Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bdj (talk | contribs) at 02:47, 27 May 2007 (rv unexplained disruptive closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

23 May 2007

Robyn Dawkins and Gavin Clinton-Parker

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

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

  • Speedy close, assertion of notability on the DRV nom is not a valid DRV nomination. Give us evidence of why the deletion was not proper. Corvus cornix 18:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urm The article was deleted under A7, which requires "no assertion of notability". Both articles made the following claim of notability "Their story attracted international news coverage.", and one had an additional claim about being one of the better junior players of a particular sport in his country of residence. On the other hand, I'd like someone to look at it from a WP:BLP light, as I can't make up my mind. GRBerry 19:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) (tweaked to reflect the merge GRBerry 00:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Overturn On a procedural basis, I am not happy with taking unilateral action twice. If an admin action is challenged in good faith, someone else should be involved in the follow up. As for BLP concerns regarding the articles, there is nothing detrimental being said about either boy, and their names are already widely known. The parents are also not accused of anything. Trying to keeep names out of WP after they've been broadcast on 60 minutes is a little absurd.DGG 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep deleted per BLP and ethical considerations. A 60 min programmes will not Google on this child's name later in life - we will. Totally encyclopaedic - plus there are no sources from which to write any biography. So we'd have a biography on a living person's life, that ONLY mentioned an unfortunate birth incident - unacceptable. This is a minor people - get a grip.--Docg 20:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been bold and added these together - the arguments will be identical for both--Docg 21:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list. If they were kids anymore, this might hold some water, but not with what we know. 18 years of press coverage asserted needs a better hearing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep deleted. Absolutely not. DRV is not an appropriate venue for BLP deletions. The correct action is to undergo dispute resolution, starting with convincing the deleting admin.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dispute resolution should never be a matter of course. AFD is the place to discuss controversial deletions, not begging and pleading with the admin who speedied the article out of process. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? When did this occur? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This wasn't a BLP deletion when the discussion started; it was a garden variety A7 (see the deletion logs), which would have been a garden variety overturn as clearly incorrect due to explicit claims of notability in the article. BLP was first mentioned by myself after the discussion was here. GRBerry 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. You have to think about the effect that this will have on these kids later in life. If you're going to have an article on the person, you need to write a biography; not a chronicle of some accident at birth. Sean William 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, take to AFD The article made a claim of notability. Cases where that's questionable belong at AFD, not speedied and argued here. We have other articles on similar topics, such as Kimberly Mays. That's not just an Othercrapexists, it's an example of why the consideration of a full afd is necessary and speedy is improper. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, as if it were not blindingly obvious. This is a hospital fuck-up and will be forgotten next time a hospital fucks up. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Come back when mainstream sources have proper substantial biographical articles on these individuals, until then it might (at a pinch) merit a short sentence in the article on the hospital. Guy (Help!) 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion' per Doc, Guy and SwatJester. ++Lar: t/c 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Doc and Guy. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is a very trollish nomination, or a very stupid one, and I don't care which. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I've seen, endorse deletion. I may change my opinion if presented with examples of this 18 years of media coverage. -Amarkov moo! 00:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion unless the articles can be verifiably expanded beyond "This boy was switched at birth." FCYTravis 01:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the one source linked in the article, they can verifiably be expanded beyond that. I don't yet think they can be encyclopedically expanded beyond that. And given their young age (though they are now 18), I don't think they have any great significance. I think there is an encyclopedic article to be written on the general phenomenon of switched babys and precautions that hospitals take to prevent it... but this content isn't helpful, and it hasn't been started so far as I can see. So I come down to keep deleted (without endorsing the original deletion reasoning) with noplace useful to even redirect. GRBerry 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Doc glasgow's, and JzG's arguments are convincing. I cannot see how they are encyclopedic, but I may change my mind if there are more reliable sources available, as Amarkov has said. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper.

