Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23

23 May 2007

Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker

Robyn Dawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

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)

• 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)
• Urm The article was deleted under A7, which requires "no assertion of notability". The article made the following claim of notability "Their story attracted international news coverage." 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• I've been bold and added these together - the arguments will be identical for both--Doc^g 21:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • How so? When did this occur? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

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

• Endorse deletion per Doc and Guy. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Royal Family

Canadian Royal Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

• 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)
• Endorse closure. The AfD seems to have been perfectly in order. Mackensen (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Endorse redirect the article was a total redundancy, redirect was the right choice. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Do not overturn. I disagree that the consensus was clear, and agree with the closing administrator. --Alvestrand 11:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
• 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 &#149; ^(talk) 15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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. Mangojuice^talk 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Overturn and delete - Delete arguments strong, keep arguments poor, consensus to delete apparent. Otto4711 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

User:UBX/Suicide

User:UBX/Suicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache)

• NOTE that this debate started May 17th.

Cyde deleted this userbox without any sort of discussion or even notification. The matter was brought up on Cyde's talk page but Cyde provided only "common sense" as the criterion for speedy deletion. Other users contested that it was common sense to delete the page. In short, Cyde's deletion was out of process, and the page in question should be undeleted, at which point Cyde or some other user may choose to initiate a proper deletion discussion. The Storm Surfer 05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have reopened this deletion review to allow for further consensus, per this discussion. To see the userbox prior to the deletion, see here. Sr13 09:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, seems like a good decision to me. That userbox is potentially dangerous (for those who cannot view the history, it is a black userbox with an image of a pill bottle and "This user is suicidal"), and it is indeed common sense to delete it. --Coredesat 06:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Suicidal people is just another group of people like liberals/goths/anarchists, we should not give them special treatment, instead the proper response to treat them as people like ourselves. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 15:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Restore userbox for heaven's sake. First, suicide-prevention experts encourage people who experience suicidal thoughts to talk about them - I thought that was common sense. We are not doing any suicidal people a favour by deleting this userbox; all we are doing is reinforcing the stigma of mental health problems. Second, we have many userboxes describing contributors' afflictions, including template:User depression. These things help contributors relate to each other and understand how to talk to each other. BTW I don't like the pill bottle picture on it. Kla'quot 06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  Sticking a userbox on your page is not talking about them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a counseling service, discussion forum etc. --pgk 07:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  Displaying this userbox is talking about them. Deleting the userbox because WP is not a counselling service is like deleting User:Disavian/Userboxes/Nearsighted because WP is not an opthamology clinic. Kla'quot 07:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  Feel free to nominate it for deletion. It is totally useless for building an encyclopedia. I haven't said we should delete it because wikipedia is not a counselling service, I've said it's not a reason to keep it (which is a different thing). Your analogy fails, no one is saying that userbox should not be deleted because it is part of the healing process for those who are myopic --pgk 07:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  Um, no when you said "Wikipedia is not a counselling service" you didn't say whether that was a non-reason to keep or a reason to delete. I think we agree that the userbox's therapeutic benefits to the user are slight. My point is that singling out this userbox for deletion reinforces a stigma. Kla'quot 15:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Neither divisive nor inflammatory. trialsanderrors 07:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• We are en encyclopedia - don't be so bloody stupid.--Doc^g 08:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps there's a more civil way to phrase this. --Ssbohio 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• …or at least a less ambiguous one. Who's being so bloody stupid? Is it me? I've been known to be stupid sometimes. Is it everyone who thinks this deletion should be overturned? Is it everyone who thinks this deletion should be upheld? — The Storm Surfer 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, keep deleted This is an inflammatory userbox, and Wikipedia is not a counselling service.

This userbox has the potential to be misused for nefarious purposes/trolling - remember the incident about the user who apparently threatened suicide on here, then it was revealed to be a hoax?? Keep this deleted. It has WP:BEANS connotations, and that could be particularly nasty. I'm not for or against userboxes per se, but inflammatory userboxes like this show that there are limits as to what is really acceptable for a userbox. I agree with Pgk's comment about it being useless for building an encyclopedia. --SunStar Net ^talk 09:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, divisive template. Obviously. What the fuck, people. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

...just as divisive and inflammatory as a userbox of "this user is an aspie" or "this user is an anarchist". Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• overturn, not divisive or inflammatory, and when is someone going to step in about these deletions? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • FFS. We're making an encyclopedia - and you are defending blatant trolling. Now, I can respect (but disagree) with your ultra-inclusionism as being in your opinion in the best interests of the encyclopedia. But calling for an undeletion here is simply disrupting wikipedia to make a silly point. Stop it and behave.--Doc^g 13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • FFS indeed. I'm not defending blatant trolling at all. Don't ask me to behave, start by pestering the folks who are causing these problems (a hint - it's not the people making the boxes). --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted I fail to see how this userbox could be used in a non-disruptive fashion.Lkinkade 13:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it could be used in a disruptive fashion either. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Not divisive. Not inflammatory. Actually helpful for building the encyclopedia. I was recently reminded that my first visit to RfA was in this discussion, where an admin who "wasn't behaving rationally" (self-description) one day and had stopped using the tools asked if the community trusted them to resume use of the tools. Had we known they were in emotional trouble, we probably could have done a better job helping and minimizing damage done to the encyclopedia. So this userbox is useful for the encyclopedia. GRBerry 13:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Retract the bolded opinion and first two sentences based on AuburnPilot's opinion below. The remainder of the comment stands as a comment, reserving the right to opine after I figure how to balance the value versus the poor intent. GRBerry 16:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted. Sure, not divisive or inflammatory, but an appropriate case of WP:IAR. Give me a freaken break. On top of everything else , for all I know we could be liable - and certainly liable for bad publicity - if a person posted this, we didn't do anything, and the person was then found floating belly-up in the tank. Herostratus 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

