Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Kach

Tanya Kach

Tanya Kach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Procedural note: This article was deleted by an admin as a WP:BLP/WP:DIGNITY violation, and this has been questioned at DRV. I have noticed that debates on this kind of thing at DRV tend to get distracted, and that the debate being here would keep the debate on the key issue: whether this article should remain or whether it should be deleted. I've chosen to run an experiment in this case based on the process I proposed at #WP:DIGNITY deletions. The article will remain deleted during the debate: the DRV statement (which I've copied) provides enough information for the debate to take place on whether the topic is appropriate, which is the only point that needs to be settled. I ask that this debate not be closed on procedural grounds. Thanks. Mangojuice^talk 14:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Tanya Kach was a kidnapping victim and now the article has been deleted in the recent spate of BLP paranoia (see Talk:Michael_J._Devlin#Bad_move for a response to a particularly stupid application recently). The incredibly tenuous interpretation of WP:NOT-Newspaper is definitely vague enough to not warrant a speedy. I'm absolutely not a fan of how Wikipedia carries News events, favouring subtrivial worthless nothings such as Essjay and Joshua Gardner just because they appeal to the techidiots. I've held this view for a long time, here's an edit I made around 15 months ago berating Wikipedia's current events.

Yet this case is way more notable and covered in the mainstream press, generating more relevant hits in Google News than either Essjay trivia and Joshua Gardner rubbish. Her case involves various reported twists an turns, her name is widely known in the public sphere. Although the best place for an article on this case may not be in the form of a biography, a biography could make a very efficient catalogue of all the information. Wikipedia is for the reader first, it is an encyclopedia first. There is a chance that readers will come looking for encyclopedic information on this case, we can provide that, and this event being notable, we should provide that.

You can take a look at a snapshot of the speedied article at the Google cache, you may feel it isn't notable, you may feel it is, it could definitely have done with improvement. But what it isn't is an insta-delete with zero but one's input. When I joined Wikipedia and started voting at RFA, Adminship was no big deal, I just don't trust admins to delete anything they want under the new WP:NOT-Newspaper directive without community input. Restore the article, move it if you want, list at AFD if needs be, but speedy it ain't. - hahnchen 11:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the article (which, naturally, should remain deleted as an intrusion on the privacy of a minor child and doesn't warrant a tabloid response) might I comment to your "started voting at RFA". "Voting" doesn't happen on WP about articles per se, each 'pro' and 'con' is taken into account in the final decision but isn't an absolute 'vote'. --AlisonW 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That you actually think the word "vote" is relevant at all in this discussion shows an absolute failure to understand the point being made. Tanya Kach is not a minor. Every major news outlet is not "tabloid". Privacy of a now-public individual does not trump Wikipedia's core goal of being an encyclopedia. Are you one of those who feel that all victims names should be castigated from Wikipedia because of some holier-than-media BLP paranoia? Should Shawn Hornbeck be a redlink instead of a redirect? We're here for the readers, not as some kind of futile information barrier. I've linked this discussion in the DRV nomination - Talk:Michael_J._Devlin#Bad_move, I suggest you read it. Incidentally, RFA is a vote, it has always been a vote, calling it a "discussion" is just a get-out clause so Bureaucrats can be elastic in their own judgments when closing decisions. The fact that in reality its still largely a vote lead to the ridiculous RFC style RFA we saw. I happen to call spades, spades. - hahnchen 17:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Restore as EVENT rather than BIO and cleanup/redirect. After careful consideration of the merits, I believe that this definitely warrants inclusion. While WP:BLP considerations are important, I don't believe this warrants overly negative or defammatory information. I also don't believe that this is a case of WP:RECENTISM -- the story received significant media coverage, and it's highly likely (IMHO) that the story is significant enough that we'll have readers who are hunting encyclopedic content on this story. I have no objection to making this an article about the event, instead of a Biography of the victim, and redirecting Tanya Kach to the incident article. Come to think of it, would Tanya qualify under notability guidelines otherwise? Probably not. /Blaxthos 15:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Restore as event and not a bio. Not the average kidnapping story. The legal case was widely covered in multiple reliable and independent sources, satisfying WP:N. It is a very unusual event for someone to survive such a long captivity, and the case was widely reported. A simple Google search provides all the info anyone could want, so we would not be revealing otherwise secret or even hard-to-obtain info. She was individually non-notable before, during and after the ten year captivity. Since she is 25 years old, she is not a minor (nor could she be if placed in captivity as a tenager and kept there 10 years). Does she have to be the subject of a made-for-TV movie like Steven Stayner for the article to be kept? Edison 17:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Blind AFDs are a really bad idea - If they weren't, we'd do it by default. We should just AFD this article as per usual oder let the DRV run as intended. Only allowing admins to see the article really cuts out the majority of the editorship, and I really do not trust such an insular bunch to make community decisions such as this, it's not what adminship was for. The only BLP concern is the misguided interpretation that Wikipedia is some kind of guardian of privacy standing strong against the ravaging hordes of the press. Wikipedia serves the reader first, always. - hahnchen 17:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Aniother one in a long line to keep.--Lucy-marie 17:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:DIGNITY is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is an essay, and a pretty poor one at that. What the hell is it doing here as a motivation for an AfD? Beside that, the recent WP:BLP multiple farce has nothing to do with defamatory statements, It's about out-of-process deletions based on out-of-policy ramblings. Virtually any article here may now be deleted on a janitor's musing that its content may offend someone. This is literally the end of Wikipedia's consensus-based model. Why should we discuss this? Ask the doorman to take care of it. Stammer 17:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A debate on this forum can't overturn a deletion. I've closed the nomination asking the nominator to use the appropriate forum, but he has decided to let this debate go ahead, and I think that's okay.

