Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:35, 25 May 2007

< May 22	Deletion review archives: 2007 May	May 24 >

23 May 2007

Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker

This subject is notable. The story of these two boys has been covered internationally, continuously, for 18 years. It was recently the subject of a 60 Minutes segment. It was covered in magazines in the early 1990s. There's an existing article on Kimberly Mays, another child who was switched at birth. The topic itself is of encyclopedic interest because it is so rare. It will likely continue to be of enduring interest. I particularly object to it being speedily deleted without giving me an opportunity to post a hold-on request. --Bookworm857158367 18:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, assertion of notability on the DRV nom is not a valid DRV nomination. Give us evidence of why the deletion was not proper. Corvus cornix 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Urm The article was deleted under A7, which requires "no assertion of notability". Both articles made the following claim of notability "Their story attracted international news coverage.", and one had an additional claim about being one of the better junior players of a particular sport in his country of residence. On the other hand, I'd like someone to look at it from a WP:BLP light, as I can't make up my mind. GRBerry 19:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (tweaked to reflect the merge GRBerry 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Overturn On a procedural basis, I am not happy with taking unilateral action twice. If an admin action is challenged in good faith, someone else should be involved in the follow up. As for BLP concerns regarding the articles, there is nothing detrimental being said about either boy, and their names are already widely known. The parents are also not accused of anything. Trying to keeep names out of WP after they've been broadcast on 60 minutes is a little absurd.DGG 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep deleted per BLP and ethical considerations. A 60 min programmes will not Google on this child's name later in life - we will. Totally encyclopaedic - plus there are no sources from which to write any biography. So we'd have a biography on a living person's life, that ONLY mentioned an unfortunate birth incident - unacceptable. This is a minor people - get a grip.--Doc^g 20:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, the 60min programme is currently the first Google hit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and added these together - the arguments will be identical for both--Doc^g 21:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. If they were kids anymore, this might hold some water, but not with what we know. 18 years of press coverage asserted needs a better hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep deleted. Absolutely not. DRV is not an appropriate venue for BLP deletions. The correct action is to undergo dispute resolution, starting with convincing the deleting admin.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dispute resolution should never be a matter of course. AFD is the place to discuss controversial deletions, not begging and pleading with the admin who speedied the article out of process. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? When did this occur? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This wasn't a BLP deletion when the discussion started; it was a garden variety A7 (see the deletion logs), which would have been a garden variety overturn as clearly incorrect due to explicit claims of notability in the article. BLP was first mentioned by myself after the discussion was here. GRBerry 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. You have to think about the effect that this will have on these kids later in life. If you're going to have an article on the person, you need to write a biography; not a chronicle of some accident at birth. Sean William 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, take to AFD The article made a claim of notability. Cases where that's questionable belong at AFD, not speedied and argued here. We have other articles on similar topics, such as Kimberly Mays. That's not just an Othercrapexists, it's an example of why the consideration of a full afd is necessary and speedy is improper. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, as if it were not blindingly obvious. This is a hospital fuck-up and will be forgotten next time a hospital fucks up. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Come back when mainstream sources have proper substantial biographical articles on these individuals, until then it might (at a pinch) merit a short sentence in the article on the hospital. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion' per Doc, Guy and SwatJester. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per Doc and Guy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This is a very trollish nomination, or a very stupid one, and I don't care which. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, endorse deletion. I may change my opinion if presented with examples of this 18 years of media coverage. -Amarkov moo! 00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion unless the articles can be verifiably expanded beyond "This boy was switched at birth." FCYTravis 01:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the one source linked in the article, they can verifiably be expanded beyond that. I don't yet think they can be encyclopedically expanded beyond that. And given their young age (though they are now 18), I don't think they have any great significance. I think there is an encyclopedic article to be written on the general phenomenon of switched babys and precautions that hospitals take to prevent it... but this content isn't helpful, and it hasn't been started so far as I can see. So I come down to keep deleted (without endorsing the original deletion reasoning) with noplace useful to even redirect. GRBerry 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Doc glasgow's, and JzG's arguments are convincing. I cannot see how they are encyclopedic, but I may change my mind if there are more reliable sources available, as Amarkov has said. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper.

This is a speedy A7, "where the article does not assert the notability of the subject. --SunStar Net ^talk 08:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, valid A7 plus BLP concerns. Kusma (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from deletin' admin - the first time these articles were posted, there was no assertion of notability. The re-post included the line about attracting international attention, which I admit I didn't see when I zapped it again. The author of the articles left comments on my userpage (not my talk page), which I didn't see in between deletions. Adding that line does make a claim of notability (a decidedly weak one, but a claim nonetheless), and thus it should have gone to AFD, strictly speaking. I'm happy to have this overturned and listed there, but I think it would be a waste of time given the BLP concerns addressed. -- Merope 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Apparently asserts notability, and please don't even mention WP:BLP here, because that is not even a factor. Abeg92contribs 17:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that these are biographies of living people is THE factor in the need to keep them deleted.--Doc^g 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Living person" is not a reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no BLP concerns. BLP applies only no poorly sourced negative material; there is nothing here which is in any way negative, and all the material is well-sourced. The attempted deletion is an attempt to extend BLP to include all material that the eds. think to be potentially embarrassing, or that they would prefer not to talk about. Calling any of this BLP is an attempt to greatly extend the accepted meaning, and the reasonable meaning.

There are no notability concerns. The material has been the focus of numerous stories which are cited. This is the basic criterion for N, and the article meets it. Removing this as NN is judging on the basis of IDONTTLIKEIT. Removing it is a total denial of our standards for objective criteria. DGG 00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frog and the Peach (closed)

Canadian Royal Family

New DRV to discuss solely the issue of whether the redirection was correct. I closed the earlier DRV (below) because undeletion had occurred. Subsequent to that time, disputes over the redirect have continued. See the ANI discussion, which has resulted in the redirect being protected and a call for the discussion of the redirect to come back here. Was redirection correct? GRBerry 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is virtually an orphan; the only link to it is in the article Monarchy in Canada. I suggest that an administrator protect redirect to that article in order to prevent it becoming a point-of-view fork of the latter article. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't the case before all the links to it were removed from other articles. About 12 or more used to link to it. --G2bambino 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And since this title is currently redirected there, that is a round trip redirect. I've eliminated it for now, per the MOS. Obviously, if this does not remain a redirect, the link can go back. GRBerry 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn and Delete~~ I think Sam Blanning redircted it to protect the history under GFDL after a merge but I can't see that any merge has actually taken place. In which case I think we should go with his first conclusion and delete. If I'm mistaken about the merge I endorse but suggest that we protect the redirect to prevent edit warring. --Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A merge took place last year. --G2bambino 18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In that case endorse redirect Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as closing admin. There was unbelievable consensus in the AfD to redirect the page to Monarchy in Canada, as all on AN/I stated. Unless people wish to argue that the consensus was wrong, I'm not sure what else there is to say. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The AfD seems to have been perfectly in order. Mackensen (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect, no evidence it's a separate concept, a single user asserting that consensus is wrong is not a good reason to have a fork. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect the article was a total redundancy, redirect was the right choice. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Guy. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 12:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect as merged content that does not merit a separate article per consensus. Nothing obviously out of process here. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fatty (closed)

Talk:Scientific Revolution/archive1 (closed)

List of people by name

The debate was closed as "no consensus" despite a clear consensus to delete. Apart from the sheer amount of delete comments, most keep comments are not particularly well-founded: "it has been kept before" is not grounds for a procedural keep, especially not after half a year; "it can be maintained" and "it works better than the search function" are proven wrong by precedent; and "it helps people find things if they don't know how to spell them" simply isn't true, because you can't find people on a list if you don't know if e.g. their name starts with "Ar", "Aer", "Er" or "Ier", or some variation thereof.