When can we treat suicidal people not as special people, but just as people like ourselves? Why can't you view them just as you view everyone else? I find this moral panic disconcerting. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. Okay, I wouldn't really mind this going to TFD instead, but this userbox is a really bad idea. This userbox is disruptive: it's a cry for help and will be an unwelcome distraction, not to mention that Wikipedia is not the place for suicidal people to get help. Mangojuice^talk 14:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Wikipedia is not therapy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No one says Wikipedia is a therapy. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Should have gone through TfD, but it's a disruptive userbox insofar as the drama associated with people intervening (or not) when users announce that they want to kill themselves disrupts our work on the encyclopedia. Sandstein 15:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any instance or potential for this userbox to be disruptive in any way. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn to TfD Process is important, so undelete. Out-of-process actions, unless entirely uncontroversial, are bad for the project. By their nature, they are not transparent, and they tend to sow confusion, especially among inexperienced editors. If nothing else, actions like this support the contention that an admin has traded mop & bucket for sword & shield. Untested consensus is no consensus to act. If the feeling against this template is that strong, templates for deletion should rapidly arrive at the same conclusion that Cyde did. --Ssbohio 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How is it controversial to delete a suicidal userbox? Has Wikipedia really fallen this low?! --Cyde Weys 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • By the number of vociferous arguments on both sides, it seems clear to me that it is controversial. — The Storm Surfer 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Cyde, StormSurfer has a point. If the deletion was entirely uncontroversial it wouldn't be at deletion review. The fact that anyone took the time to locate and delete this userbox can be used as evidence of how low Wikipedia has fallen. The existence (or not) of this (or almost any) userbox pales in importance next to the improvement that could be made to encyclopedia articles. On a (hopefully) humorous grammatical note, wouldn't a suicidal userbox be prone to deleting itself? --Ssbohio 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Process is irrelevant, this is transparently plain silly. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't believe administrators say things like "Process is irrelevant." — The Storm Surfer 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and stop wasting our time. Where in the hell has common sense gotten to these days anyway? --Cyde Weys 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This troubles me on a couple of bases. First, this isn't an "us & them" kind of thing. We're all (presumably) here to produce an encyclopedia. Second, the act of disagreeing over this deletion is not, in itself, a departure from common sense. People of good conscience and the best intentions can & do disagree. It's easy to see that your deletion was an attempt to boldly improve the project; We just disagree on the method & its effect. --Ssbohio 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - While this probably did not qualify for WP:CSD#T1, it is a waste of effort to overturn to TfD because this is clearly not constructive to the project and likely to be disruptive. —dgies^t_c 17:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm glad everyone thinks their own opinion is trivially correct, but GRBerry at least suggested that it is useful for the encyclopedia. — The Storm Surfer 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This was a good deletion.--MONGO 17:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• A comment I've said this before, and I'll say it again just for clarity:

This is an inflammatory userbox, and Wikipedia is not a counselling service. This userbox has the potential to be misused for nefarious purposes/trolling - remember the incident about the user who apparently threatened suicide on here, then it was revealed to be a hoax?? Keep this deleted. It has WP:BEANS connotations, and that could be particularly nasty. I'm not for or against userboxes per se, but inflammatory userboxes like this show that there are limits as to what is really acceptable for a userbox. I agree with Pgk's comment about it being useless for building an encyclopedia.

