of the case or the child's best interest are almost equally unfounded (though it's hard to top the religion claim in terms of baseless manifestations.) Presenting all sides of a story are important as long as the sides have merit -- or, at the very least in the context of Wikipedia, credible references.--Cybermud (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply