Closing admins remarks: This is a procedural close per the original deleting admin overturning their own decision as incorrect. See this diff and Merope's comments in the debate. Remember before you challenege me on this for being involved, that I am only closing this myself because Merope asked me to. ViridaeTalk00:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Bookworm85715836718:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, assertion of notability on the DRV nom is not a valid DRV nomination. Give us evidence of why the deletion was not proper. Corvus cornix18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Urm The article was deleted under A7, which requires "no assertion of notability". Both articles made the following claim of notability "Their story attracted international news coverage.", and one had an additional claim about being one of the better junior players of a particular sport in his country of residence. On the other hand, I'd like someone to look at it from a WP:BLP light, as I can't make up my mind. GRBerry 19:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (tweaked to reflect the merge GRBerry00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Overturn On a procedural basis, I am not happy with taking unilateral action twice. If an admin action is challenged in good faith, someone else should be involved in the follow up. As for BLP concerns regarding the articles, there is nothing detrimental being said about either boy, and their names are already widely known. The parents are also not accused of anything. Trying to keeep names out of WP after they've been broadcast on 60 minutes is a little absurd.DGG19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep deleted per BLP and ethical considerations. A 60 min programmes will not Google on this child's name later in life - we will. Totally encyclopaedic - plus there are no sources from which to write any biography. So we'd have a biography on a living person's life, that ONLY mentioned an unfortunate birth incident - unacceptable. This is a minor people - get a grip.--Docg20:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list. If they were kids anymore, this might hold some water, but not with what we know. 18 years of press coverage asserted needs a better hearing. --badlydrawnjefftalk21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep deleted. Absolutely not. DRV is not an appropriate venue for BLP deletions. The correct action is to undergo dispute resolution, starting with convincing the deleting admin.⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane.21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution should never be a matter of course. AFD is the place to discuss controversial deletions, not begging and pleading with the admin who speedied the article out of process. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't a BLP deletion when the discussion started; it was a garden variety A7 (see the deletion logs), which would have been a garden variety overturn as clearly incorrect due to explicit claims of notability in the article. BLP was first mentioned by myself after the discussion was here. GRBerry02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. You have to think about the effect that this will have on these kids later in life. If you're going to have an article on the person, you need to write a biography; not a chronicle of some accident at birth. Sean William21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, take to AFD The article made a claim of notability. Cases where that's questionable belong at AFD, not speedied and argued here. We have other articles on similar topics, such as Kimberly Mays. That's not just an Othercrapexists, it's an example of why the consideration of a full afd is necessary and speedy is improper. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, as if it were not blindingly obvious. This is a hospital fuck-up and will be forgotten next time a hospital fucks up. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Come back when mainstream sources have proper substantial biographical articles on these individuals, until then it might (at a pinch) merit a short sentence in the article on the hospital. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No more discussion of this text, that I have struck through, here please. See this edit. The subjects at hand here are the articles, not the editors. Uncle G12:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen, endorse deletion. I may change my opinion if presented with examples of this 18 years of media coverage. -Amarkovmoo!00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the one source linked in the article, they can verifiably be expanded beyond that. I don't yet think they can be encyclopedically expanded beyond that. And given their young age (though they are now 18), I don't think they have any great significance. I think there is an encyclopedic article to be written on the general phenomenon of switched babys and precautions that hospitals take to prevent it... but this content isn't helpful, and it hasn't been started so far as I can see. So I come down to keep deleted (without endorsing the original deletion reasoning) with noplace useful to even redirect. GRBerry02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Doc glasgow's, and JzG's arguments are convincing. I cannot see how they are encyclopedic, but I may change my mind if there are more reliable sources available, as Amarkov has said. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper.
Comment from deletin' admin - the first time these articles were posted, there was no assertion of notability. The re-post included the line about attracting international attention, which I admit I didn't see when I zapped it again. The author of the articles left comments on my userpage (not my talk page), which I didn't see in between deletions. Adding that line does make a claim of notability (a decidedly weak one, but a claim nonetheless), and thus it should have gone to AFD, strictly speaking. I'm happy to have this overturned and listed there, but I think it would be a waste of time given the BLP concerns addressed. -- Merope14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no BLP concerns. BLP applies only no poorly sourced negative material; there is nothing here which is in any way negative, and all the material is well-sourced. The attempted deletion is an attempt to extend BLP to include all material that the eds. think to be potentially embarrassing, or that they would prefer not to talk about. Calling any of this BLP is an attempt to greatly extend the accepted meaning, and the reasonable meaning.
There are no notability concerns. The material has been the focus of numerous stories which are cited. This is the basic criterion for N, and the article meets it. Removing this as NN is judging on the basis of IDONTTLIKEIT. Removing it is a total denial of our standards for objective criteria. DGG00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn "International news coverage" was mentioned in the final revision of both articels, adn is a clear claim of significace, so an A7 deletion is clearly improper. BLP was not cited in the deltion log, and so arguably is not at issue at the moment, but in any cas it is a non-issue. None of the information included in either articel (in the last revision before deletion) is "negative" or "contentious", and it appears that all of it is well-sourced. There is no reason to list at AfD, but if someone wants to nominate for AfD any editor is of course free to do so. DES(talk)16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"BLP was not cited in the deletion log, and so arguably is not at issue at the moment" - WTF? Process wonking at it worst. The content and nature of the article are more relevant to proper consideration that whatever is in a log. These are articles about living people - they are about what happened to children. They affect real people with real lives - and we are not going to have Google for ever list them with long=-forgotton newstories of childhood trauma. These articles and all like them must die whatever heartless process obsessives and irresponsible inclusionists think. We are an encyclopedia. Now stop it.--Docg17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will note that having said that, i proceeded to respond substantively to the (IMO clearly incorrect) claim that BLP issues do mandate deletion here. Note also that the purpose section of this page says "This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content." An encyclopedia is supposed to include significant contetn about what actually happend, whether that distresses living people or not. Now an argumetn can be made that this incident is to minor to be notable, but that sort of argument ought to be made durign an AfD discussion, where everyione can see and work on the articel, can add or challange sources, etc. I am tempted to say "This must live" but I won't -- what I will say is that emotional appeals to avoid harm -- about articles that are not in any obvious way harmful to anyone, and that are well sourced and apparently factually accurate -- are in my view harmful to the project of creating an encyclopedia. And just as DRV is not suppsoed to be a re-run of AfD, neither is it supposed to be a preveiw of AfD. These were delted as makign no claim of notability, which is not true, neither are they unsourced or weakly sourced negative or controversial biographies. therefore they shouldn't ahve been speedy deleted. debate the more general question of notability and inclusion in an AfD, as is or normal method for dealing with such matters. DES(talk)18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My major objection here was and continues to be the way that the administrator immediately deleted it without putting it up for debate. I don't think that either of these articles meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Having read the Biography of Living Persons and notability guidelines, I also don't see any clear reason why these articles deserved to be deleted under those criteria. Nothing derogatory or untrue is said. Both young men have been the subject of news articles by a reputable news organization, which was cited. A claim of notability was made -- arguably in the FIRST version. I think the statement that the boys were switched at birth IS a claim of notability. Certainly, the fact that I added a sentence in the second version saying it had been a subject of international news coverage and that one of the boys is a top-ranked junior badminton player takes away the assertion that no claim of notability was made. Contrary to the comment made by one of the administrators, I am neither stupid nor a troll. I think this topic is of interest and will likely continue to be of interest. Both boys have freely given interviews to the national news media. They're public figures. If the articles are put up for deletion and a majority of people think they should be deleted, fine. However, I continue to think the administrator's actions by speedily deleting them without putting it up for debate were incorrect. --Bookworm85715836719:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has asserted, as far as I can see, that you are stupid or a troll. Even in the hypothetical case that that could be true, we don't decide debates by article creators, but by article subjects and contents. The debate here is whether the original decision to delete is valid. Orderinchaos20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Tony Sidaway's comment above: "This is either a very trollish nomination or a very stupid one." It certainly makes that implication. As for whether the decision to delete the articles was incorrect, I see that Merope above has acknowledged that she deleted both articles without seeing the claim to notability in the second article. Apparently she didn't read the article closely before she speedily deleted it, which I also find troubling. I decided to nominate these articles for a review because I was troubled by those actions. I think the decision should be overturned and the articles should be listed for deletion, which would give people a chance to debate deletion or to improve upon it. Maybe an all-encompassing article on the subject of past switched at birth cases would be best, with a mention of these boys. The AFD process would give someone a chance to make that determination. In my opinion, as someone who has nominated a number of articles for speedy deletion and has read the notability guidelines pretty closely, this was NOT an appropriate use of speedy deletion. --Bookworm85715836720:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I might support a delete at AfD, but I cannot support unilaterals like this. See Crystal Gail Mangum and Little Fatty, both submitted the same day as this, as examples. Horologiumtalk - contrib22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OverturnWP:BLP is NOT a speedy deletion reason. It's only a speedy deletion reason if the article is an unsourced attack piece, which this was not. -N23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If admins deleted nothing but articles that unquestionably met the CSD guidelines, we could have adminbots doing all our work for us, and backlogs at AFD. Sean William00:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I find the administrator's judgment questionable. I have read the guidelines and I do not see clear notability or BLP concerns here. --Bookworm85715836700:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DIGNITY says "While Wikipedia articles may contain negative information about notable persons, no Wikipedia article should exist solely to mock or disparage any person or entity, or to document such mocking or disparagement - unless these actions in and of themselves have become highly notable, and sourced in multiple reputable locations". Again, this article was sourced and there was an assertion of notability, plus this non-policy essay says that only clear A10's can be speedied, which was my original point. Again, defend your actions using OUR POLICIES. My rfa was rejected because I think our free content policies are a bit too strict. That's the standard we hold admins to. OUR POLICIES. Defend yourself using OUR POLICIES and nothing more. -N00:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine a large number of other articles included in this encyclopedia would also qualify for deletion using those criteria, as "basic human dignity" is offended by their inclusion. I reiterate: no negative information is included in this article, nothing untrue is included in this article, the young men and their parents gave interviews to a national news organization on multiple occasions, making them public figures, and it's a topic that is of interest, which seems to make it encyclopedic. Why, again, does the truth violate "human dignity"? In any event, it was originally deleted because the editor stated "no notability was asserted." BLP concerns were not the original reason. If it is taken to AFD, I am sure that any BLP concerns can be taken into consideration there. That would be the proper procedure for considering deletion. That was what I wanted in the first place. Unilateral deletion of articles -- twice -- where notability was asserted and improper use of the speedy deletion policy is my chief concern here. That is only "common sense." --Bookworm85715836700:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and explain to the whoever did the deletion that "no assertion of notability" means what it says, & that you cannot do a speedy under A7 if there is an anything that suports possible notability. DGG 23:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep deleted - obviously unacceptable under WP:BLP, and that the right result was achieved through a speedy does not mean it was the wrong answer. "Overturn on procedural grounds" is a meaningless opinion in this context and demonstrates a lack of understanding well deserving of being ignored - David Gerard23:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn BLP overrides consensus when an article is negative AND unsourced AND about a living person. Without all three, or a valid CSD, it takes consensus to get rid of an article. Vadder00:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and list at afdCSD A7 states "assertion of notability" this article clearly does that and thus is not speedyable. It is also not deletable under BLP, it is sourced, there is no negative coverage. When will you people relise that unilateral action like this simply pisses off the community and causes a shitstorm of complaints. Take it through the proper deletion process and you will get none of the above. ViridaeTalk00:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might I also add that those who are using DRV as an impromptu afd, ie arguing about the conetent of the article not about the policy of the deletion are entirely missing the point of DRV. DRV is not here to argue content - apart from anything, most people can't view it. DRV is here to challenge whether the deletion was correct under policy. CSD A7 (the criteria under which the article was deleted) quite clearly doesn't apply here, there certainly WAS an assertion of notability. CSD A7 does NOT cover "I don't think this warrants an article" or "There is not enough information to warrant an article" it is limited simply to "No assertion of notability". That is quite clearly not the case and for this reason alone the article should have gone through a deletion discussion before being deleted (if that was the consensus of the discussion). The other reason given in this discussion (but not at the time of deletion) is BLP issues, but this quite clearly is not the case under WP:BLP: 1. This article does not give undue weight to negative coverage - hell there is no negative coverage at all in either of the articles as far as I can see. 2. The articles are properly sourced to a reputable news source. In other words, this is a complete miss-application of deletion policy. So to all those that insist on seeing this article deleted - should it be restored (rightfully under deletion policy as I have pointed out), then you have as much opportunity as everyone else to open an afd on the subject and argue your point there. ViridaeTalk01:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, I think A7 can also cover cases where the assertion of notablility is clearly bogus. That isn't the case here, since it is base of genuine news coverage (or so I assume, I can't view the article). Whether that connotes notability is a matter for consensus to decide. The way, the truth, and the light01:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse although I don't like the road we're going down here where this is being called a BLP deletion. A7 ... ok ... but not BLP. We don't want to get to the point where deletion of any article about a living person can be justified in the name of BLP. Being switched at birth is an interesting piece of trivia. It's a news item. It's a daytime TV talk show item. But it's not an encyclopedia article. Our mission is NOT one of cataloging every bit of news that has happened in the history of the English-speaking world. For that reason and that reason alone, I endorse this deletion. I am uncomfortable with calling this a BLP deletion because I feel that is a slippery slope that we are moving towards. --BigDT01:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you endorse the deletion but not the process you essentially are arguing for an overturn and list at afd. DRV is about deletion policy not the content of the article - if you don't like the slipery slope, then throw some sand on it by forcing those who are oiling this slipery slope to go about deletions like this the correct way. ViridaeTalk01:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is obvious disagreement with the deletion - everyone should have a chance to air their views at afd shoudl they wish. Arguing that this is the right result gone about by the wrong methods circumvents that. ViridaeTalk02:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People are airing their views here, and I bet they would say pretty much the same exact thing at AfD. Can't really see the point of repeating this exercise. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because these people aren't notable; the incidents they were involuntarily involved in were (maybe). (Bear in mind that newsworthiness isn't the same thing as notability.) Some of the material in those articles might belong in Wikipedia, but not as a biographical (or really, "biographical") article. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's supposed to be about the process, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt for now. But no, the sources are just as much about them. --badlydrawnjefftalk03:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because doing the right thing, the ethical thing, which in this case is not further degrading these boys future with needless notoriety when they are not in and of themselves notable, trumps process and process wonkery. We must first be ethical. Taking this case to AfD just generates more needless entries in Google's database. That is so blazingly clear to me, and I'm generally inclusionist, that I am not sure what more there is to say. ++Lar: t/c12:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article didn't explain why these two should be notable, and the fact that there is one source on them doesn't change that they aren't notable. I don't know what the "18 years of coverage" in the source refers to, no one has actually pointed to any other sources, and I couldn't find any. Relisting should be avoided unless the closer feels there is no consensus on the article here. This shouldn't be a debate on the merits, but it is, and it's too big of one to ignore all these comments just because the wrong process was followed. Mangojuicetalk03:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list on AFD... assuming the article was based on the 60 Minutes story, I see no reason for BLP concerns, although I do think that a switched baby is non-notable. Someone should pull up articles in Nexis to assert notability. Calwatch
Bookworm amde a comment up there ^ that is worth repeating here "afd gives people time to improve the article (should it need it)" DRV quite obviously doesn't, so a DRV should never be a play out of an afd. ViridaeTalk08:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - obviously, completely valid A7, no assertion of notability in either of them. The swapping-story may be notable but nowhere did it assert that they are. MoreschiTalk09:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per WP:BLP; we will not list for the rest of their lives people who just happened to be noted by tabloids for some incident. David.Monniaux11:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff please STOP harassing people who don't agree with your skewed view of the world. If you can't understand why so many wikipedians find this article objectionable, then frankly I despair of you.--Docg12:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, see all the reasoning above, and use your head (and heart). When you don't like what people are saying - simply saying "no one is discussing this with me" isn't helpful. Bottom line is that these are human beings and we have some dignity and humanity not just process and rules. Even tabloids have journalistic ethics. If you don't get that, if you don't at least understand where we are coming from, then either you are just being bloody-minded, or you have so little human empathy that there is really no point in discussing this with you. Sorry if that seems personal, but you've made it so in your soulless and disruptive crusading.--Docg13:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning above doesn't give any indication as to why this would be a BLP situation, nor does it show why the deletion was proper. My head thus tells me that these articles are not problematic, and we need to approach these neutrally. The only disruptive activity here have been the deletions - call me heartless or soulless, I can accept that since I approach these situations logically and not emotionally, but do not accuse me of disruptive behavior without some damn good evidence. --badlydrawnjefftalk13:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, here's the deal. There is a growing group of people who are coming to the realization that Wikipedia is not always a force for good. In particular, when we record for posterity the minor details of people's lives, they have to live with a Wikipedia article coming up as the first hit on Google for the rest of their natural life. That's not necessarily fair, nor is it necessarily good for the long-term of the encyclopedia. I don't want to be involved with a project whose mission of human knowledge has been so twisted as to require us to document with meticulous detail for all eternity the lives of anyone who ever did something funny, stupid, criminal, minorly newsworthy or got converted into an Interwebs meme. That's not just me - it's a lot of other people, too. In these cases, Wikipedia has the potential to actively harm people by preventing people from ever forgetting something happened. We're prolonging 15 minutes of fame into a theoretically-permanent Wikipedia article. In my, and many others, opinions, that is not a good thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a permanent record of everything any person ever did that got in a newspaper. Either you get on this train of thought, or you're going to be left behind, because this is the direction the encyclopedia will go. End of story. FCYTravis14:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we have a responsibility to present these issues neutrally and fairly. End of story. I will go along with this train of thought if that's where we end up, as I always do, but I will not sit by idly as people attempt to justify it using sketchy or false reasons for doing so, as have been done here. --badlydrawnjeff
And how many more people have to tell you that you have before you start admitting the possibility they are right? Guy (Help!) 18:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that line of reasoning, Jeff, is that ethics isn't really a matter of evidence. It's knowing in your heart what the right thing to do actually is. The closest you can get to evidence is when "50 people tell you" that you're wrong about the ethics of the situation. That doesn't mean you are actually wrong (mobs sometimes lead people astray), but it does mean you need to drop back, stop talking about process and evidence, and do a little soul searching about the issues. I'm not seeing evidence that you've done that, Jeff... just that you're standing on process. ++Lar: t/c22:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing at the big green box in the discussion below, I repeat the principle that not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. Bookworm857158367, in good faith, took the wrong approach, writing about an incident in two separate articles purporting to be individual biographical articles of two people involved in the incident. That's not what we want.
This could have been solved before deletion, without the use of any administrator tools, by simply merging (indeed, smerging) the articles into an article about the actual subject. As GRBerry says above, there is an encyclopaedic article to be written, but addressing that article as two separate articles that are purporting to be biographical articles, when the two individuals are not discussed by sources separately from the case, and are not even discussed by sources separately from each other, is clearly wrong.
The proper encyclopaedic article is babies switched at birth, which discusses this case without separating it into multiple biographical articles, in its proper overall context, without a pretense that it is in any way a biography, and with the necessary weight that should be given to a case that is simply one instance of the phenomenon.
As it was, the articles have been deleted. I suggest that we simply leave these articles deleted, educate editors such as Bookworm857158367 in the better approach to writing about court cases, controversies, crimes, conflicts, and suchlike; and that we drop the matter. An AFD discussion would almost certainly at best have resulted in a merger consensus, given that the articles were exceedingly similar (merely addressing the incident one-sidedly from the perspective of each individual in each article). We now have an article discussing the phenomenon. And in this particular instance, redirects from the abovementioned titles don't seem terribly useful, as GRBerry wrote above. The best thing that we can be doing right now, the best thing for our efforts to be expended upon, is showing editors such as Bookworm857158367 how best to address such subjects, at the point that they create articles; so that we don't get into these situations in the first place.
By the way: The claim of "eighteen years of continuous coverage", which many editors above appear to be accepting without actually checking for themselves, and using as a basis for their own arguments, is false. This incident hit the headlines in 1995 as a court case, when the mothers sued. I can find nothing between then and the recent documentary segment, which is little more than an "18 years on" followup. I strongly recommend, once again, that editors look for sources themselves. It is one of the things that we are supposed to be doing. Uncle G15:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion and for the love of god stop whining about these kinds of articles. They arent encyclopedic. -Mask?16:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some people have commented that the arguments here are exactly like an AfD, so why should we care about it? The important difference is that at AfD, no consensus defaults to 'keep'. So performing an out-of-process deletion and moving the argument here gives their side an advantage. The way, the truth, and the light17:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment the other difference is that at an AfD everyone could see the artices in question, and could search for and add additional referfences, or edit the articels to deal with issues raised, adn we have a better chance to comne to a true consensus. That's why these kinds of issues -- content issues -- should normally be raised at an AfD, not at DRV. And what is the huge rush? At worst the articles stay around for a few days more. Or do people fear that they won't get a consensus at AfD? DES(talk)18:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The very person who deleted the article asked, way near the top , for it to be sent to AfD instead. Second, the material fills two lines of a very general article, and there is no redirects. How it can be called a suitable replacement I do not know. I do know that there is a case to be made for going by rational discussion, not gut feelings, and " knowing in your heart what the right thing to do actually is." is the most inconsistent of criteria--we all have different hearts and guts, but we should all be able to engage in a sensible discussion, based on the application of what we find to be our common principles, however deep we have to go to get to them. One of mine is basic fairness--another word for this is following process. Following Uncle G, we would simply let him decide on N and have done with it. I think he usually makes reasonable decisions, but that's not the sort of project I thought I joined.
I am not too concerned about this relatively minor issue & I don't think it matters much what happens to the article. I do think it matters what principle we use for making decisions: reason, and consensus arrived at based on reason, or a total reliance on IDONTLIKEIT and ILIKEIT. This is the sort of matter where I am glad we have at least one person willing to stand up and testify, and, although much less eloquent, I am honored to join him. DGG00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
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? GRBerry17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is virtually an orphan; the only link to it is in the article Monarchy in Canada. I suggest that an administrator protect redirect to that article in order to prevent it becoming a point-of-view fork of the latter article. --Tony Sidaway17:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't the case before all the links to it were removed from other articles. About 12 or more used to link to it. --G2bambino18:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And since this title is currently redirected there, that is a round trip redirect. I've eliminated it for now, per the MOS. Obviously, if this does not remain a redirect, the link can go back. GRBerry17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete I think Sam Blanning redircted it to protect the history under GFDL after a merge but I can't see that any merge has actually taken place. In which case I think we should go with his first conclusion and delete. If I'm mistaken about the merge I endorse but suggest that we protect the redirect to prevent edit warring. --SpartazHumbug!17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as closing admin. There was unbelievable consensus in the AfD to redirect the page to Monarchy in Canada, as all on AN/I stated. Unless people wish to argue that the consensus was wrong, I'm not sure what else there is to say. Ryan Postlethwaite19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect, no evidence it's a separate concept, a single user asserting that consensus is wrong is not a good reason to have a fork. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect as merged content that does not merit a separate article per consensus. Nothing obviously out of process here. --Dhartung | Talk06:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Invalid G4...this is not a repost of the deleted article. This new version was sourced and carefully avoided talking about the person involved, instead it was about the meme. Given the controversy surrounding speedy deletions of this article I think overturning and listing at AfD would be appropriate. -N16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is currently a centerpiece of an ongoing ArbCom request that may get accepted. It's still probably worth waiting until that gets cleared up. --badlydrawnjefftalk16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong endorse. No, no, no. There is an RFC currently active about the whole mess, and it's even resulted in a related request for arbitration. Trying to create a new version while the other one is mired in such heated debate and dispute is inappropriate. Wait for a resolution. Arkyan • (talk)16:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my Talk: [1]. Best to wait, this needs to be discussed ina rational manner in the right forum after the dust has settled. This is an extremely ill-advised request. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are named in the arbcom case. And you speedy deleted this. And you closed one of the previous DRVs as "disruptive" to Wikipedia, even though it validly pointed out that an AfD cannot be open for only an hour and hope for consensus to emerge [2]. I'm not sure you are unbiased in this. -N18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This BLP argument is pretty much bullshit, its application is a farce. Wikipedia is not a censored, we don't delete well sourced articles for ridiculous claims of "human decency", who the hell are you to decide what counts as decent? Whether its notable is a different issue, and one that should have been decided on AFD. Are we really going to start deleting articles on criminals because its giving the crime "undue weight", and should the Gerald Ratner article be moved to 1991 Institute of Directors' speech, because of BLP? I remember the fairly trivial Jason Fortuny thing several months back, certain (misguided) editors were claiming that the article shouldn't be at Jason Fortuny because it was giving "the only thing notable he has ever done" undue weight. - hahnchen17:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete: the draft is still in user space, and given that the community has been good so far about letting the QZ deletion rest while we sort out the aftermath, I think it would be best if we waited a while. I agree G4 isn't really the best explanation of why this should be deleted, though. If I had done it, my summary would have been "can we please wait on this until things cool down?" But nitpicking over a reason isn't a good reason to go through an AfD. Mangojuicetalk16:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I advocate smply deferring this debate until other processes have run their course, reserving judgement on the deletion itself. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There weas significant difference in the content, but also significant overlap. i don't think this is technically a G4, but this was probably an unwise action at this moment. Even less of a BLP issue than the prior article, however, and as BLP was the major ground on which the previous article was deleted, this really isn't a proper speedy. On process, weak overturn and undelete but I do wish this had been delayed a bit. DES(talk)16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make a protected redirect to the internet memes article which has information about him. If there is ever more to write about this fellow than the internet meme, which I doubt but would not pre-empt, then a case can be made to re-open the article. He could well go on to become President of China, who knows? --Tony Sidaway17:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful Whether this is a valid G4 depends on whether there is a valid AFD deletion of the other article. I continue to believe that there is no valid AFD deletion of the other article, which invalidates G4 as a basis for deletion. However, creating this article at this time was not helpful. Let it wait until the ArbComm case is over. GRBerry17:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems very sensible. If the creation of this article is contingent on the status of the other, then deferring any decision is a good idea, I agree. --Tony Sidaway17:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion This should have been settled long ago. But until it is, the deletion should stand. (H)17:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion for now, while I disagree that a BLP issue exists here, I think we need to let this settle down. We already saw last night that throwing more fuel on the fire is not a very good idea. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be general agreement that, irrespective of the merits, this application for review was mistimed. Would it be in order to snowball close this case pending events? --Tony Sidaway19:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'd be better off if the request was withdrawn, and then this was closed as request withdrawn for now. Early closes are part of the problem in this mess, and if we have to have another one, I'd rather it be one that nobody is in a position to disagree with. GRBerry20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn without prejudice, due to popular demand. At least on somethings we can come to consensus. :P -N20:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse on practical grounds. I strongly disagree with the decision to delete the original article, but this is not the way to go about changing it. I'm agreeable to the Snowball. DGG19:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
This is a request for assistance to restore access to the archives of this talk page. I don't know how they were lost but as a clue to the administrator who handles this, the article recently was changed from Scientific Revolution to Copernicus Revolution to Copernicus revolution and back to Scientific Revolution.
I'd also appreciate help on creating an archive2 for the articles through February on the present talk page, which is extremely large. Thanks for the help. SteveMcCluskey13:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The debate was closed as "no consensus" despite a clear consensus to delete. Apart from the sheer amount of delete comments, most keep comments are not particularly well-founded: "it has been kept before" is not grounds for a procedural keep, especially not after half a year; "it can be maintained" and "it works better than the search function" are proven wrong by precedent; and "it helps people find things if they don't know how to spell them" simply isn't true, because you can't find people on a list if you don't know if e.g. their name starts with "Ar", "Aer", "Er" or "Ier", or some variation thereof.
This page and its subpages purport to be a list of all people with articles in Wikipedia. In that, they're hopelessly outdated since, unlike categories, they need manual upkeep. Clearly many people find these lists problematic, outdated and/or unmaintainable. It is therefore not a productive approach to say that "not everybody agrees so let's not do anything". The closing admin declined to respond on his talk page, so I'm listing it here to request overturn and delete. >Radiant<09:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The case for deletion was clearly persuasive enough to get a clear consensus, and the arguments on the keep side for maintaining this hopelessly unmaintainable list are not strong enough to justify calling it any other way. The misspelling argument is pointless for an even better reason than the nominator points out: you can use Google to search Wikipedia (which often works far better than the inbuilt engine) and Google is very good at allowing for misspellings. --Sam Blanning(talk)10:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. There was clearly consensus to abolish the present system; the only non-clear point was how to delete it (i.e. what info should be saved). Kusma (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete but hold on. I think the consensus was clear for the deletion, but there were various concerns expressed, either in form "Keep for now" or "Reform". There should be an additional discussion on how an "exit strategy" should be performed and the information moved & reorganized; some proposals were present at the AfD, but a centralized discussion should be held somewhere WPP:BIO? WP:VP? I'm not sure. Duja►10:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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) -Halo12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The debate was suspended out of process by an involved user (indeed, I've never seen such suspensions before, I suspect he made that up) but this was quickly undone and the debate ran for the regular amount of time. That seems hardly grounds for a "procedural relist". Note that in theory this list page is a nice idea, but in practice it really doesn't work at all. >Radiant<12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just adding my point of view and it stopped me voting, which it did, and forgot about it until my watchlist said it was on DRV. My point was expressly that it's a good idea in theory, while agreeing that the current situation doesn't work and a technical solution should be sought as it could be an extremely useful navigational aide, and the deletion of the page will inevitably prevent a technical replacement from ever happening. I agree with the /page/ and the theory behind it, which few of the people voting delete have actually covered dismissing it as unmaintainable, while not agreeing with the current /technical solution/ behind it's generation. Perhaps some of the people voting delete, particularly those who said "delete per nom" or "delete as unmaintainable" in the original AFD, should address whether they'd be against a similar proposed technical solution? -Halo13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this. Arguments for delete are: hopelessly, irredeemably incomplete, useless for all practical purposes. Arguments for keep are: WP:ILIKEIT. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Consensus on the AfD seemed pretty clearly in favor of deletion, and I'm having a hard time finding any ambiguity to it. As stated by the nom, even on a straight up and down headcount the tally is heavily in favor of deleting the article, and when you factor in the weight of the arguments it tilts even further in that direction. Arkyan • (talk)15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete As said before, there was a fairly clear consensus. Saving my opinion about the article itself for when/if a new AfD is opened in this DRV fails to get the desired result. JuJube17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. I agree with Radiant's reading of the debate. WP:USEFUL is not a dismissively bad argument, but it's also not very strong, and there's nothing I can see that would reasonably lead to dismissing of delete arguments. In this case, I would count the keep arguments as legitimate arguments, they were just in the (clear) minority here. Mangojuicetalk17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete Clear consensus to delete, weight or number of arguments apparently was not taken into account when closing. (H)17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus First, it was a reasonable read of the discussion given that many of the arguments on both sides boil down to like it/don't like it. If that test is to be applied, it needs to be applied to both sides of the debate. WP:NOT USEFUL is no more valid than WP:USEFUL. A lot of the more valid discussion is not so much about page deletion, but about policies, tools, and means for indexing and vandal fighting. An XfD is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion. Open a centralized discussion on that issue. If consensus forms, then we can readdress these lists in light of that discussion. GRBerry17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Radiant makes a strong argument (I once contributed heavily to this list but his argument makes great sense to me), but then, I'm reluctant to make DRV "round 2" of AFD. What do people think about a compromise: moving this to the Wikipedia namespace? --W.marsh18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus. Xfd is not a vote. There was no consensus on any points raised by either sides. The discussion mostly consisted of useful vs. not useful, along with a few "waste of resources" and "indiscrimate/incomplete" - I don't see any merit in these arguments. User:Carcharoth had some great ideas, and I think this probably played a large part in the decision to not close the discussion based on a straight vote count. --- RockMFR20:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus. The arguments on both sides are valid. Consensus is not about majorities or supermajorities or even about who has the stronger arguments. It is about finding a reasonable solution that tries to address the points made by all sides, and that every reasonable person can accept, even if it is not the perfect solution. Yes, an alphabetical index of names of people is a useful navigation aid that belongs in Wikipedia. Yes, this list as currently implemented is largely unmaintainable. But deletion solves nothing. The solution is to come up with a way of making such a list maintainable, whether it is done with the current software through bots, categories and/or templates, or by proposing and implementing changes to the MediaWiki software itself. DHowell21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is it intended that these pages be replaced with an appropriate set of categories, as proposed during the deletion discussions? If not, then what is the point of deleting them which would result in a net loss of information? If so, where is the planning for the replacement categories? —Phil | Talk06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. The consensus to delete in the AfD was clear and overwhelming: 10 keep arguments vs. 26 delete arguments, and the deletion arguments were all quite strong, pointing out glaring flaws in a huge, manually-updated, mostly unknown index such as this. Krimpet (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete Agree completely with all the comments above. I always found the "no consensus" conclusion to be false in nature as every discussion has SOME consensus. Step up the deletions. Bulldog12315:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus - There's no procedural erro - the conclusion of no consensus is viable, especially given the completel lack of merited arguments on the delete side (though keep may not be much better). Well within closing Admin's discretion. WilyD16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus. There was no consensus to delete. Many people people find it useful and expressed their opinions. A tremendous amount of effort has gone into building and maintaining the list. The mere fact that a large number of people argue that they have no use for it does not trump the fact that other people find it a useful list. That looks like no consensus to me. -- DS1953talk22:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus - (Disclosure: I am a sometime contributor to LoPbN, so may have a bias.) However, I think I am being fairly objective in maintaining that the closing admin's decision was not a procedural error; it is plausible that he/she, taking into consideration all of the following: a) the recommendations and arguments of the editors requesting keep b) the unique nature of LoPbN compared to the usual types of articles, categories, etc, nominated for deletion c) its past history, including the records of discussion from the previous deletion attempts, and d) the comments by those editors who wished to replace LoPbN with something having equivalent function, but more easily maintainable, requesting to keep LoPbN available as an information source until a replacement could be engineered - all taken together were enough to determine that in this case there was not consensus for a simple and straightforward deletion at this time. -- Lini03:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus - The fact that there are a significant number of people who have stated that they found this list useful, and that numerous people have vouched for the list in the most recent and in previous deletion attempts, disproves the notion of a consensus when it comes to deleting this list. --Slyguy(talk)15:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as no consensus If there ever was an article with a confused debate justifying a conclusion of no consensus, it was this one. DGG 23:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Overturn and delete - talk about an unmaintainable mess. I looked at the MFD and it looks like a pretty good consensus to delete. Then I took a look at the list and looked for a few well-known football coaches - Frank Beamer and Bobby Bowden. Neither was listed. That's not exactly a spectacular sample, but it tells me that the list isn't well-maintained. If a bot could auto-populate the list from categories ... ok ... it might be useful ... but if it isn't going to be maintained, it's a nightmare. It's a potential vanity target and I'm sure nobody has all of the kazillions of pages on their watchlist. --BigDT01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus, agree with closing admin... however, suggest centralized discussion to move forward to Carcharoth's proposal. Am puzzled, incidentally, as to why this was on MfD rather than AfD. -- Visviva09:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Agree with Radiant's reasoning. This is a case where theory is at odds with reality. Sure, it would be nice to have an organized list of all people by name that's magically updated by the Wikifaeries. That's not what we have and it's not reasonable to expect this list will ever be maintainable. As for process concerns, the delete arguments were more compelling and numerous. ChazBeckett12:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus as per DS1953. I'd say that to any individual user of Wikipedia, the vast majority of articles are "useless" because they are far outside their fields of interest or study, and many pages appear "unmaintainable" to the uninitiated, but no one would want to see them deleted because of that. Moreover, I don't yet see any consensus among those who wish to delete it as to how it should be replaced. The list of people by name serves the honourable purpose of an alphabetical index, something you can find in any scholarly book. Personally, I can't think of any replacement. <KF>16:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People does not contain a single name ("Articles in this category should be moved to subcategories where appropriate"), and the subcategories are also maintained manually. Where's the difference? And users like me are interested in people rather than, say, people by revolution. <KF>16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus the notion that there was a clear consensus to delete that article is patently absurd. --JayHenry16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the point. What Nandesuka says is delete it because it is an indiscriminate collection of items of information. However, the List of people by name is not any of the things mentioned in the relevant "policy" (List of Frequently Asked Questions, Memorial, Travel guide, Instruction manual, Internet guide, Textbook or annotated text, Lyrics database, Plot summary, Statistics). As I already tried to point out, it is an index used for cross-referencing and other things, an essential requirement for any written work of non-fiction which aims at being transparent rather than cryptic. As to its alleged unmaintainability, the List is admittedly incomplete. But tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles are; after all this project still is, and will always be, work in progress.