— User:SunStar Net

This comment is controversial, I realize that, but this one does have problems, in a moral, legal and publicity sense. To undelete it would be a very bad idea. --SunStar Net ^talk 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, a no-brainer. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; it's ridiculous to insist that process be followed in an obvious case where rules should be ignored to improve Wikipedia. Krimpet (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What Ignore All Rules says is: If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. In this case, following the rules would ensure that consensus exists for the deletion, but would not prevent improving or maintaining the project. --Ssbohio 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who made the userbox, and I just want to clear something up: I did not make it to troll, disrupt, seek any sort of help, or for attention. I made it only because it is true. I cooled down since Cyde's cold and apathetic attitude on the matter, but I see that Wikipedia, nor society, is not ready to accept suicide, for whatever reason. I don't see how it's disruptive, as I was probably the only one who was ever going to use it, and my userpage isn't exactly the most popular, but that doesn't matter now. I support it's undeletion, but it seems Wikipedia's users really have a stigma for it: so be it. Make any snide comment about this as you like: I will not respond either way. Let those who argue that Wikipedia is not a place for such things know that it was merely a little fact about myself, nothing more important than the fact that I like spaghetti. And let ignorance remain bliss. Just wanted to say something before it gets deleted. -Eridani 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. If this were undeleted, would there be liability problems if users were to use this and subsequently not receive counseling? --Alan Au 21:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a person's free choice whether to commit suicide or not. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me your law degree as basis for your assertion? This is a serious real life issue; it isn't something any amateur can just make up answers to. --Cyde Weys 12:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether there would be liability. I do know that no-one here is qualified to say whether there would be liability or not. And I know we don't need the uncertainty. --138.38.251.193 13:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't take an attorney to know that a third-party bystander is not liable for failing to stop a suicide. For there to be liability, there must be a legal duty to act. What goes on here isn't about credentials. Not having a J.D. or a D. Div. doesn't invalidate the information offered. --Ssbohio 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong overturn sorry for foul language here, but seriously, wtf? This userbox not only should be kept, but it's also a very good one. We have userboxes that express the user's identity, like we have userboxes to indicate the user being Republican, Democrat, libertarian, goth, emo, geek, depressed, aspie, why we can't indicate the user is suicidal? I've seen now admins like Cyde trying to wage a war on teenagers, basically. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you caught me. I'm waging a war against teenagers. Uh-huh. You teenagers need to get over yourselves; the world is not out to get you. --Cyde Weys 12:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • We knew you had it in for userboxes, but teenagers too? How about puppies? (I'm kidding) This isn't the angst- & drama-ridden discussion that some of these comments (not speaking strictly of Cyde's) would indicate. It's definitely not a clear-cut and uncontroversial deletion, so it should go through the process. --Ssbohio 17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm still on the fence on this one and don't like userboxes in general, but there is a difference between "This user is suicidal," on the one hand, and "This user is about to commit suicide" or "This user advocates suicide" on the other. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - If you have suicidal problems, go see a psychiatrist. Wikipedia's not your cry room.--WaltCip 01:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you have the problem of being a Democrat, go to a psych ward...I'm a Democrat and I use Wikipedia as a cry room...what kind of absurd logic is that? What's the difference between being suicidal and being conservative/liberal/anarchist? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Being suicidal can be used as a tool for disruption; being a Democrat isn't ("omg i hate u all im gonna go democratic" isn't quite a threat.) This isn't a userbox supporting a specific stance, such as "I support the right to end one's life," this is one saying "I'm suicidal." For people who are legitimately suicidal, Wikipedia is not MySpace. For trolls and people unable to handle disputes, this has a high potential for disruption. (Of course, people could do that without the userbox, but there's no need to have it around as bait.) Phony Saint 02:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion for obvious reasons. We don't need stuff like this here. Wikipedia is not group therapy. --BigDT 02:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The userbox is not for therapy either. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 15:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE I have created a less offensive box in User:Wooyi/sdissues, please take a look and see if that's ok. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  How about "This user sometimes has suicidal thoughts."? It would be more in line with the other mental health userboxes. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any userbox indicating the user could commit suicide would be acceptable. What would you do if you were in a dispute with someone who stated he/she was suicidal? Phony Saint 18:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but we do need a compromise here to get things done. We can't build an encyclopedia if people around all have different sorts of grievances. Let's treat suicidal people just like regular human beings, as Democrats and Republicans, as punks and geeks. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 19:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - clearly inappropriate userbox to me. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list, the wide variety of contradictory strongly-held opinions here make one thing clear: this is not a clear-cut case! It is clearly disturbing—I find it disturbing—but disturbing is not exactly the same as divisive or inflammatory. I'm not entirely sure what to make of this one, but this is quickly turning into an XfD debate, and DRV is not the place for XfD, so I think we should run a proper XfD debate to get a wider audience. Xtifr _tälk 03:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • T1 (divisive and inflammatory) applies only to templates. This was in userspace and that criterion is not applicable. This deletion was an IAR/Bold deletion, and, in my view, one that absolutely needed to be made. The last thing we need is parents blaming Wikipedia because some kid put this UBX on their page and nobody intervened, or, worse, that someone from Wikipedia pushed the kid over the edge. --BigDT 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion I was very surprised to see anything about helping potential suicides on wikipedia. I think we should remember this is just an encyclopedia. Anything that happens outside can't be fully its responsibility. The problem must have already been fuming. --Tellerman
• Oh, for God's sake. Extreme monkey endorse deletion. When process becomes more important than content, then Wikipedia is lost. Corvus cornix 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The userbox itself is not part of the encyclopedic content, so there is no direct conflict between process and content. In order of (subjective) priority: product, policy, and process. --Ssbohio 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Overturn If somebody has this userbox on their userpage or somewhere else, then somebody can talk to them away from Wikipedia, and get them some help, or encourage them to do so. If you want to delete it, at least put it through AfD, and do it right.--CJ King 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Don't be silly I'm surprised to see people like Cyde and JzG taking IAR justification for granted on their action to delete the box. Of course their motivation is intolerance, is bigotry, against suicidal people. Why can't we just treat them as regular human beings? We treat goths, gays, anarchists, and Republicans like ordinary people, why can't we do the same to suicidal people? In another hand, self-identified suicidal people can be very helpful for Wikipedia, just as anarchist have an expertise in anarchism-related articles, suicidal people should be encouraged to edit suicide-related topics, which is their area of expertise. To build an encyclopedia we need our basic open-mindedness for all human beings, including suicidal ones. Suicidal people is just another group of people, there is nothing to worry about. Everyone act on their free choice. Again, we are here to build an encyclopedia, we need people from different background. We need Democrats as we need Republicans, we need goths as well as punks, we need non-suicidal people as well as suicidal ones. Pretty simple. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Cyde & JzG are pretty clearly acting with good intentions, and deserve the benfit of the doubt. Suicidal ideation isn't a mere lifestyle choice. It's a serious, sometimes fatal, mental illness. That doesn't exclude it from being addressed in userspace. --Ssbohio 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn topic of the userbox aside, proper deletion policy should be followed. JPG-GR 04:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Check WP:PPP and WP:IAR.--WaltCip 13:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You've cited an essay and a policy that doesn't necessary apply in this case. I fail to see how this prevents improving or maintaining WP. JPG-GR 18:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You said this should be taken through proper deletion policy. We're already in the process of deleting it, so relisting to AFD for the sake of policy is unnecessary, if not manipulative.--WaltCip 20:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR only authorizes actions that improve the encyclopedia. Once we are having a discussion about whether something improves the encyclopedia, citing IAR is a circular argument, not a valid argument. IAR also requires that the rules prevent the improvement, not merely that the rules would delay the improvement. Absent a claim that unreasonable results have occurred in MfD for this specific page, IAR isn't relevant. Without holding an MfD, it can't produce unreasonable results. In fact, IAR is almost never relevant to an explanation here. GRBerry 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion If nothing else, the prescribed method was just cruel. No one should be encouraged to experience the awful pain of acute liver failure that accompanies an acetaminophen overdose. If the userbox suggested a proper suicide cocktail, then... nah, still a horrible idea. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has encouraged overdosing...why can't you treat suicidal people just like everyone else, just like Democrats and Republicans, I find this moral panic disconcerting. I've been painstakingly reiterated that suicidal people is just another group of people, like goths/liberals/geeks. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 15:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Suicidals aren't just a different "group" of people along the lines of various political/social affiliations. There's a difference between having a certain opinion on big government vs. small government and wanting to kill yourself. You still don't understand why this is being deleted. It's because claiming to be suicidal is stupid, disruptive, and has liability concerns for Wikipedia if someone has that on their page, nobody steps in to help, and then they end up offing themselves. And stop throwing around phrases that you don't understand like "moral panic". There's no moral panic here. If anyone wants to be so stupid as to kill themselves, let them. You can't catch suicidalism. --Cyde Weys 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Wooyi has confused the term "suicidalist" and "masochist."--WaltCip 17:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I find suicide to be a morally neutral endeavor. Suicidal people don't constitute a clique, they are individuals in the midst of a psychiatric emergency. Further, we have no way of judging whether each use of this template is deliberate trolling, a symptom of some personality disorder, or a real plea for help. In any case you would have amateur therapists popping up to recklessly attempt to reason with the user, others to fan the flames and try to involve every official agency they could contact, and yet more users that become personally invested out of empathy or some vague sense of responsibility. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. So, um, lets avoid that. If an editor expresses any wish to commit suicide, politely refer him/her to a mental health professional and discourage any attempt to seek intervention through Wikipedia channels. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point and Cyde's. However, still, IMHO, suicidal people are not "individuals in the midst of a psychiatric emergency". They are a group, a "subculture" if you like to use that term. It is connected to a desire, i.e. the desire to die, as many groups do have a desire to do something, like stoners have the desire to smoke marijuana, bookworms have a desire to read, plain simple. What we need to do is to treat them as ordinary people, without prejudice or patronizing attitude. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that suicidal individuals are not in the midst of a psychiatric emergency, then I don't think we have anything more to discuss. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(unindented) Well, I can understand why people are so afraid of seeing people "suicidal" because of the life/death issue. However, a "desire" to die is different from the action of suicide. Many have been suicidal, having the desire to die, but never actually do it. It's the same logic that if a person has sadist desires but never actually beat/torture/kill anyone, no law enforcement would go after him. Being "suicidal" and commit suicide killing yourself is two different issues. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 19:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I know, we don't have a group at my high school that proudly call themselves the "suicidals" (and if we did, 9/10ths of them would have been admitted to a mental health ward by now.) Wooyi, use a bit of common sense - by your logic, there are subcultures out there of arsonists, thieves, murderers, and terrorists. Should we include userboxes for them too? I'm a bit nervous about the idea of having a userbox with a text that reads "This user identifies himself as a terrorist" next to a stereotypical picture of Osama Bin Laden.--WaltCip 19:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Many have been suicidal, having the desire to die, but never actually do it." Because he or she hasn't DONE IT YET. There are three stages: wanting to commit suicide, committing suicide, and then having committed suicide. There is no "I want to commit suicide, but I haven't yet, maybe I will, but I won't, or shouldn't, but I really want to."--WaltCip 19:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"I want to commit suicide, but I haven't yet, maybe I will, but I won't, or shouldn't, but I really want to." That's exactly the case many people experience. Take an analogy, when myself get really stressed out, I may have a desire to smoke a cigarette, but I know smoking is not ok for minors and is bad for health, so I don't do it despite the desire. People contemplate about death, sometimes wanting it, yet realize the legal/moral obligation not to kill yourself notwithstanding the desire to do it. That's the essence of being "suicidal". Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Restore for heaven's sake. Wikipedia is NOT a censor. OK, it IS supposed to be a "serious" project, but if people can have "This user likes donuts" then why not this userbox? Please be mature and at least give sensitive issues like this a proper forum before deletion.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 21:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong endorse deletion. This userbox, trumpeting as it does the self-destructive tendencies of anyone who might use it, is patently unacceptable and harmful to the mission of the encyclopedia. Any userbox in this category should be considered "deletable on sight" by any admin. Cyde made exactly the right call. Nandesuka 13:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• • I read your rationale as not liking the content. The encyclopedia will soldier on whether someone's userpage has a small box on it or not. Only noncontroversial "targets" should be deletable on sight. Wherever you come down on this deletion, it's certainly not uncontroversial. --Ssbohio 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, good call. Kusma (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Why was this relisted? It looks like a pretty compelling consensus in favor of endorsing the deletion. --BigDT 12:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It was reopened by the originally closing admin. The discussion that led him to do this appears to be at User talk:Ssbohio#Deletion of suicide userbox. GRBerry 13:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse this deletion. It was a good call by Cyde. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Tony, there seems to be a controversy over whether the deletion should have occurred unilaterally. If the deletion is controversial, then how is it appropriate not to use the process intended for controversial deletions? --Ssbohio 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I tend to the view that more controversial deletions are best handled by knowledgeable, trusted administrators, than the kind of fuss typically generated by MFD. Having said that, I don't see any reason why deleting a blatantly unsuitable page from template space should generate justifiable controversy at all. --Tony Sidaway 17:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • There's a couple of places where we differ, Tony. First, I see consensus-building processes as the way to decide contentious issues. In contentious decisions, the few should not substitute their judgment for that of the many, lest we run the risk of mops & buckets being traded in for swords & shields. The fuss of MfD is how consensus comes about on contested deletions. Second, you take as read that the page is blatantly unsuitable. Whether the page is, in fact, blatantly unsuitable is one of the questions the community is trying to answer. That you or I believe one way or another is not, in itself, evidence in either direction. Third, you describe this as a deletion from template space. In fact, this page exist(ed) as a user subpage. To my understanding, T1 wouldn't apply. --Ssbohio 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
        • There does seem to be general agreement that this template was blatantly unsuitable. it is in the nature of controversial issues that, in the current climate, a deletion discussion is unlikely to reveal, or develop, consensus. This is why we rely heavily on administrator discretion--most of our page deletions are completely unilateral cases, largely unsupervised. We just trust the administrators to use their judgement. --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse: we've had a big fuss over a hidden comment on a user page about suicide on ANI before, so a userbox about suicide is a Bad Idea™, and more trouble than it's worth. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 16:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, foolish to assume that this wouldn't create problems somewhere down the line. Riana ⁂ 16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Let's all remember why the creator said s/he created the box: "if for no other reason to piss off self-righteous admins like Cyde". Inflammatory and divisive? You bet. - auburnpilot talk 16:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Oh right then. In that case it's a straightforward T1. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per T1 and per WP:POINT.--WaltCip 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In fact, this is a userbox hosted from a user subpage, rather than from Template: space. T1 doesn't seem applicable, since this isn't in the Template: namespace. --Ssbohio 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. While I am sympathetic toward those with mental problems, they should be seeing a professional, not asking for help here. Regardless of its intent, this would indeed turn out to be divisive, inflammatory, and disruptive. (I would likely think differently of a userbox which simply stated a view, such as "This user believes that human beings have a right to end their own lives", but that's not what we're dealing with here.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reasonable assumption that this userbox is going to be nearly inflammatory and divisive. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 20:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Gail Mangum