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

  • Endorse, valid A7 plus BLP concerns. Kusma (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from deletin' admin - the first time these articles were posted, there was no assertion of notability. The re-post included the line about attracting international attention, which I admit I didn't see when I zapped it again. The author of the articles left comments on my userpage (not my talk page), which I didn't see in between deletions. Adding that line does make a claim of notability (a decidedly weak one, but a claim nonetheless), and thus it should have gone to AFD, strictly speaking. I'm happy to have this overturned and listed there, but I think it would be a waste of time given the BLP concerns addressed. -- Merope 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Apparently asserts notability, and please don't even mention WP:BLP here, because that is not even a factor. Abeg92contribs 17:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are no BLP concerns. BLP applies only no poorly sourced negative material; there is nothing here which is in any way negative, and all the material is well-sourced. The attempted deletion is an attempt to extend BLP to include all material that the eds. think to be potentially embarrassing, or that they would prefer not to talk about. Calling any of this BLP is an attempt to greatly extend the accepted meaning, and the reasonable meaning.
There are no notability concerns. The material has been the focus of numerous stories which are cited. This is the basic criterion for N, and the article meets it. Removing this as NN is judging on the basis of IDONTTLIKEIT. Removing it is a total denial of our standards for objective criteria. DGG 00:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.--Docg 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, we are an encyclopedia. That's why we gotta use our heads and not submit to our own personal feelings on the matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:32, 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]
  • Keep Deleted And stop wasting our time on these. -Pilotguy hold short 17:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - serious BLP concerns, quite aside from the fact A7 was an issue anyway. Orderinchaos 19:44, 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. --Bookworm857158367 19:58, 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. Orderinchaos 20:33, 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. --Bookworm857158367 20:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - No opinion on the article, but the original deletion was invalid. Take it to AfD. The way, the truth, and the light 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the right thing to do, and well within the spirit of A7. Jkelly 22:25, 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. Horologium talk - contrib 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn WP: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. -N 23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's a speedy reason. That's why admins are selected how they are - for judgement - David Gerard 23:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please tell me where in WP:CSD it supports your view. -N 00:01, 26 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 William 00:06, 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. --Bookworm857158367 00:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a deletion criteria called basic human dignity. Sean William 00:21, 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. -N 00:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, then. Use common sense. Sean William 00:28, 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." --Bookworm857158367 00:35, 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 Gerard 23:57, 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. Vadder 00:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn and list at afd CSD 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. ViridaeTalk 00:21, 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. ViridaeTalk 01:47, 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. --BigDT 01:43, 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. ViridaeTalk 01:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Not an A7, but delete is the right result. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:46, 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. Mangojuicetalk 03:18, 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. ViridaeTalk 08:28, 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. Moreschi Talk 09:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:BLP, WP:NOT (a tabloid). No notability whatsoever, will be forgotten soon. --Mbimmler 11:10, 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.Monniaux 11:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources brought up so far aren't tabloids. could you please detail the BLP issues? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:28, 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.--Docg 12:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a discussion. If you don't like the questioning, then justify the issues you present. It's not hard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 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.--Docg 13:30, 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. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:58, 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. FCYTravis 14:28, 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

talk 15:44, 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/c 22:13, 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 G 15:40, 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]
  • Endorse deletion per Doc. ElinorD (talk) 17:47, 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 light 17:51, 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. DGG 00:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frog and the Peach (closed)

Canadian royal family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Canadian Royal Family (closed)

Little Fatty (closed)

Talk:Scientific Revolution/archive1 (closed)