Also, I'm still waiting for someone to suggest an alternative. It would be plain crazy to delete the effort of many years without making it accessible for further use, so what about projectifying it? <KF>20:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no consensus, especially in light of Del votes that should have been left uncounted,
_ _ for merely echoing currently or previously well-answered arguments like "unmaintainable", or
_ _ for contradicting other del args, e.g.: either loading system or duplicating search's function has to be an invalid arg, since these thousandish, well-under-32K main-namespace and templates are insignificant portion of our thousand-times-bigger load for DB-space and article count, and the impact of search on response time (when search isn't shut off to avoid that impact) means we should be doing everything we can to reduce the number of searches -- in light of the high proportion of bio articles (~20%), that would include having search start by looking for keywords that are first words of sortkeys of yesterday's LoPbN, and if there is one, asking "Are you sure this LoPbN page wouldn't do the job?" before starting any search."
(Sorry if making that last point here sounds like seeking another bite at the apple. And my 4 years of making this tool my principal editing focus (which isn't, despite the arguments of a keep voter or three, any argument for a keep result) does probably leave me by far the best prepared to state or counter some arguments. But the highly procedurally defective AfD/MfD in question came at the time that would most handicap me (at any time in those four years) in making those arguments. (I focused my sparsely available on-line time, and much of my think/research compose time -- perhaps foolishly, but that's not the articles' fault -- mostly on the procedural problems, believing that waiting to raise them here would best avoid letting discussants waste their time on a tainted process.) The overwhelm extends to the point where i'm not even sure whether my point-by-point on the nom'g arg is one of the things that is on the page or just in a steno-book awaiting keying and saving.)
If the nom is going to offer here a refinement of an argument made during AfD, i am going to single it out to be countered here. They deprecate a keep arg
it helps people find things if they don't know how to spell them
(IMO probably not quoting an actual version of it), saying
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.
But in fact this does nothing to counter the repeated observation that there are many cases like Hoffman/Hoffmann/Hofman/Hofmann where the alpha list makes possible an eye-ball search much shorter than alternatives. Nor does it acknowledge that even the contrived 4-way confusion cited here is capable of being reduced by the mechanism that's been in use for years on some pages, and probably is on the page or pages with those Hof... surnames: "This name may sound like" [another name] lks. Note that even soundex or automated fuzzy searches could not do as well as such cross referencing, bcz the c-ref'g can be targeted at cases of real names, and even (with enuf effort) at names that actually are misspelled on Web pages. (And, No, that's not fully implemented either, and Yes, it'll take a lot more work to do so, but the question is not whether the pages are ready for prime time (neither is Thai art, which groans for expansion but not deletion), but whether its existence is more burden than an aid to users. The tool doesn't say it's complete, and implies it's not; if it needs to say it on every page (except permanent index-only pages) to avoid being misleading to some readers (not argued let alone demonstrated), the "incomplete" notice can be put on every page simultaneously, with about 5 minutes total for editing and testing.) (Gotta run again, w/o finishing proofreading!) --Jerzy•t21:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:UBX/Suicide – Deletion endorsed. Creator admitted intention to disrupt. If editors choose, they can express their personal issues well enough without the aid of a template, so the arguments about freedom of expression and the health benefits of discussing feelings seem trumped by the arguments in favor of deletion. Listing for a another large discussion would be a more persuasive option, even at the cost of additional disruption, if there appeared to be a good chance that some additional light would come from the extra heat. – William Pietri03:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I, the creator of the box, do no longer contest the deletion. But I did not make it to disrupt, as the above poster writes. Any belief in that is a misunderstanding. Thank you. -Eridani21:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
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 Surfer05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Coredesat06:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. WooyiTalk to me?15:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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'quot06:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking a userbox on your page is not talking about them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a counseling service, discussion forum etc. --pgk07:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 --pgk07:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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'quot15:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
…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 Surfer17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Nettalk09:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Docg13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). --badlydrawnjefftalk13:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. GRBerry16:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Herostratus13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. WooyiTalk to me?15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Mangojuicetalk14:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Sandstein15:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to TfDProcess 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. --Ssbohio15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Ssbohio17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Ssbohio16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. —dgiestc17:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 Nettalk19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Ssbohio16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Eridani21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this were undeleted, would there be liability problems if users were to use this and subsequently not receive counseling? --Alan Au21:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Weys12:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --138.38.251.19313:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Ssbohio16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. WooyiTalk to me?21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Weys12:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Ssbohio17:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? WooyiTalk to me?02:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Saint02:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion for obvious reasons. We don't need stuff like this here. Wikipedia is not group therapy. --BigDT02:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Saint18:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. WooyiTalk to me?19:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Xtifrtälk03:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --BigDT21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 cornix20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 King21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. WooyiTalk to me?01:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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-GR18:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.--WaltCip20:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. GRBerry19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. WooyiTalk to me?15:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Weys16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ˉˉanetode╦╩19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. WooyiTalk to me?19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ˉˉanetode╦╩19:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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. WooyiTalk to me?19:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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.--WaltCip19:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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."--WaltCip19:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"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". WooyiTalk to me?20:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Nandesuka13:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Ssbohio16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? --Ssbohio16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway17:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Ssbohio19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway19:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Ssbohio19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A template in the sense of T1 is any page intended to be transcluded. We don't permit the transclusion of divisive and inflammatory statements. --Tony Sidaway02:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter whatsoever userspace pages are NOT templates, period. Templates are pages in template space, pretty simple to demarcate. No need to confuse us with false information. WooyiTalk to me?02:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.) SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Closing explanation: Examining all the comments carefully, it is clear that a significant portion of the community does not endorse the unilateral action taken in this case. Hence, "overturn." As for the fate of the article, it was surprisingly uncommon for folks to request relisting, so it will not be relisted at this time. Normally, DRV is for discussing the decision-making process involved in a deletion, not for deciding on the fate of the article. But there are too many comments on what we should do with the page for them to be ignored because of that, so I feel it's important, given that the debate will not be relisted, to interpret this debate as deciding on the fate of the page.