Crystal Gail Mangum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

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 ([3]), 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 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 previous AFD resulted in Keep. *** Crotalus *** 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Note to all Some commentary has been moved to the talk page. It will need to be courtesy blanked later. Please do not say anything else that will need to be courtesy blanked. GRBerry 13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, wow. Undelete and fix. There was a good version to go back to at one point, even if that ends up being the one kept at AfD a year ago. If you want it deleted, AfD's down the hall. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete Heavily covered by the media, clearly notable, this should've been sent to AFD. — MichaelLinnear 04:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. Whether we like it or not, there are sources that exist to write about her. I don't see any urgent BLP concerns that warrant deletion. --- RockMFR 04:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Although, it obviously should be left up to editorial judgment (read: not speedy deletion) whether to merge/redirect to the main article. The sort of details in the article are the kind that nobody will care about in 5 years (or now, for that matter). --- RockMFR 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unsalt, redirect and protect. - Her name is in the first sentence of 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, for crying out loud. AfD is fine too. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete - *** Crotalus ***, Thank You. I am surprised by the heavy hand wielded by two editors who had not (to the best of my knowledge) been interested or edited at the two articles before today. I uploaded an appropriate image of the false accuser (Crystal Gail Mangum) a couple times, which was deleted each time with no record of who did the deletion or why. This move does not fit in with WP policy, AFAIK. Did those two editors act in good faith, or should they be called on the carpet for their actions? Duke53 | ^Talk 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• The image was apparently deleted for lack of a fair use rationale. The article was deleted for reasons that are unclear to me; the existing state of the article had some problems, but these could have been handled by one of the two other methods I described above. A full deletion and salting was not appropriate. *** Crotalus *** 04:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• There was discussion and a defense of the fair use rationale of this same exact image within the last two weeks and it was decided then to keep the image. What has changed since then? Duke53 | ^Talk 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Does she really need her own article? No, not really, but that's an issue for AFD. Since her name has already been made public by the media, that's not an issue for us, so overturn and list at AFD. Considering that I have been edit conflicted by four people wanting this overturned, we may even want to consider a speedy close as a clearly out of process deletion. --BigDT 04:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• David Gerard had it as a protected redirect, which I think was about right. It should be unsalted and replaced by a protected redirect. The article about the affair has all the relevant information, and the article about the person had become an attack piece. Deleting under biographies of living persons was correct in this case. The history must not be undeleted. --Tony Sidaway 04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As stated in the nomination, I have no objection to either redirecting to a section of the main scandal article, or deleting the history and protecting a new stub that can then be further discussed on talk with a careful eye to BLP issues. But having a redlink there is clearly wrong. *** Crotalus *** 04:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