List of people by name

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

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

  • Overturn and delete. The case for deletion was clearly persuasive enough to get a clear consensus, and the arguments on the keep side for maintaining this hopelessly unmaintainable list are not strong enough to justify calling it any other way. The misspelling argument is pointless for an even better reason than the nominator points out: you can use Google to search Wikipedia (which often works far better than the inbuilt engine) and Google is very good at allowing for misspellings. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. There was clearly consensus to abolish the present system; the only non-clear point was how to delete it (i.e. what info should be saved). Kusma (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete but hold on. I think the consensus was clear for the deletion, but there were various concerns expressed, either in form "Keep for now" or "Reform". There should be an additional discussion on how an "exit strategy" should be performed and the information moved & reorganized; some proposals were present at the AfD, but a centralized discussion should be held somewhere WPP:BIO? WP:VP? I'm not sure. Duja► 10:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not overturn. I disagree that the consensus was clear, and agree with the closing administrator. --Alvestrand 11:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus - it was "suspended" when I went to look - I wanted to add my opinion, but I couldn't, so if nothing else this deserves another AFD. Throwing in my opinion, I think this should be moved to userspace for now pending an overhaul - I actually agree with the /theory/ of improving navigation and being an annotated contents page of people auto-generated by a bot, because the search is a disaster, but editing by hand obvious isn't working. I believe it's close which makes for a "no consensus", I also don't believe that the delete argument is compelling enough if a technical solution could be sought, which I believe it can, and most of the delete arguments are "per nom" which consist of saying it's impossible to maintain (which could be worked around via a bot for example), an "indiscriminate list" (if turned into a navigational aide and put into Wikipedia space is moot), and beside those two there was no real compelling argument to delete and this deletion is likely to prevent the creation of future, similar, useful maintainable lists (which is my experience of AFD/DRV in these sorts of situations) -Halo 12:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The debate was suspended out of process by an involved user (indeed, I've never seen such suspensions before, I suspect he made that up) but this was quickly undone and the debate ran for the regular amount of time. That seems hardly grounds for a "procedural relist". Note that in theory this list page is a nice idea, but in practice it really doesn't work at all. >Radiant< 12:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm just adding my point of view and it stopped me voting, which it did, and forgot about it until my watchlist said it was on DRV. My point was expressly that it's a good idea in theory, while agreeing that the current situation doesn't work and a technical solution should be sought as it could be an extremely useful navigational aide, and the deletion of the page will inevitably prevent a technical replacement from ever happening. I agree with the /page/ and the theory behind it, which few of the people voting delete have actually covered dismissing it as unmaintainable, while not agreeing with the current /technical solution/ behind it's generation. Perhaps some of the people voting delete, particularly those who said "delete per nom" or "delete as unmaintainable" in the original AFD, should address whether they'd be against a similar proposed technical solution? -Halo 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this. Arguments for delete are: hopelessly, irredeemably incomplete, useless for all practical purposes. Arguments for keep are: WP:ILIKEIT. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Consensus on the AfD seemed pretty clearly in favor of deletion, and I'm having a hard time finding any ambiguity to it. As stated by the nom, even on a straight up and down headcount the tally is heavily in favor of deleting the article, and when you factor in the weight of the arguments it tilts even further in that direction. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete As said before, there was a fairly clear consensus. Saving my opinion about the article itself for when/if a new AfD is opened in this DRV fails to get the desired result. JuJube 17:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. I agree with Radiant's reading of the debate. WP:USEFUL is not a dismissively bad argument, but it's also not very strong, and there's nothing I can see that would reasonably lead to dismissing of delete arguments. In this case, I would count the keep arguments as legitimate arguments, they were just in the (clear) minority here. Mangojuicetalk 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Clear consensus to delete, weight or number of arguments apparently was not taken into account when closing. (H) 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus First, it was a reasonable read of the discussion given that many of the arguments on both sides boil down to like it/don't like it. If that test is to be applied, it needs to be applied to both sides of the debate. WP:NOT USEFUL is no more valid than WP:USEFUL. A lot of the more valid discussion is not so much about page deletion, but about policies, tools, and means for indexing and vandal fighting. An XfD is not the appropriate forum for such a discussion. Open a centralized discussion on that issue. If consensus forms, then we can readdress these lists in light of that discussion. GRBerry 17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiant makes a strong argument (I once contributed heavily to this list but his argument makes great sense to me), but then, I'm reluctant to make DRV "round 2" of AFD. What do people think about a compromise: moving this to the Wikipedia namespace? --W.marsh 18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - Delete arguments strong, keep arguments poor, consensus to delete apparent. Otto4711 19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus. Xfd is not a vote. There was no consensus on any points raised by either sides. The discussion mostly consisted of useful vs. not useful, along with a few "waste of resources" and "indiscrimate/incomplete" - I don't see any merit in these arguments. User:Carcharoth had some great ideas, and I think this probably played a large part in the decision to not close the discussion based on a straight vote count. --- RockMFR 20:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus. The arguments on both sides are valid. Consensus is not about majorities or supermajorities or even about who has the stronger arguments. It is about finding a reasonable solution that tries to address the points made by all sides, and that every reasonable person can accept, even if it is not the perfect solution. Yes, an alphabetical index of names of people is a useful navigation aid that belongs in Wikipedia. Yes, this list as currently implemented is largely unmaintainable. But deletion solves nothing. The solution is to come up with a way of making such a list maintainable, whether it is done with the current software through bots, categories and/or templates, or by proposing and implementing changes to the MediaWiki software itself. DHowell 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is it intended that these pages be replaced with an appropriate set of categories, as proposed during the deletion discussions? If not, then what is the point of deleting them which would result in a net loss of information? If so, where is the planning for the replacement categories? —Phil | Talk 06:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The consensus to delete in the AfD was clear and overwhelming: 10 keep arguments vs. 26 delete arguments, and the deletion arguments were all quite strong, pointing out glaring flaws in a huge, manually-updated, mostly unknown index such as this. Krimpet (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Agree completely with all the comments above. I always found the "no consensus" conclusion to be false in nature as every discussion has SOME consensus. Step up the deletions. Bulldog123 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus - There's no procedural erro - the conclusion of no consensus is viable, especially given the completel lack of merited arguments on the delete side (though keep may not be much better). Well within closing Admin's discretion. WilyD 16:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Inherently unmaintainable due to size. - Merzbow 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus. There was no consensus to delete. Many people people find it useful and expressed their opinions. A tremendous amount of effort has gone into building and maintaining the list. The mere fact that a large number of people argue that they have no use for it does not trump the fact that other people find it a useful list. That looks like no consensus to me. -- DS1953 talk 22:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Clear consensus to delete. WarpstarRider 23:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus - (Disclosure: I am a sometime contributor to LoPbN, so may have a bias.) However, I think I am being fairly objective in maintaining that the closing admin's decision was not a procedural error; it is plausible that he/she, taking into consideration all of the following: a) the recommendations and arguments of the editors requesting keep b) the unique nature of LoPbN compared to the usual types of articles, categories, etc, nominated for deletion c) its past history, including the records of discussion from the previous deletion attempts, and d) the comments by those editors who wished to replace LoPbN with something having equivalent function, but more easily maintainable, requesting to keep LoPbN available as an information source until a replacement could be engineered - all taken together were enough to determine that in this case there was not consensus for a simple and straightforward deletion at this time. -- Lini 03:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus - because there was no consensus. Jheald 08:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
  • Overturn, delete, and kill it with fire. This is practically the very definition of an indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that it is absolutely and completely unmaintainable to boot just makes it worse. Nandesuka 16:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - this seems to be precisely what categories are meant for (and they don't fall out of date). WP:NOT#IINFO issues. Orderinchaos 19:49, 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. --BigDT 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - and add this as an example to what Wikipedia is not. AKRadecki 01:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per consenus to do so in the discussion. ViridaeTalk 02:03, 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. -- Visviva 09:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete This article is doomed to fail, as it is per se not maintainable. --Mbimmler 11:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - totally without merit--Docg 11:19, 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. ChazBeckett 12:39, 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]
  • 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.)