Many folks made arguments explicitly in support of redirecting the article; the main arguments were based on WP:BLP (that the article, though sourced, presents mostly negative information) and that the other article already contains all the content this one did. Some of the undelete comments endorsed returning the article in full, although many either explicity endorsed the redirect solution or were merely opposing the way the decision was made. Those in support of full undeletion made two main points: (1) we can try to fix the article / it was okay, and (2) the prior AfD resulted in a keep. Neither of these is really an argument against redirection; in response to point #2 we have multiple AfDs on articles frequently: consensus can change. In fact, I didn't see any good arguments that directly oppose the (2nd) argument for redirection. (And, though many people said "Endorse deletion," I really don't think they wanted the redirect to go away, but if I'm wrong, head over to WP:RFD.) Thus, I have to conclude that the consensus and the weight of the arguments here is in favor of the redirect.
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 ([4]), 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)[reply]
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. GRBerry13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --badlydrawnjefftalk04:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --- RockMFR04:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the undeletion of the history and restoration of the redirect, along with Uncle G's insightful comments below, I've struck my vote. I think we have now achieved the correct result. --- RockMFR16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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). --- RockMFR04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | Talk05:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --BigDT04:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Sidaway04:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Marieblasdell04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Amarkovmoo!04:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Amarkovmoo!05:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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, Ikilled00706:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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"[5], now you're citing it? Uncle uncle uncle05:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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"? -Amarkovmoo!05:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even accepting that ridiculous statement for the sake of argument, a handful of admins alone don't determine if an article violates BLP either. -Amarkovmoo!05:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Amarkovmoo!05:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? Ikilled00706:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway15:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --badlydrawnjefftalk05:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --badlydrawnjefftalk05:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway05:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Marieblasdell05:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway05:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? Marieblasdell06:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. - hahnchen17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Horologiumtalk - contrib05:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Marieblasdell06:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway06:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Marieblasdell05:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Ikilled00706:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Horologiumtalk - contrib06:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ZsinjTalk12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. - hahnchen07:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Gerard07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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. Prolog09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --badlydrawnjefftalk13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? GRBerry13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Prolog09:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Prolog15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway17:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Prolog18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. ZsinjTalk12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. SakotGrimshine12:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Risker12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.marsh14:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Bauder14:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 hand14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Voretus15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sandifer15:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Prolog15:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. - auburnpilottalk15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. GRBerry15:57, 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)[reply]
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 light16:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway17:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 hand18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway18:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 hand18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? - hahnchen18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --InkSplotch18:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 hand18:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --InkSplotch20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 hand21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --InkSplotch22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 hand22:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. --InkSplotch20:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 light19:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as it is true of any biography that its facts are assembled without regard to balance, that biography is a problem for Wikipedia because it does not comform to WP:BLP. The fact that it doesn't persuade you is of no import. --Tony Sidaway00:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 DGG19:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.
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.
the rule of thumb should be "do no harm".
Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.
And I agree with every one of those principles, Corvus. But let's go through them.
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.
Relevant to notability: The subject is notable due to involvement in this case.
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.
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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
" ... 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 | Talk21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 light22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 hand20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway21:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway22:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 cornix20:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway22:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, that constitutes their bone of contention. The facts are pretty plain, though, and are available to administrators. --Tony Sidaway00:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This administrator does too, Tony. If the article was problematic, stub it down to only what's sourced. But do not delete. We're not talking about a completely unsourced negative piece, which may be deleted without question or discussion. We're discussing something for which a lot of source material exists. That requires a discussion, not hitting of a button. And from what I'm seeing here, it appears there's anything but wide agreement with your position. SeraphimbladeTalk to me00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all I want is a redirect. Stubbing down is not necessary. Everything relevant is in the article about the scandal. We don't need the muckraking, in fact we should not have the muckraking at all. --Tony Sidaway00:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Be that as it may, and regardless of the outcome of this way-too-long deleton review, a redirect for now is not harmful in any way I can see. Friday(talk)00:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monica Lewinski became a bit of a minor celebrity, this other woman did not. There are enough proper sources for the Lewinski article. Don't you see a big difference in the two situations? Friday(talk)00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sidaway00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. -Amarkovmoo!00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Risker00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NPF says don't publicize it if other reliable secondary sources haven't. It doesn't say we have to have subjective standards about who's public and censor our content based on that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was specifically thinking of this sentence: "In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. " The number and ages of her children are not relevant to her notability. Her grade point average is not relevant. Her previous employment and education history is not relevant. The names of her prescription drugs are not relevant. The sources are used in such a way to extract only the salacious information, while excluding information that contradicts other edits to the article; one source quotes the manager of the club saying she worked only three nights in March (none before the incident), and another source quotes the manager as saying they had to drag her out of the club, possibly causing her "injuries," a few nights before the incident - but only the "dragging her out" bit is included in the article. That makes the article a NPOV problem as well, I suppose. Risker00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the initial media coverage portrayed her as a "single mother and honor student", the information about her children and education is entirely relevant. The stuff about her medications I would take out. And pretty much everything that is more appropriate for the main article should either be deleted or moved there. You'll be left with a much shorter article, but I think a better one. - Unlearned hand00:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh heavens. Wasn't that back when the newspapers were following the customary practice of not using the name of the accuser? What if they had published her home address and telephone number as well? Wikipedia is not obliged to include information in its articles just because a reliable source used it. Did either her parenthood status or her studentship have anything to do with the incident? That would be a valid reason to include this information, but someone else publishing it first isn't. Risker01:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those facts shaped the initial media coverage of the incident - and still does to this day for some people who just can't let go of the idea that the whole thing never happened. So yes, they are relevant, whereas things like her phone number or home address (or whatever drugs she is taking that don't have anything to do with how apparently drugged-up she was when she showed up to "perform") would not be. - Unlearned hand01:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I agree, but I could be talked into it. (Until you can point me to something the defense lawyers have said that turned out to be untrue, I would contest "sources quoting the lawyers" as "shaky" - the lawyers aren't as free to lie as you seem to think they are, which is one of the reasons Mike Nifong will be disbarred in a few weeks.) However, none of that changes the fact that this deletion was done in a totally improper fashion and in violation of correct procedures. - Unlearned hand00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of the deleted article are available to all administrators. The facts, not a vote misnamed "consensus", determine what is or is not a BLP violation. --Tony Sidaway00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the facts quite clearly show that it isn't. But I guess if you keeping saying that it was often enough, maybe you'll convince someone. Very GordonWatts, actually. - Unlearned hand00:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we need that. I'm aware Tony Sidaway feels strongly his position is correct, and he's entitled to that. But the reason I don't go right over there and undelete is because I'm willing to see the discussion first. I'm quite convinced I'm correct, too. What we do when well-meaning people, who all have good reasons to believe they are correct, disagree, is to have a discussion. What we should not do is simply go take an action which will clearly be controversial and cause more problems than it solves. And I do disagree that "It's a BLP problem!" requires no more than that as a rationale, it doesn't become true through frequent enough repitition. As far as I can see from looking at the deleted article, all negative or potentially controversial content was sourced, and to pretty reliable sources, not blogs or the like. Even if I overlooked some unsourced content, that content should have been removed, not the whole thing. SeraphimbladeTalk to me01:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After thousands of words on this subject, Risker is the only one who apparently supports the deletion of this article who has actually identified specific issues with the article as it was immediately prior to its deletion. We have had admins cite BLP over and over again, without actually reading the damn guideline. We have had people assert that she is a private figure, which is open to dispute. We have had people cite "Undue weight" while focusing on things that are not particularly offensive (such as her schooling and her prior service in the Navy). Thank you, Risker. Now we have something to work with when this article is restored. Horologiumtalk - contrib02:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion without prejudice to later recreation of an article that isn't utter garbage. I've read the deleted article. As Risker says, "the sources are used in such a way to extract only the salacious information, while excluding information that contradicts other edits to the article." As written immediately before the redirect, the article is so poisonous that it is beyond salvaging; we shouldn't even have material of this nature in the article history, frankly. From that perspective, I support deletion. That being said, there is no philosophical probelm with an article on this individual existing. I suggest that if someone wants such an article to exist they create a clean, properly sourced, non-vile version in their userspace and then get opinions from WP:BLP savvy individuals before proposing to move it back into place. Nandesuka10:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you sift through the history, there's certainly a compliant one (assuming that the one deleted wasn't compliant, hardly a given). Perhaps back at the AfD that resulted in a keep. --badlydrawnjefftalk11:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just clarify here? We have an article at 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, which exists largely to put the boot into this person, but it appears to be asserted that we should also have an article on this individual, presumably because the Duke article does not put the boot in firmly enough or something. Is that what people are arguing for? Two articles when there is only one conept, and that documented only dfue to the obsessive interest of the Duke camp? Guy (Help!) 10:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am an administrator, and I agree with David Gerard (edit), Tony Sidaway (edit), Friday (edit), Thebainer (edit), Crotalus horridus, Radiant!, Hahnchen, W.marsh, InkSplotch, Seraphimblade, and Orderinchaos, all of whom think that there should simply be a redirect here. Deletion review isn't the correct venue to decide this. But, conversely, neither is AFD. Redirection is not deletion, and does not involve the use of administrator tools. It's a normal editorial action that any editor, even one without an account, posesses the tools to enact. At this point, it appears that there are a quite a few editors who favour doing that, and several who have actually done it.