    There may be an argument for a protected redlink. I'd like to hear why it was deleted. I was the person who made the redirect, which I thought was about right. --Tony Sidaway 04:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete and protect. Review it for tone, and DISCUSS changes. Remember that 'balanced' does not mean 'say one good thing for every bad thing'--it means that the article shouldn't be slanted--at least that's what people editing other articles seem to think. Marieblasdell 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. I don't even need to see the article - if it survives an AfD, speedy deletion is never justified'. BLP issues may require a revert back a long time, but not a speedy. Especially since 30 sources is unquestionably not a violation. If people wish to use BLP to mean "any article which could cause any concievable harm to anyone ever", then they either need a consensus to do that, or they need a statement from someone who can dictate policy. Which includes nobody here. -Amarkov moo! 04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Actually the article was pretty rank. --Tony Sidaway 04:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  And...? -Amarkov moo! 04:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  No And. No But, either. It was vile. --Tony Sidaway 05:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Obviously people did not agree with that. I do not understand why the concept that community discussion overrules vague claims of badness is so hard to grasp. -Amarkov moo! 05:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Community discussions do not overrule Biography of living persons. No vague claims, either. It was vile, an attack piece. --Tony Sidaway 05:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Or maybe it was fair and you are simply biased. I noticed your user talk page is filled with complaints that you single-handedly make massive editing changes all over Wikipedia. I fail to see how this works toward consensus. It's my opinion that the article is far too personal to you for you to work on it. Perhaps it would be prudent for you simply to recuse yourself from the entire issue and search Wikipedia for other articles you're not quite so passionate about that you can edit. Regards, Ikilled007 06:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Be bold. My massive edits have a habit of sticking, despite the fact that I don't edit war. Seems to suggest that I've got a good eye for what will work on wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Tony, earlier today you stated that you had never read WP:BLP "I haven't read our biographies of living persons policy, I just follow commonsense"[4], now you're citing it? Uncle uncle uncle 05:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Absolutely. Any questions? --Tony Sidaway 05:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Yep! - Did you read the policy this afternoon, or do you just guess at what it says? Uncle uncle uncle 05:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Nope, still haven't read it, no intention to. Yes, I just guess what it says. Seems to work quite well. --Tony Sidaway 06:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  If the community discussion arrives at the decision that it does not violate BLP, there is no issue of overruling to consider. You realize that your arguments are beginning to look like "The community can't overrule my decisions on if an article violates policy"? -Amarkov moo! 05:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Community discussion alone does not determine whether an article violates Biography of living persons. --Tony Sidaway 05:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Even accepting that ridiculous statement for the sake of argument, a handful of admins alone don't determine if an article violates BLP either. -Amarkov moo! 05:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Actually they do. At the end of this discussion an admin is going to have a look and see if the article violated Biography of living persons. It can't just be undeleted willy-nilly. --Tony Sidaway 05:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Um, no, the admin will evaluate the consensus on if it violated BLP, not just impose whatever they happen to think. It can't be kept deleted willy-nilly either. -Amarkov moo! 05:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  That's wishful thinking. Consensus does not govern Biographies of living persons. --Tony Sidaway 05:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Are there any admins following this exchange? Is this attitude in any way at all appropriate? I think this warrants some looking into. Perhaps some of Tony Sidaway's other edits need further examination. He clearly doesn't think that Wikipedia policies apply to him. Again, I ask, is this a proper attitude? Ikilled007 06:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Could you explain this further? I'm sure most clueful administrators understand why David protected the redirect. He was implementing Wikipedia policy, so it's hard to argue that he thinks it doesn't apply to him. My own involvement was limited to a single bold edit, quite in keeping with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway 15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete - the problems can be fixed. 24.252.101.35 05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  ::"Actually the article was pretty rank". And ..., the method used to bury it was equally as 'rank'. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Not really. Routine delete and salt. The damage to persons caused by such attack articles merits this. --Tony Sidaway 05:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you're aware of the height of interest in this story, Tony. I don't know how much of it got across the pond, but there is really no way that a Wikipedia entry could do any harm in this case - she's famously notorious, without question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  And the media fallout is still continuing to this day. — MichaelLinnear 05:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Heightened public interest does not justify the construction of attack articles about private individuals. --Tony Sidaway 05:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Well, it wasn't always an attack article, and she's not a private individual anymore. You can't simply shout BLP without a little oomph behind it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  I reviewed it, David Gerard reviewed it, and presumably so did the admin who deleted it. That's oomph enough. She's still a private individual. --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Hmmm, the DRV is saying different though. — MichaelLinnear 05:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Really? Not that I've noticed. --Tony Sidaway 05:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Is this sort of behavior really routine? If so, what's the point of anyone working on Wikipedia in good faith? Marieblasdell 05:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  It's easy to have your work remain on Wikipedia. Just don't write attack pieces. --Tony Sidaway 05:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Uh, I'll hope that you didn't mean that the way it sounds. It comes across to me as a nasty insult toward my good-faith, though minor, attempts to improve the article. Marieblasdell 05:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  No it's intended to reassure you that this case does not impinge on the general Wikipedia editor. --Tony Sidaway 05:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think what some people are missing here is that just about everything relevant to this woman's notability is already in 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal. The article about the woman herself was just an excuse for muckraking into her none-too-salubrious past. Not a suitable subject for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 05:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  What has made her less notable than she was a year ago, when the vote was to not delete the article? Marieblasdell 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone has argued that the woman herself isn't notable. The issue is that the article was vile. --Tony Sidaway 06:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  You keep saying that the article is vile, rank. Since when is the Wikipedia editing rule that there must be 'nothing that would bring the blush of shame to the maiden cheek', to quote a typical Victorian editor. I may have overlooked your edits in the last week, where you tried to delete the inappropriate sections? Marieblasdell 06:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  When I say it was rank, and vile, I mean that it was a muckraking hatchet job. There is a very storng policy against that kind of article on Wikipedia. The policy is known as Biographies of living persons. --Tony Sidaway 06:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Which you say you have never read? :)Duke53 | ^Talk 06:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Written policy is greatly overrated. It does not rule Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  There is an article about Virginia Tech massacre and then an article about the person who caused the mess, Seung-Hui Cho. This scandal and then the woman who made false accussations is no different and should have both articles. SakotGrimshine 12:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Bad analogy, given the "L" part of "BLP". Tarc 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Some editors actually feel that BLP applies to all biographies - WP:AN#WP:BLP_and_the_deceased. They do however, fail to see that the vast majority of new information enters Wikipedia unsourced. And that by speedily deleting unsourced information, they're not just getting rid of bad information entering Wikipedia, but pretty much all information. - hahnchen 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Undelete. There was absolutely no justification to delete it without any form of discussion. I will agree that there may have been issues with some of the details, but she is absolutely a public figure at this point, and while the facts of the case reflect poorly upon her, they are still facts. The article was extensively sourced with reliable sources, and the information that appears to be upsetting you the most is the information used by the defense lawyers to deprecate her honesty, which is highly relevant under the circumstances. FWIW, the extent of my edits on that page were limited to reverting a pair of particularly persistent vandals, so I really have no personal stake in this issue. Horologium talk - contrib 05:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  You just shot your case in the foot by admitting that the article was not balanced. --Tony Sidaway 06:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Not at all. I'd hope that the proper response for an unbalanced article would be editing, not deletion. If we delete any article that has 'issues with some of the details', which was what he 'admitted to', there wouldn't be much content in Wikipedia. Marieblasdell 06:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, I'd like to see why it was deleted. I think the redirect was okay. However deletion is a good temporary option. Recall also that just about everything we know about this person that is relevant and encyclopedic is already in the main article about the scandal. --Tony Sidaway 06:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  One of the reasons given for deleting it, over on the talk page, was that it was extensively sourced! Also, that it had positive material in it--a reference to her 3.0 GPA. I agree that her GPA isn't something important, but I'm sure it was added in an attempt to provide positive balancing information. Marieblasdell 05:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, the article was ridiculously heavily sourced. This isn't unusual in the case of attack articles. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight. --Tony Sidaway 06:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  (more comments at talk)

  Would the editor who wrote the above: "more comments at talk" mind pointing out where, and which 'talk' it was moved to? I can't find it anywhere; I'm starting to believe that the comments were simply deleted, which I feel is a 'no-no'. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  They're here: [5].