This page and its subpages purport to be a list of all people with articles in Wikipedia. In that, they're hopelessly outdated since, unlike categories, they need manual upkeep. Clearly many people find these lists problematic, outdated and/or unmaintainable. It is therefore not a productive approach to say that "not everybody agrees so let's not do anything". The closing admin declined to respond on his talk page, so I'm listing it here to request overturn and delete. >Radiant< 09:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. The case for deletion was clearly persuasive enough to get a clear consensus, and the arguments on the keep side for maintaining this hopelessly unmaintainable list are not strong enough to justify calling it any other way. The misspelling argument is pointless for an even better reason than the nominator points out: you can use Google to search Wikipedia (which often works far better than the inbuilt engine) and Google is very good at allowing for misspellings. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. There was clearly consensus to abolish the present system; the only non-clear point was how to delete it (i.e. what info should be saved). Kusma (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete but hold on. I think the consensus was clear for the deletion, but there were various concerns expressed, either in form "Keep for now" or "Reform". There should be an additional discussion on how an "exit strategy" should be performed and the information moved & reorganized; some proposals were present at the AfD, but a centralized discussion should be held somewhere WPP:BIO? WP:VP? I'm not sure. Duja► 10:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not overturn. I disagree that the consensus was clear, and agree with the closing administrator. --Alvestrand 11:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus - it was "suspended" when I went to look - I wanted to add my opinion, but I couldn't, so if nothing else this deserves another AFD. Throwing in my opinion, I think this should be moved to userspace for now pending an overhaul - I actually agree with the /theory/ of improving navigation and being an annotated contents page of people auto-generated by a bot, because the search is a disaster, but editing by hand obvious isn't working. I believe it's close which makes for a "no consensus", I also don't believe that the delete argument is compelling enough if a technical solution could be sought, which I believe it can, and most of the delete arguments are "per nom" which consist of saying it's impossible to maintain (which could be worked around via a bot for example), an "indiscriminate list" (if turned into a navigational aide and put into Wikipedia space is moot), and beside those two there was no real compelling argument to delete and this deletion is likely to prevent the creation of future, similar, useful maintainable lists (which is my experience of AFD/DRV in these sorts of situations) -Halo 12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The debate was suspended out of process by an involved user (indeed, I've never seen such suspensions before, I suspect he made that up) but this was quickly undone and the debate ran for the regular amount of time. That seems hardly grounds for a "procedural relist". Note that in theory this list page is a nice idea, but in practice it really doesn't work at all. >Radiant< 12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm just adding my point of view and it stopped me voting, which it did, and forgot about it until my watchlist said it was on DRV. My point was expressly that it's a good idea in theory, while agreeing that the current situation doesn't work and a technical solution should be sought as it could be an extremely useful navigational aide, and the deletion of the page will inevitably prevent a technical replacement from ever happening. I agree with the /page/ and the theory behind it, which few of the people voting delete have actually covered dismissing it as unmaintainable, while not agreeing with the current /technical solution/ behind it's generation. Perhaps some of the people voting delete, particularly those who said "delete per nom" or "delete as unmaintainable" in the original AFD, should address whether they'd be against a similar proposed technical solution? -Halo 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this. Arguments for delete are: hopelessly, irredeemably incomplete, useless for all practical purposes. Arguments for keep are: WP:ILIKEIT. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Consensus on the AfD seemed pretty clearly in favor of deletion, and I'm having a hard time finding any ambiguity to it. As stated by the nom, even on a straight up and down headcount the tally is heavily in favor of deleting the article, and when you factor in the weight of the arguments it tilts even further in that direction. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete As said before, there was a fairly clear consensus. Saving my opinion about the article itself for when/if a new AfD is opened in this DRV fails to get the desired result. JuJube 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. I agree with Radiant's reading of the debate. WP:USEFUL is not a dismissively bad argument, but it's also not very strong, and there's nothing I can see that would reasonably lead to dismissing of delete arguments. In this case, I would count the keep arguments as legitimate arguments, they were just in the (clear) minority here. Mango juice^talk 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete Clear consensus to delete, weight or number of arguments apparently was not taken into account when closing. ^(H) 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus First, it was a reasonable read of the discussion given that many of the arguments on both sides boil down to like it/don't like it. If that test is to be applied, it needs to be applied to both sides of the debate. WP:NOT USEFUL is no more valid than WP:USEFUL. A lot of the more valid discussion is not so much about page deletion, but about policies, tools, and means for indexing and vandal fighting. An XfD is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion. Open a centralized discussion on that issue. If consensus forms, then we can readdress these lists in light of that discussion. GRBerry 17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Radiant makes a strong argument (I once contributed heavily to this list but his argument makes great sense to me), but then, I'm reluctant to make DRV "round 2" of AFD. What do people think about a compromise: moving this to the Wikipedia namespace? --W.marsh 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - Delete arguments strong, keep arguments poor, consensus to delete apparent. Otto4711 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus. Xfd is not a vote. There was no consensus on any points raised by either sides. The discussion mostly consisted of useful vs. not useful, along with a few "waste of resources" and "indiscrimate/incomplete" - I don't see any merit in these arguments. User:Carcharoth had some great ideas, and I think this probably played a large part in the decision to not close the discussion based on a straight vote count. --- RockMFR 20:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus. The arguments on both sides are valid. Consensus is not about majorities or supermajorities or even about who has the stronger arguments. It is about finding a reasonable solution that tries to address the points made by all sides, and that every reasonable person can accept, even if it is not the perfect solution. Yes, an alphabetical index of names of people is a useful navigation aid that belongs in Wikipedia. Yes, this list as currently implemented is largely unmaintainable. But deletion solves nothing. The solution is to come up with a way of making such a list maintainable, whether it is done with the current software through bots, categories and/or templates, or by proposing and implementing changes to the MediaWiki software itself. DHowell 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is it intended that these pages be replaced with an appropriate set of categories, as proposed during the deletion discussions? If not, then what is the point of deleting them which would result in a net loss of information? If so, where is the planning for the replacement categories? —Phil | Talk 06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The consensus to delete in the AfD was clear and overwhelming: 10 keep arguments vs. 26 delete arguments, and the deletion arguments were all quite strong, pointing out glaring flaws in a huge, manually-updated, mostly unknown index such as this. Krimpet (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete Agree completely with all the comments above. I always found the "no consensus" conclusion to be false in nature as every discussion has SOME consensus. Step up the deletions. Bulldog123 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus - There's no procedural erro - the conclusion of no consensus is viable, especially given the completel lack of merited arguments on the delete side (though keep may not be much better). Well within closing Admin's discretion. WilyD 16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Inherently unmaintainable due to size. - Merzbow 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus. There was no consensus to delete. Many people people find it useful and expressed their opinions. A tremendous amount of effort has gone into building and maintaining the list. The mere fact that a large number of people argue that they have no use for it does not trump the fact that other people find it a useful list. That looks like no consensus to me. -- DS1953 ^talk 22:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Clear consensus to delete. WarpstarRider 23:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus - (Disclosure: I am a sometime contributor to LoPbN, so may have a bias.) However, I think I am being fairly objective in maintaining that the closing admin's decision was not a procedural error; it is plausible that he/she, taking into consideration all of the following: a) the recommendations and arguments of the editors requesting keep b) the unique nature of LoPbN compared to the usual types of articles, categories, etc, nominated for deletion c) its past history, including the records of discussion from the previous deletion attempts, and d) the comments by those editors who wished to replace LoPbN with something having equivalent function, but more easily maintainable, requesting to keep LoPbN available as an information source until a replacement could be engineered - all taken together were enough to determine that in this case there was not consensus for a simple and straightforward deletion at this time. -- Lini 03:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus - because there was no consensus. Jheald 08:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:UBX/Suicide (closed)