The reason that this should be a redirect has actually been articulated by Phil Sandifer and Risker above, and is actually a principle that we should consider elaborating and adopting, because it is one that a lot of editors appear to be progressing towards:
Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. That a person receives a namecheck in a larger article about a subject that involves that person does not automatically warrant a redlink, or a biographical article for that person. We should not present things in a way that the sources do not. If sources for biographical information only cover the person in the context of something else (such as an event or a court case), and are not wholly separable from sources for that something else, then there should not be a biographical article in Wikipedia separate from an article on the something else. Court cases, crimes, conflicts, and controversies, for examples, should be presented as unified articles that involve all sides, not as individual articles, pretending to be biographies, that present each of the sides separately.
There's an unfortunate tendency of many editors to do exactly what this principle proscribes, putting everything into biographies, as exemplified by the recent attempt by quite a few editors to present information about the Virginia Tech shootings as if it were a biography of one of the journalists who reported it. That is wrong, and not what we should be doing here. Several editors have touched upon our Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy. That policy says that we should strictly apply our content policies to biographical content. One of our content policies is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that is the problem at hand here. An article that takes the account of an event, such as the 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal, strips off everything that isn't related to one of the participants in that event, and presents that partial account of the event as a separate purported biography of that individual, is by that very process one-sided. One-sided articles are not neutral. (It can also be argued that since it presents a subject in a context that the sources do not, it is original research, a novel synthesis of data that isn't the way that the sources synthesize and present those data.) As I did at Glasgow Ice Cream Wars, we should present such events in articles that discuss all participants and the entire event/incident/case, not present them piecemeal spread across multiple biographies of the people involved, requiring readers to stitch several one-sided accounts together. The names of the people, being subordinate subjects discussed within the context of the event, should redirect to the article on the event, per Wikipedia:Redirect (incorporating them as name disambiguation list items in disambiguation articles if they would overlap other redirects or articles, per Wikipedia:Disambiguation). We should only break out biographical articles if it is possible to write neutral articles, that are not one-sided, and that actually are biographies of a person's life and works.
Looking at the purported biographical article as written, which is almost wholly a subset of the article on the event, duplicating in large part what the latter says, as both Phil Sandifer and Risker have noted, this principle seems to apply here. There is not a single cited source that discusses this person separately from coverage of the case. (Most of them even have "Duke case" in their titles. Even those few that don't are under a "Duke Lacrosse Controversy" heading or similar. Again, note the similarity to the way that the sources cover the Glasgow Ice Cream Wars case — especially The Scotsman's coverage. The Dartmouth Murders are covered by sources in this way, too.) This should be a redirect, therefore. Several editors have exercised ordinary editorial tools to do this. It wasn't necessary to use the delete button. But I can understand why David Gerard might perhaps have thought that in light of this edit (note the edit summary), removing the prior history would prevent people from reverting on spurious grounds of "vandalism". However, that can equally well be done with a group of editors who are willing to redirect the article and make it stick via use of ordinary editing tools and talk pages. It appears, from the number of editors who want a redirect and who have actually redirected the article, that such a group exists. Uncle G10:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single cited source that discusses this person separately from coverage of the case. (Most of them even have "Duke case" in their titles. Even those few that don't are under a "Duke Lacrosse Controversy" heading or similar. This is misleading. There are several cited sources that are entirely about Ms. Mangum (including a considerable amount of information about her life outside of the context of the lacrosse incident), but they have "Duke Lacrosse" in the title because until very recently the media had a policy of never referring to her by name. So to use the fact that all the sources refer to her in that context is not exactly a valid point. - Unlearned hand16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I borrowed this from the QZ discussion: an article about a person is an attack piece precisely if it violates NPOV. In this case, I don't think that the article did. It wouldn't be possible to be much more neutral based on the sources we can use. A few people have identified minor problems, but nothing that even comes close to necessitating deletion.
Also, this is DRV. This is supposed to be about process, not just about content. There is absolutely no doubt that process was not followed. If this article has such severe problens that deletion is the answer, it should have been listed at AfD - and remember, this article did suffer one AfD, which was an unambiguous keep. If this article is undeleted (i.e. restored to the last full version), it can of course go to AfD immediately.
But WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not typically an argument given much credence there, nor should it be. Given the nature of this article, it is likely that many people on both sides are reacting based on their opinions on racial issues and the Duke rape case rather than on this person and article. That makes it even more important that process be followed to minimize bias and the appearance of bias. The way, the truth, and the light11:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you did not read Uncle G's comments above. It does violate WP:NPOV because it asserts that this is the only thing that has ever been significant to this person, hence WP:NPOV#Undue weight applies. With an astronaut, it is clearly the case that the spaceflights are the isngle most significant thing they are likely to do in their life, but when someone has done nothing but piss off some jocks, they do not deserve to have those jocks victimise them for the rest of their life by means of enforcing a "biography" that consists solely of the times external media mentioned the individual in connection with an event with which they were connected, however intimately. Guy (Help!) 12:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One can read UncleG's comments and find them not to be compelling. I personally see it as a twist of undue weight that isn't legitimate or supported by the community at large. --badlydrawnjefftalk12:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirecting, nothing to write about the person (as opposed to the incident), no useful information is lost by having one instead of two articles about this subject. Kusma (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect. Uncle G's comments are compelling. We've got way too many "biographies" that are slanted presentations of a single event. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uncle G's essay above sounds nice in discrediting sources which talk about a person only in relation to some larger issue, until one follows this argument to its logical conclusion: ignore sources which mention Abraham Lincoln only in relation to the larger issues of railsplitting, or politics, or slavery, or the American Civil War, or assassination. Why, there are hardly any sources left to use in writing about him. Or to a closer parallel to the present issue, a sports coach is only written about in relation to the success of his team. A police detective is only written about in relation to cases he works on, or perhaps to scandals, and there the article is really about the scandal, not the individual. This seem a sophistic way of discounting sources about the role of person x in large newsworthy issue y. Were it not for large newsworth topic y, wwe would likely not have heard of x, so we should not have an article about him. Also, one loses some respect for Wikipedia as a collaborative effort when someone says "you have to abide by my position because of policy WP:BLP but I refuse to read the policy because it must mean whatever I want it to mean, and my opinion counts for infinitely more than anyone elses." Edison14:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, more like completely absurd. Plenty of people have written entire books on Lincoln's life- he's in a vastly different category in terms of the kinds of sources covering him. We let the sources be our guide. Friday(talk)16:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. Myra Hindley is a much better example: she has been covered extensively as a person, including whole biographies, so while no biography of her will exclude the moors murders, equally we know much more about her than just that. This is where the Mangum case falls flat: basically we know next to nothing about her other than in relation to the case. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're ruining your own argument, actually. We know plenty about her outside of relation to the case. The problem is that there's not much good to say. BLP is not a bludgeon to ensure that only happy flowery positive biographies get in Wikipedia, but rather a heavy-handed protection to make sure that articles reflect reality and aren't harmful. --badlydrawnjefftalk16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Observation IIRC, the two editors who started this whole heavy handed process of deleting the Crystal Gail Mangum article (and the appropriate image of her) are both Australian; the editor who quickly closed the review process is also Australian. Perhaps there is some bias involved here because the story was only a HUGE national story here in the U.S.A.; perhaps the Australian media paid little, if any, attention to this hoax. Duke53 | Talk18:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, since this seems open again. The article presents a lot of negative facts because most of the relevant facts about her are negative, not because the article is biased. PS: I think the idea that BLP decisions may only be reviewed by Arbcom is ridiculous, and bears no resemblance to policy. Ken Arromdee21:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that, from an editorial standpoint, this should be a redirect. However, a redirect is not a decision that an editor can make and protect against consensus. I disagree very strongly with the argument that Tony or David can simply cry BLP and unilaterally remove their actions from any normal review process. Although this article was not balanced, I do not think it qualifies as an "attack article" any more than the articles on Theodore Kaczynski or Terry Nichols are "attack articles". This was a person who was ultimately cast in very unfavorable terms with respect to the central reason she was "newsworthy". While the facts themselves must be balanced (and there is certainly reason to argue here that more favorable facts were omitted in this article), it should not be surprising that in the case of some living people, their article will be overwhelming negative because the reason they are in the encyclopedia at all is because they did something that was overwhelming negative. In this case, the correct action is to redirect, not protect the page and certainly not delete the page history, Let the normal editing process do its job. -- DS1953talk23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BLP calls for the removal of unsourced negative material. Everything in this article is well-sourced. Telling the truth and being able to document it is a complete defense against BLP just as it is against libel. BLP only applies to unsourced negative material. The attempt to extend it is an attempt to end NOTCENSORED. DGG00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think notability and sourcing issues are the only problems — the deletion log states an admin deleted the article due to its status as a "coatrack article", meaning it has little coverage of the main subject and then deviates into a related topic. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker.00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. She's not notable. The redirect should stay, but in and of herself she isn't actually notable, thus she shouldn't have an article. The lacrosse scandal page has 100% of the notable information; any page on her would be filled with non-notable junk, and as she isn't an important figure, there's no reason for her to have an article as of this time. Titanium Dragon04:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete. There are some balance issues with the article as linked by FCYTravis, particularly in terms of word choices, but that is fixable (who will be willing to do so is another matter). The sourcing is overall very solid (this was, after all, covered extensively by most of the premier media outlets in the US), so I don't see how the major BLP concern comes into play. I will respond here to Uncle G's thoughtful and persuasive comments about how the biography form is a poor vessel into which many things on Wikipedia are poured. I have agreed with that sentiment for some time. I believe it happens for a reason, though, and if we are to push back against these factors we need some stronger guidelines about articles. (I would be opposed to writing these into BLP, though, as they should be at the guideline and not the policy level.) Thus, what we have here is really a dispute over editing style (article structure) and not truly one rising to the level of process. The factor that is most evident in encouraging this article structure is that a "person" is a discrete topic about which one can hang all sorts of miscellany without running afoul of synthesis charges. Individual mentions of a person that don't cross-correlate themselves except via the name are perfectly acceptable resources to use in a biographical article. If John Smith is a politician and also a painter, as long as you can verify that they're the same person you can write about both parts of his life. You don't need an extensive justification for writing about his paintings, such as an essay comparing his use of chiaroscuro with his positions on the national health plan legislation. Any other article structure, such as "Duke lacrosse scandal", is much trickier to navigate. Defining the scope of the scandal can take weeks of wrangling on the talk page. Mentioning illustrative biographical details that aren't sourced as "relevant" a la the chiaroscuro example can be very dicey, even if they're "useful" or "interesting", if no journalistic source has deemed their relevance. Even determining where to start with the narrative can be vexatious and subject to POV pitfalls. A biography is simpler, straightforward, and generally chronological. What could be easier? (Note that many of the same rationales apply to articles on neologisms, one reason we have so many of them.) Whereas with something like the Mark Foley scandal, it can be frustrating to even come up with an article title (e.g. is it a sex scandal if no physical sex took place?). If there's to be an initiative discouraging the biography structure, it shouldn't be applied here for the nonce, it should be discussed and agreed upon. --Dhartung | Talk07:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (protected) redirect per Uncle G. BLP involved or not, this is an editorial decision, and the article was an uncontrollable WP:POVFORK from the main Duke Controversy article (which contains all relevant details about her life), serving no real purpose and encynclopedic value. We are not tabloid press. And please, let all read the green text above. Duja►09:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced by Uncle G's reasoning and rationale. Leave it redirected. A separate article on a person whose sole claim to notability is related to the scandal when her role is covered in that article already, is a content fork. I must also say I feel sorry for the subject as well, and I think that the fault for the mess is mostly in the hands of the jurists who ought to be more professional. A big Wikipedia bio as the first hit on Google detailing her involvement is a huge burden to carry. Sjakkalle(Check!)12:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion/leave as protected redirect - hopeless trainwreck of an article being edited in bad faith. Nicely structured attack article/POV fork we're better off without. MoreschiTalk12:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The page was deleted earlier today for being a spam article, however the article did not read as an advertisement, but an a description of what the school was. I believe some of the links were not neccessary, hwoever I feel deletion of the article was not warranted. Wildthing6147601:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The article wasn't written particularly well, but it wasn't so much an advertisement that deletion was justified. -Amarkovmoo!04:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per revision to article. As the deleting admin, I still believe the article in its current state is advertising that fails to mention the subject's notability. That said, I just did a news article search on the company and it is obvious the subject is notable. The problem is that the current article doesn't show this notability. I'll support bringing back the article IF additional information, including references and criticism section, is added. --Alabamaboy13:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Jjm1001:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not much of an oops. The deletion reason, rather than the tagging reason, is what we judge. That version was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, for not having an assertion of notability. You are correct, however, that WP:CSD#G4, which {{db-repost}} is for, does not apply to this article since it hasn't ever had an AFD. GRBerry13:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to add the comment that I did not fully understand the deletion discussion procedure, so after I found it speedily deleted (the first time), I went back and generated a complete article, with cited references. I believe this was misunderstood as an attempt to subvert the regular procedures; I was instead trying to answer what I thought was a concern about sources. I understand the importance of citing sources and my first attempt at the page was more of a "placeholder" (which I won't do without sources in the future) since I saw the subject did not exist and wanted to create it. Sorry for the confusion about this. Jjm1001:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the last person to delete this page (it was completely blank when I did so), and I'm also the one who suggested that Jjm10 bring his case here. Looking back through the history, I was actually impressed with the article...he did a good job writing it, it just lacked sourcing, which could have easily been taken care of with ref or fact tags. I support either restoring the article to it's "long" condition, or restoring the text to a draft page on Jjm10's user page where he can work on it and bring it up to speed; I'd be willing to coach him along in this, if he so desired. Once it was ready, I'd suggest a quick review by a couple of the original deleting admins, and then a launch back into the encyclopedia. I believe that this is a good-faith effort by a new editor who simply has got caught up in the "process" that this place can become. AKRadecki01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this one would probably be the best starting point. It does need some work, no doubt, needs a good lead, and reorganization, and needs the tone to be adjusted to be more encyclopedic, but it's certainly a start. AKRadecki20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That version, unless I am much mistaken, reads like a pastiche or satire of an amusement park rather than a sourced article. There are a number of assertions and descriptions of things in there that I am highly dubious are actually factually true, and I would want to see cites for them. ++Lar: t/c22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Additional closer's note: For the avoidance of doubt, no decision was made here on whether or not to protect the redirect. GRBerry15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced, verifiable and free content not repeated elsewhere completely lost due to redirect. Note: the article underwent a second AfD in May, 2007; article contents were different to when first AfD conducted. G2bambino00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, redirect, protect Normally I'd be pointing out that redirections done right aren't a DRV issue. However a merge has taken place in the past (see the logs), so we need to preserve history under the GFDL. And history was deleted following AFD2. So a clear mistake has been made, and should be fixed. Redirect is the blazingly obvious consensus of the second AFD discussion. Normally I'd say that merging and redirecting is an editorial issue, subject to consensus on the target article's talk page. However, I see in the deleted history the beginnings of an edit war over where the redirection should go. So the redirect should be protected until such time as a consensus to change it is forthcoming. GRBerry01:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - subsequent redirects after I closed the AfD were simply copy an paste moves of the orginal article with a slightly different name - that's why I originally deleted the whole page and simply restored the AfD redirect. Ryan Postlethwaite09:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