Not terribly relevant. The way, the truth, and the light 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. Out of control editors unilaterally took it upon themselves to forcefeed their Point of View on Wikipedia. The notion that Crystal Gail Mangum does not warrant a biographical article is so absurd that it can only come from a mendacious reviewer. It's obvious that Wikipedia is the new frontline of ideological warfare and it's disgusting that editors can't work toward consensus. The article's redirecting was a heinous act of bad faith. Ikilled007 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would like to hear from the two admins involved in this decision (Tony Sidaway and David Gerard) precisely what was the problem with the article. Not "violates BLP' or "Violates undue weight". I am asking for objections to specific phrases or sections, so that those who feel that this article is valid understand the rationale for a speedy delete. As I noted on the talk page for the article, Monica Lewinsky and Monica Coghlan were also people who were tangentially involved in a single notable issue; I will be a bit provacative and mention QZ, who was similarly unwittingly involved, and was also the subject of an alleged BLP vio. And Tony, please don't misrepresent what I said. I said there was issues with some of the details (such as the GPA, which was irrelevant; the whole college enrollment thing was irrelevant), but that doesn't mean I said the article was unbalanced, and as I noted earlier, the portions that you probably dislike the most are the ones that are most relevant to the case. Horologium talk - contrib 06:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently only one of the guys you mentioned above is an admin ... from what I am understanding there was also a second (unnamed) admin involved in deleting and burying the article, etc. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be User:David Gerard who has been busily nuking everything related to this article. Photos, previous history...Both have been working seemingly in tandem on this since the whole thing erupted. Horologium talk - contrib 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that somebody mentioned ("I reviewed it, David Gerard reviewed it, and presumably so did the admin who deleted it") another admin (as yet not named) as being involved in the feeding frenzy, not just the two guys previously mentioned. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the log (at the top of this discussion), it appears that User:Zsinj was the one who deleted it. Horologium talk - contrib 07:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

All i did (or so I thought) was cleaning up the history of the page by deleting all revision except for the one which contained the protectedpage template. Zsinj^Talk 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Would this not be solved by redirecting the article to 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal? >Radiant< 07:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  It was a redirect, but it's been contested, and User:David Gerard nuked the article and salted it, with no discussion permitted, please. Horologium talk - contrib 07:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  As noted in the nomination, the above would be an acceptable solution to me. (I can't, of course, speak for the other commenters.) Another possibility is reducing the article to a stub and then protecting it, and discussing changes on the talk page to avoid BLP issues. This has been done before with other articles, I think. *** Crotalus *** 07:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  I could live with a stub being expanded into a full article through consensus. What happened here was not that. Horologium talk - contrib 07:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete - Get the history back, maybe switch it to a redirect. The application of BLP is a fucking joke around here, we'll be blanking articles on criminals next because we're giving the crime "undue weight", and deleting them for "deceny" reasons because they're fat. We're a fucking encyclopedia. - hahnchen 07:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• BLP beats all the "votes" possible on DRV. This was established recently by Jeff's previouis exciting arbitration case and is about to be established in the next one - David Gerard 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Please explain to me why neither protecting a redirect, nor protecting a stub and then carefully discussing additions on the talk page, would have met the requirements of BLP. Why is an ugly redlink needed? Furthermore, the discussion on both the last AFD and this DRV clearly calls the BLP allegations into question. This is why I wanted to draw the line earlier than this — if this keeps up, pretty soon we'll have nothing on Wikipedia but hagiographies. *** Crotalus *** 13:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  "BLP" is not a magic word that can be used to justify out-of-process deletions and protections. You have to discuss, allow other users to discuss and explain how the article was so drastically in violation of WP:BLP that this action was necessary. Prolog 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  You have to first demonstrate that this is a BLP violation. You must then demonstrate that there's no non-BLP-violation available. And so on and so forth. You can't just scream "BLP! BLP!" and have it be done with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  It doesn't work like that. We've grown up a bit. Attack articles are speediable anyway. --Tony Sidaway 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  No, it does work like that. Thiswould be an excellent time to read WP:BLP, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  I predict two things: firstly, sooner rather than later the interpretation of the biography of living persons policy will be clarified by the arbitration committee; secondly, you will not like it one little bit. --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Without looking at this one yet, I simply note that a claim of WP:BLP is not a self validating claim. To stand, it needs to be supported by specific facts about the article and its prior versions; the criteria being set out within WP:BLP. Are those criteria met? GRBerry 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. The article survived Afd by strong consensus. The proper forums for changes, deletion etc. in this case are WP:AFD and Talk:Crystal Gail Mangum. Looking at the page histories and the logs, this whole mess seems to be a WP:POINT violation involving two or three users. Despite how good their intentions might be, this is simply disruptive. Prolog 09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (also known as WP:POINT) refers to someone making an edit that he knows to be damaging in order to illustrate the potentially damaging effect of a suggested line of action or of actions performed under an existing policy. It doesn't apply to good faith actions performed by Wikipedians in order to improve the encyclopedia. A good faith removal under Biographies of living persons is, furthermore, calculated to reduce disruption, so it's hard to argue that it's more disruptive than maintaining unencyclopedic content on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Controversial bold actions in controversial articles usually lead to drama. There were over 700 revisions to revert to, and that fact combined with the edit button and the talk page would have produced a much more appropriate result. Prolog 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Not at all. The article on the scandal has all relevant encyclopedic information about the person. I'd like to see a protected redirect here. --Tony Sidaway 17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Keep, merge, redirect, delete – that's for the community to discuss. Redirecting and then protecting would be inappropriate, unless there is a consensus to do so. The editors in the last AFD certainly thought this should have its own article. Prolog 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete. Due to the amount of problems BLP-related articles are experiencing with regard to deletion, undeleting it would allow further discussion which is clearly warranted. BLP is not a magic wand to make not-nice articles disappear. Zsinj^Talk 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete with full restore and reprimand the deleters -- She is not a victim or even alleged victim. She is a victimizer who falsely accused three people of rape. Her false allegations likely were motivated in part from her own racism. There's an article about the guy who kicked in and shot up V-TECH, so there should be an article about her. The real victims were the people she falsely accused. Wikitruth.info has a good version explaining this. SakotGrimshine 12:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Leave it as it is: What we have here is an article including every single bit of information that any media source has managed to dig up about this person, including medical records, grade point average, previous unrelated employment, dates of birth of her children - and this is the cleaned up version. Many of the originating sources used in this article - quotes from the lawyers of the accused, her former employer (whose club is now getting all kinds of free advertising), opinion pieces and so on - are hardly objective and reliable sources, even if they are quoted by others. Everything left after removing the irrelevant personal information and the information from questionable sources is already in the main article. The administrative actions, while bold, were entirely correct and within the requirements of BLP. Risker 12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete Redirect to the incident maybe, but just turning this into a redlink is very misguided. I'll now load IRC so I can hear the snarky comments about me. --W.marsh 14:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete too many sources to qualify for G10.Geni 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Not notable in herself and a hindrance to her future, we are not hand of fate in charge of hanging albatrosses about people's neck. Fred Bauder 14:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete Although it's practically piling on at this point. Other than Tony Sidaway and David Gerard, who seem to think they don't need to answer to anyone but themselves, I think there is consensus that CGM is a proper subject for an article. I looked at the previous version via Google, and it could probably be cut down to 1/2 to 1/3 its previous length by simply eliminating information that is already available in the main article - which is also the same material that I suspect is most objectionable to Sidaway and Gerard. Unlearned hand 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The people who blanked/protected redirected the article might have been trying an IAR-type thing, which they believe would better the project, so people probably shouldn't get annoyed with them. The complete initial lack of an explanation and avoidance of discussion of the issue until badgered into it helps better nothing, though. Voretus 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• undelete the amount of interest and coverage at Wikipedia alone speaks for itself. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - I am unconvinced that there is any persuasive reason to keep this separately from the scandal article. What about her is significant that is not something that would be covered in a well-written article on the scandal? Phil Sandifer 15:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:CSD#G10, pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject. It is abundandtly clear form the content and history of this article and 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal thast both have always exiosted primarily as a vendetta against this individual, pursued zealously by the team and their supporters. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  AFD result was keep, not speedy delete per G10, so the article could have been reverted back to a proper revision, which makes a G10 speedy incorrect. We revert vandalism and delete libelous content, we don't delete articles because they have been the target of such edits. Prolog 15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete: I've read through the entire deleted article and I'm still confused as hell as to how anybody calls this an attack article. I'm also failing to see how this article is in any way a BLP violation. The article is/was properly sourced with reliable sources, and clearly stated only what facts exist. Regardless, it was not a candidate for speedy deletion. This is what AfD is for, people. - auburnpilot talk 15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Well, this article has certainly gone downhill in tone and uphill in sourcing since the AFD in June last year. While my reasons in that AFD for supporting a merge are no longer valid, I still believe that merging or redirecting to the article on the scandal is the best solution. The closing admin should drop the list of sources in the last (non-redirect) deleted version onto the talk page of the scandal article for consideration. Coverage of the scandal should adhere to WP:NPOV. While that will make her look bad, it should be done in the way set out at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Let the facts speak for themselves. GRBerry 15:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe that this is a valid BLP deletion, I believe that it is invalid on the explicit terms of WP:BLP. GRBerry)
• Comment: This really needs to be added to the RfAr about the QZ deletion. This is getting to involve the same issues with many of the same participants. I'd also like to add that the uncivil, combative attitude of the deletionists, especially Tony Sidaway, is not helpful. The way, the truth, and the light 16:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  I apologise if I have been uncivil in this discussion. As far as I'm aware this has not been the case. --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete in the face of the AfD debate, which was hevily in favor of keep, a well sourced article on a person whose name has been made very public should not simply be speedy deleted. Editing down, possibly. If some versions of the article include unsourced or PoV content, reverrt, and possibly selectively delete or oversight such versions. Clearly not a proper speedy delete -- speedy is supposed to be for uncontroversial matters. Not a BLP issue, as BLP does not support deelting well-sourced content. If supported as an IAR action this seems to fall into the category of likely to be controversial actiosn where the use of IAR is unwise and will be reverted. 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DESiegel (talk • contribs).