--Jerzy•t 21:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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•t 21:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:UBX/Suicide (closed)

Crystal Gail Mangum (closed)

Connections Academy (closed)

Enchanted Forest Water Safari

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

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

  • Comment why not just re-create the article? -N 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: on a purely-procedural note, Mhking (talk · contribs) tagged this with {{db-repost}} here: I see no sign of any deletion discussion. Oops much? —Phil | Talk 06:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not much of an oops. The deletion reason, rather than the tagging reason, is what we judge. That version was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, for not having an assertion of notability. You are correct, however, that WP:CSD#G4, which {{db-repost}} is for, does not apply to this article since it hasn't ever had an AFD. GRBerry 13:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, as this is not a re-creation of the original article and hence is not subject to speedy under G4. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to add the comment that I did not fully understand the deletion discussion procedure, so after I found it speedily deleted (the first time), I went back and generated a complete article, with cited references. I believe this was misunderstood as an attempt to subvert the regular procedures; I was instead trying to answer what I thought was a concern about sources. I understand the importance of citing sources and my first attempt at the page was more of a "placeholder" (which I won't do without sources in the future) since I saw the subject did not exist and wanted to create it. Sorry for the confusion about this. Jjm10 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the last person to delete this page (it was completely blank when I did so), and I'm also the one who suggested that Jjm10 bring his case here. Looking back through the history, I was actually impressed with the article...he did a good job writing it, it just lacked sourcing, which could have easily been taken care of with ref or fact tags. I support either restoring the article to it's "long" condition, or restoring the text to a draft page on Jjm10's user page where he can work on it and bring it up to speed; I'd be willing to coach him along in this, if he so desired. Once it was ready, I'd suggest a quick review by a couple of the original deleting admins, and then a launch back into the encyclopedia. I believe that this is a good-faith effort by a new editor who simply has got caught up in the "process" that this place can become. AKRadecki 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radecki, which version do you say was good? Guy (Help!) 16:03, 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. AKRadecki 20:17, 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/c 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Royal Family (closed)

  1. ^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_23&oldid=133773375"