If undeleted as a result of a debate here, however, the article will be deleted again. Whatever the result, this innovative attempt at resolution (which I certainly think wasn't such a mad punt as to be disruptive) will be entered into the arbitration on BLP as an example of the community making sincere and determined efforts to overcome shortcomings in deletion policy. --Tony Sidaway 20:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Shortcomings in the deletion policy? The deletion policy works just fine when controversial deletions are submitted to the community before they are deleted, which is what the policy actually says should happen. What is actually happening is we are trying to overcome the shortcomings of admins who disregard the policy, while assuming good faith and not wheel warring. Not an easy task, let me tell you. -N 21:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Kommentar These deletions are really getting out of hand. I can understand deleting the article about the Chinese kid who got his face photoshopped, but this deletion seems needless. Minor, short term events, such as this, might not be for Wikipedia, but if that's the case then lets transwiki it to Wikinews. If this information is encyclopedic, then we should include it, even if it might hurt someone's feelings. This stuff needs to be brought to AFD ahead of time. -- Ned Scott 21:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We can't transwiki to Wikinews, incompatible licenses. Corvus cornix 21:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. -- Ned Scott 22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close as this is a backwards way to approach deletion. Either have the cojones to speedy delete under policy and face DRV, or put the article before the community. I have to say that I consider the deletion of material which is openly covered in a special section of the subject's hometown newspaper is exceptionally ... well, I can't find a polite word for it. (I suppose if I link to it here I'll be sent to ArbCom myself?) --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Mangojuice says it's an experiment, and I don't think it's a bad idea to just see what happens and get some input. Even if nothing is actionable from this discussion (right away, that is), it might help us to understand how we're handling the situation. I see no harm in this. -- Ned Scott 22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and change title I have changed my opinion on articles such as this: I previously often said simply to keep, on the grounds that added public exposure via WP was trivial after widespread press coverage. But considering the way WP and Google are developing, I think we can provide the information without adding dramatically to the page rank by simply not putting the name in the title, and then using it only a few times in the article itself. I still argue that once even a non-adult victim of sex abuse has the name widely publicized, that there is no point in trying to keep the name out altogether--for one thing we can't, because some of the mirrors will retain it, and, for that matter, WP space is searchable. Even if we oversight all mentions and all links, the mirrors can keep it. So reasonable measures are indicated, but not vain attempts to deny what's in the world outside. All or almost all articles on living victims could probably be retitled, and then perhaps we'd have less reason for the continuing fights. I commend Mangojuice on the decision to experiment, because we were getting ourselves progressive deeper into an irresolvable situation. DGG 00:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as there is no reason to deelte. Then (and only then) rework to focus more in the incident (and quite probably change title), as there is reslly not enouigh for a traditional biographical article, unless there are additional sources (which i haven't looked for). DES ^(talk) 00:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a very poosr way to run an Afd, this article should not have been speedy deleted first. Blank the dispaly verion if you feel strongly, that will keep google and other search engines from indexing it. DES ^(talk) 00:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The wiping of the article before any discussion sets a terrible precedent and should be deplored. Nick mallory 01:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Just had a look at the latest version using my admin superpowers, and while it's definitely in need of citations I didn't see anything glaringly wrong with it; the previous version of the article looks like decent raw materials. Furthermore, there definitely is nothing wrong with having an article or redirect at this title even if the contents are completely redone. So the current protected-as-deleted state is unacceptable. Bryan Derksen 06:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Schließen Sie and bring to AfD per normal articles. There is no need for Wikipedia to censor itself of items being discussed in reliable sources. If this would be more appropriate for Wikinews or if it smacks of recentism or systemic bias, then let us see it and decide on that. I think that if editors are uncomfortable having victims' names on Wikipedia, they should be uncomfortable having them in their local newspaper. --Charlene 07:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)