Crystal Gail Mangum (closed)

Connections Academy (closed)

Enchanted Forest Water Safari

Unnecessary deletion I created this page and found it deleted; I did not enter enough information initially, so I went back and found non-partisan sources and generated detailed information about the topic. I found that the page had been repeatedly deleted by user Mhking, who stated that I did not cite third-party sources. Although my page did cite third-party sources, I cited to Mhking other pages (such as Six Flags Theme Park) that do not cite sources, but were warned rather than deleted. I am from central new york and have no vested interest in Enchanted Forest, but wish to participate in Wikipedia in a meaningful manner. I would like the opportunity to finish the page and provide useful information about this and other topics. Thank you for your time. Jjm10 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why not just re-create the article? -N 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response He has tried to re-create and it sources. It was suggested that he come to request deletion review. Discussion here. Uncle uncle uncle 04:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: on a purely-procedural note, Mhking (talk · contribs) tagged this with {{db-repost}} here: I see no sign of any deletion discussion. Oops much? —Phil | Talk 06:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not much of an oops. The deletion reason, rather than the tagging reason, is what we judge. That version was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, for not having an assertion of notability. You are correct, however, that WP:CSD#G4, which {{db-repost}} is for, does not apply to this article since it hasn't ever had an AFD. GRBerry 13:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, as this is not a re-creation of the original article and hence is not subject to speedy under G4. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to add the comment that I did not fully understand the deletion discussion procedure, so after I found it speedily deleted (the first time), I went back and generated a complete article, with cited references. I believe this was misunderstood as an attempt to subvert the regular procedures; I was instead trying to answer what I thought was a concern about sources. I understand the importance of citing sources and my first attempt at the page was more of a "placeholder" (which I won't do without sources in the future) since I saw the subject did not exist and wanted to create it. Sorry for the confusion about this. Jjm10 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the last person to delete this page (it was completely blank when I did so), and I'm also the one who suggested that Jjm10 bring his case here. Looking back through the history, I was actually impressed with the article...he did a good job writing it, it just lacked sourcing, which could have easily been taken care of with ref or fact tags. I support either restoring the article to it's "long" condition, or restoring the text to a draft page on Jjm10's user page where he can work on it and bring it up to speed; I'd be willing to coach him along in this, if he so desired. Once it was ready, I'd suggest a quick review by a couple of the original deleting admins, and then a launch back into the encyclopedia. I believe that this is a good-faith effort by a new editor who simply has got caught up in the "process" that this place can become. AKRadecki 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Royal Family (closed)