  Much of the content in the article would be hard to support as well sourced, or even encyclopedic. Much of it was sourced, and heavily so, but that's not the same as saying it's balanced. Remember that our neutral point of view policy is to be taken very seriously, and attack articles, even heavily sourced ones, even articles that have survived a deletion discussion, can still be speediable. --Tony Sidaway 17:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  I think you've made your opinion clear, Tony. You might want to actually read a couple of these policies you keep quoting instead of repeating yourself here over and over again. Unlearned hand 18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Particularly in this case, written policy lags considerably behind application. See for instance the arbitration ruling I cite below, which isn't written up in any policy yet but applies wiki-wide. --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• The closing admin should take a look at this principle adopted by the arbitration committee in November by 6-0. --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  As a former professor of mine was fond of saying, "True, but irrelevant." That policy does not apply here, except in your opinion, not the community's. By deliberately choosing to spit in the face of the community, this whole drama was created. If proper procedure had been followed, any problems with the article could have been fixed, and we wouldn't be dragged through all this crap. Unlearned hand 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  The principle behind the Rachel Marsden case refers to an entirely different concept. The Rachel Marsden article may have been a hack job, but it is possible to write a balanced article reflecting various media/commentary views on her. If the media and public portrayal of this girl was almost entirely negative, then that is how we, as an encyclopedia would present her. Do we need sympathisers and prison penpals to write a glowing paragraph on Clayton Waagner? - hahnchen 18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  I reserve judgement on the comparison as I have never seen the old Rachel Marsden article. The way, the truth, and the light 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted as relevant bits are already in the scandal article. Going by this entry on Public Figures, I would conclude that this individual still qualifies as a private figure, despite the notoriety of this case. Therefore, following BLP and Jimbo's own words "We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.", I feel this article should be deleted, and careful consideration to sources and comments used in 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal should be used to ensure no violations of BLP occur there, either. --InkSplotch 18:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  How do you figure? From Public Figure: "A person accused of a high profile crime may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established on this basis." If Evans, Seligmann, and Finnerty can involuntarily become public figures because of Mangum's allegations, it follows to reason that she becomes a public figure for her involvement in the case (which, of course, was eventually revealed as a hoax). Ms. Mangum is unquestionably a public figure, at least under American law. Unlearned hand 18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say unquestionably...I question it. But even if she does qualify as a "limited public figure," that applies to her participation in the Duke scandal (duly covered in the scandal article) and not to her past or her private life. It may have benefited her prosecution to release such information to the press, but that doesn't mean such a topic is suitable for Wikipedia. --InkSplotch 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Are you an attorney? BLP, essentially, is to keep Wikipedia from getting sued. CGM is a public figure (not a limited public figure), and there's nothing in the article that was deleted that would cause Wikipedia any legal liability (since it was all properly sourced). That being said, there was a lot in the article that could easily be culled, but given that she is a notable public figure, there is some relevant information about her that does not belong in the main article. If anything, her own article should be more sympathetic than the main article, because there's not much of anything to say about her in that context that can be anything but negative, unfortunately. Unlearned hand 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Not me, how about you? I understand the Wikimedia Foundation is in need of new legal counsel. That being said, I disagree with you on several points, and you haven't said anything to change my mind. I don't believe she's a public figure, I don't believe BLP is, essentially, "to keep Wikipedia from getting sued", and most of all, I believe in the essence of BLP that this article was properly deleted and should remain that way. And as this discussion continues to grow, it looks like I'm not alone in that view. Thank you for responding to my comment, but I don't think we're making any progress changing each other's minds. --InkSplotch 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, I am. And while I'm not giving legal advice, etc etc etc, I see no problem with the article. I wasn't aware WP was looking for new counsel. Interesting. Unlearned hand 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  In any case, Wikipedia does not exclude non-public figures. The way, the truth, and the light 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does provide for a greater presumption of privacy for non-public figures, which I feel applies here. Even as a "limited public figure", I feel adequate coverage is provided in the Duke scandal article, and currently an article on her just runs afoul of BLP. --InkSplotch 20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete, deletion is not the only solution to a bad article. Surprise, you can edit them too. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. It looks like a clear case to me. This subject is clearly notable and the article was completely sourced and presented no legal issues. It does not look like an 'attack page' to me, and if it is, it could be rewritten using consensus as any other article is. This person is notable enough that a person coming to Wikipedia would expect to find something and a redlink is not really acceptable.
• In addition, given the controversial nature of this case, there is a strong appearance that any deletion was made in bad faith. I am not accusing anything - but many people may think of it as censorship. The way, the truth, and the light 19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, people's opinions on notability do not trump BLP. Corvus cornix 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete, this has got to stop. There is plenty of source material available for an article on this. If the article was bad, stub and semiprotect, don't just hit the big red button. BLP prohibits negative unsourced material about living persons, and I am 100% behind that. But it does not prohibit negative sourced material. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • However, an almost or completely negative article, even if sourced, runs foul of BLP. That's always worth remembering. Mackensen (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't recall seeing that, necessarily, Mackensen. We have an article on John Lee Malvo, one of the Washington snipers. What if Jeffrey Dahmer were still alive? There's not too much that's good to say about him, so would we simply not have the article? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Bizarrely enough, favorable information is being used as 'proof' that the article is unbalanced. (Her GPA. ) Marieblasdell 21:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, I cited it as evidence that the article was excessively detailed for the subject matter. As I said at the time, even Drew Barrymore's GPA isn't in her article. It's utterly irrelevant to the reason why Mangum is famous, as are the numbers and ages of her children. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
          • That could of course be said of many detailed biography articles here. It's hardly persuasive. The way, the truth, and the light 23:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete There is no BLP violation; the material is so widely public that having it in WP will not make the problem worse, nor will removing it help. If the name had not been widely disclosed I would of course have supported the immediate removal of the article DGG 19:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please heed these proscriptions at WP:BLP:

1. Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.
2. Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability.
3. the rule of thumb should be "do no harm".

4. Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

   — Jimbo Wales

Corvus cornix 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with every one of those principles, Corvus. But let's go through them.

1. Regard to subject's privacy: Using information which was already published in reputable sources which are nationally or internationally available does not violate a subject's privacy. The information is, in this case, already a matter of wide public knowledge.
2. Relevant to notability: The subject is notable due to involvement in this case.
3. Do no harm: Again, this matter is already a permanent one of public record. We're not bringing out information nobody knew, we're summarizing information that's already been widely publicized.
4. No tabloid journalism: Again, we're not bringing out some sensationalistic fact that very few people were aware of. We're summarizing existing source material, which was already widely available and widely read.

• Again, I fully agree with the principles of BLP. But it is a remedy which must be applied carefully. Sometimes, negative things regarding living people do bear mention. Sometimes, a person becomes notable for doing something bad, or for something bad which happens to them. It's not our job to make value judgments here. It is our job to make sure that any negative information about a living person is well-sourced, that undue weight is not given to negatives, etc. But when something is mostly negative, it's not undue weight to reflect that. That's due weight. The articles we have should be accurate and balanced. But they should not necessarily be nice or pleasant. Sometimes, we've got to cover some pretty unpleasant topics. When we can cover that in a neutral, well-sourced manner, we should do that. Even if someone doesn't like it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  The problem with this article was that it didn't just cover what she was notable for (which is all covered in the article on the scandal anyway) but also contained a lot of muckraking about her past, apparently the result of research by the defense attorneys--who in any case could hardly be regarded as reliable sources in this instance. --Tony Sidaway 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • " ... the result of research by the defense attorneys--who in any case could hardly be regarded as reliable sources in this instance." Well, the official report by North Carolina's Attorney General (Mr. Cooper) pretty much confirmed everything that the defense attorneys had been claiming all along; are we not to believe the official report and its findings? Duke53 | ^Talk 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  The reliability of sources is something that can be dealt with without deleting the article. I don't think there were any such problems myself; also, major, respectable media outlets should be taken as reliable in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. The way, the truth, and the light 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  That's basically just not true. Pretty much everything (if not everything) was sourced to a mainstream media source. At one point court documents were the only place that her name was printed, but of course that's no longer the case. It's considered proper to call her by name everywhere except on Wikipedia, it seems. Unlearned hand 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  If muck dug up gets published in a newspaper, that doesn't stop it being muck, nor does it make it reliable or balanced simply because it has been repeated by a secondary source. --Tony Sidaway 21:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Nor does your singular opinion that it's all "muck" mean anything more than that's your opinion. Unlearned hand 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Hardly singular. administrators have access to the deleted material and I don't think many of them are thinking, "hmmm, seems balanced enough, and it's all encyclopedic." Far from it. --Tony Sidaway 22:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Consensus seems to be going against you. Unlearned hand 22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So the defense attorneys dug up dirt and released it to the press. How is it our obligation to "report" it? Why does this woman need an article, when everything that needs to be said about her is already in the rape case article? If she had not been involved in this case, ther would have been no biography whatsoever. Leave it as a redirect, it's pure sensationalism to report dirt about a private individual. And that is exactly what she is. Corvus cornix 20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

She's not a private individual. See Public figure. Unlearned hand 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to agree with the proposition that she's a private individual to agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of hosting attack pieces and muckraking. --Tony Sidaway 22:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Those that disagree with you would not characterize it as an attack page. The way, the truth, and the light 23:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, that constitutes their bone of contention. The facts are pretty plain, though, and are available to administrators. --Tony Sidaway 00:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And this administrator disagrees with you. AfD is the place to decide this, not amongst a cabal. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

• Endorse deletion per WP:BLP - it appears the relevant material is already in 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal and, looking at the deleted article, it clearly had major issues at the time of its departure from stage left. Orderinchaos 22:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• redirect, obviously. We have an article on the scandal, and the only reason anyone knows her name is that event. Why would this be controversial? Friday (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  The redirect was just deleted again (with an improper edit summary). Anyway, many of us think she should have her own article, just like Monica Lewinsky who's also known only for a scandal. The way, the truth, and the light 23:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. A lot of these "endorse deletion" arguments are based on the idea that community consensus does not determine what is a BLP violation. That's a somewhat reasonable position to hold. But that does not mean that administrators who like to speedy delete things out of process determine what is a BLP violation, either. -23:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  That's right, community consensus isn't that much use in determining what is a Biography of living persons violation. The facts are much more important. In the context of Wikipedia, it means that an administrator can summarily delete an article that is a violation of that policy. Administrators always have discretion over deletion. Their decisions can be appealed but not simply on the basis that they didn't cross some t or dot some i. The wellbeaing of Wikipedia comes first. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  I fully agree that undeleting BLP violations just so we can say process was followed is stupid. But I don't just dispute that this article was deleted through the proper channels, I dispute that it was actually a BLP violation. -Amarkov moo! 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  The most relevant section of WP:BLP is WP:NPF. There was a pile of irrelevant stuff in this article; if that was pared down, and the shaky sources (e.g., any sources quoting the lawyers for the accused, in particular) were removed, everything that was left was already in the main article. The event is notable, none of the individuals involved are - neither the accused nor the accuser. Risker 00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Enchanted Forest Water Safari

Enchanted Forest Water Safari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

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)

• Comment why not just re-create the article? -N 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Response He has tried to re-create and it sources. It was suggested that he come to request deletion review. Discussion here [6] Uncle uncle uncle 04:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)