^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006

[Jimbo2-1] Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006

[1]

@@ Line 317: / Line 317: @@
 |}
-====[[:Crystal Gail Mangum]]====
+====[[Crystal Gail Mangum]] (closed)====
+{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
+|-
+! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal;" |
+* '''[[Crystal Gail Mangum]]''' – '''Overturn and redirect.'''  Expand box for full explanation. – [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 12:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC) <!--*-->
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The following is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|-
+| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
+'''Closing explanation:''' Examining all the comments carefully, it is clear that a significant portion of the community does not endorse the unilateral action taken in this case.  Hence, "overturn."  As for the fate of the article, it was surprisingly uncommon for folks to request relisting, so it will not be relisted at this time.  Normally, DRV is for discussing the decision-making process involved in a deletion, not for deciding on the fate of the article.  But there are too many comments on what we should do with the page for them to be ignored because of that, so I feel it's important, given that the debate will not be relisted, to interpret this debate as deciding on the fate of the page.
+Many folks made arguments explicitly in support of redirecting the article; the main arguments were based on [[WP:BLP]] (that the article, though sourced, presents mostly negative information) and that the other article already contains all the content this one did.  Some of the undelete comments endorsed returning the article in full, although many either explicity endorsed the redirect solution or were merely opposing the way the decision was made.  Those in support of full undeletion made two main points: (1) we can try to fix the article / it was okay, and (2) the prior AfD resulted in a keep.  Neither of these is really an argument against redirection; in response to point #2 we have multiple AfDs on articles frequently: [[WP:CCC|consensus can change]].  In fact, I didn't see any good arguments that directly oppose the (2nd) argument for redirection.  (And, though many people said "Endorse deletion," I really don't think they wanted the ''redirect'' to go away, but if I'm wrong, head over to [[WP:RFD]].)  Thus, I have to conclude that the consensus and the weight of the arguments here is in favor of the redirect.
+I hope this closes the book on this particular article, at least for a long while.  [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 12:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
+----
 Another controversial [[WP:BLP]] deletion, heavily contested on the article's talk page. This article had over 30 sources (as can be verified by the Google cache ([http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:3K0UIxgxu5wJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Gail_Mangum+%22crystal+gail+mangum%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us]), and is a central figure in the [[2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal]]. Although her name was confidential during much of the scandal, it has already been published by reliable media sources, including [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265374,00.html Fox News]. Although there were some issues with the article's overall tone, these could have been handled by a number of methods short of deletion. It could have been handled by stubbing the article (and protecting it for a while, if necessary) so that changes could be discussed first on talk and vetted for potential BLP issues. It could have been handled by redirecting to a section in the main scandal article and then protecting that redirect (indeed, this was done briefly today, and I have no idea why it didn't remain that way). Deletion and salting without any discussion was clearly inappropriate. A brief perusal of Google demonstrates the subject's notability, and even if the existing article was problematic, salting is unjustified unless no good article could possibly be written (or redirect placed) at that title. That clearly is not the case here. Also, a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Gail Mangum|previous AFD]] resulted in Keep. [[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<font color="#11A"><b><tt>***&nbsp;Crotalus&nbsp;***</tt></b></font>]] 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
@@ Line 558: / Line 574: @@
 *I am convinced by Uncle G's reasoning and rationale. '''Leave it redirected'''. A separate article on a person whose sole claim to notability is related to the scandal when her role is covered in that article ''already'', is a content fork. I must also say I feel sorry for the subject as well, and I think that the fault for the mess is mostly in the hands of the jurists who ought to be more professional. A big Wikipedia bio as the first hit on Google detailing her involvement is a huge burden to carry. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse deletion/leave as protected redirect''' - hopeless trainwreck of an article being edited in bad faith. Nicely structured attack article/POV fork we're better off without. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] <sup> [[User talk:Moreschi|Talk]]</sup> 12:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
+|-
+| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above is an archived debate of the [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]] of the article above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>''
+|}
 ====[[:Connections Academy]] (closed)====