Wikipedia:Deletion review/Bigoted woman incident

Bigoted woman incident (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was closed after 1 hour, not 7 days. An overwhelming consensus for deletion was claimed but this was not the case as numerous editors indicated that merger would be appropriate. The incident is clearly a major one and so our coverage merits proper discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I fully agree: this incident is one of the most important to happen in British politics in the election campaign, and it is only going to grow in significance. It is a media storm in the UK, and could well cause lasting damage to New Labour. Why does this not have an article? Go to any UK news site (eg bbc.co.uk) and this story will be all over it. It is much more important than many articles you will find on this site. Fuzzibloke (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. For example, The Independent this morning has it dominating the front cover and the next three pages, "...this is what will be remembered when everything else he has said in the campaign has been forgotten."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs)

• Yes, but that still falls under WP:ONEVENT. See also WP:109PAPERS. And "this is what will be remembered" is one journalist's prediction. Remember WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What WP:ONEVENT actually says is "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." That's what we have here: a prime-minister's political career has been destroyed and the 'shot' has rung around the world - from South Africa to Saudi, from France to Finland. The general tenor of the remarks is that Brown has been undone by his arrogance and contempt for the ordinary person. And that's what we had in this 1-hour close - contempt for due process and the views of other editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per clear consensus. So far as merging goes, substantially the same content was in fact added to United Kingdom general election, 2010, though after talk page discussion it has been edited to more reasonable proportions at United Kingdom general election, 2010#Notable incidents. JohnCD (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If the same content was placed elsewhere then this demonstrates that there was no clear consensus to delete it. Kittybrewster was the editor that had created the AFD nomination. They then copied the material to another article, as shown by your diff. They then amended the bold-faced lead. They then changed their !vote in the AFD discussion. When a nominator implicitly withdraws their nomination, then articles should be speedily kept, not deleted. This merge action introduces licensing considerations as we must respect the contribution of the original editor. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If the same content was placed elsewhere then this demonstrates that there was no clear consensus to delete it"??? no it doesn't: it just shows that one editor decided to post it somewhere else: how on earth does that show there was no consensus? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So that nobody gets hung up on the GFDL issue: I'll be happy to undelete the article, move it to another name, and create a protected redirect to United Kingdom general election, 2010#Notable incidents. This should satisfy the merge & redirect GFDL issues. I'd need a clear suggestion for a BLP-appropriate redirect, though...what are the papers calling this incident? — Scientizzle 13:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colonel Warden is correct that there is an attribution issue (WP:Copying within Wikipedia). However, alternatives such as Scientizzle's proposal are available. Considering the article's brief lifespan and likely few editors, I prefer WP:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history. Let's discuss the details on the talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• RE: Kittybrewster's activity...the nominator doesn't have any special say in the outcome after eleven other editors had already chimed in in favor of deletion or a merge/redirect. As I note above, I'm perfectly happy creating a protected redirect, which would make the outcome of the AfD a de facto merge & redirect. — Scientizzle 13:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do the needful for licensing concerns. –xeno^talk 14:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for AFD because I was removing the speedy delete tag. I felt the article breached BLP ONEEVENT BLP1E and NOTNEWS but that it merited more discussion than would occur under the SPEEDY DELETE tag. Scientizzle’s actions have been fine and Wikipedia has worked very well in this case. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my own close per my reasoning at the AfD. At the time of deletion the article was a WP:BLP nightmare. The title itself was a clear violation. This may in fact become an encyclopedic topic if the incident has sufficient traction and relevance, but WP:CRYSTAL means we shouldn't behave as if it will. That article featured no depth of coverage, simply reports about what happened, which explains the objections based on WP:ONEEVENT & WP:NOTNEWS. That said, there's no prohibition on recreating the content (at a more appropriate location, such as noted by JohnCD) should there be clear indications that it needs its own article. I'll even userify the content for someone. Bottom line: WP:BLP should not be violated because something could blow up into a full-fledged incident with encyclopedic impact, and we shouldn't be comfortable waiting around for that to possibly happen. — Scientizzle 13:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just so you are all aware, I was not aware of this article's existence or the lively debate when I changed the salted page Gillian Duffy into a redirect to the Notable Incidents section of the Election article. I have since explained my reasoning in the ANI debate. As far as this article is concerned, the BLP issues alone are sufficient for speedy deletion. So I endorse the deletion of Bigotted Woman Incident, and do not recreate as a redirect. For Gillian Duffy's article, as we have no Crystal ball, treat her as if she will remain notable for this one event, and leave it as a redirect to the election article. Stephen! ^Coming... 14:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse entirely per JohnCD. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 14:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion There was a substantial consensus to delete, and BLP issues justified doing so speedily rather than waiting a week. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as there was no way on earth that the AfD was going to end in any other way but a delete. Sometimes it's best to get the train wreck off the tracks rather than waiting. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse BLP1E and the content has already been merged elsewhere. We are not a news site. Aiken ♫ 14:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per BLP1E, NOT#NEWS, my original rationale in the AfD and the close. The close, while early, was the right call for the sake of the lady involved and because there's no point taking up more space when the consensus is already clear and would only get clearer with the discussion becoming more heated. This will all blow over in a week and will all be forgotten. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per my original comment at AFD, plus the BLP implications as noted by Scientizzle and JamesBWatson. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse not only in accordance with BLP1E and NOT#NEWS , but also WP:SHOWSPOTENTIAL and WP:CRYSTAL (so many of the arguments were "this could be big"). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Urrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg. This is an ugly one. I didn't get a chance to comment in the AFD, because it was closed before I even saw it. And if I had brought myself to comment (have I mentioned this is an ugly mess), I most likely would've voted for delete. The BLP concerns alone warranted deletion, and that this article seemed kind of newsy means that deletion was a solid decision. That said, and this is what makes it ugly, I don't think the discussion was open long enough, and I'm not convinced there was a consensus to delete there. Now, all that being said, I do see that the incident has been discussed elsewhere, which means that a relist is kind of pointless, since I think the only other viable option, other than delete, would be a merge. And if the subject is already covered appropriately in the only potential merge target, I see no reason to undelete it. So, I guess, what I'm saying, in a very convoluted sort of way, is that I Endorse the end result, even if I think it might not have been fully procedurally correct. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I originally commented, I've done some more thinking. The fact that Scientizzle has stated that they no longer feel their close rationale applies, and seeing the full uproar of coverage that this story has been getting, I'm changing my vote, I now think it should be renamed and relisted. The original name is untenable, and i'm guessing a lot would agree. However the concept of the article should be re-visited, and the afd allowed to run the full seven days, regardless of how bad it may SNOW. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and rename (if the name is agreed to be an issue) I'm quite aware I'm in the minority here, and doubt this is going to be overturned, but non-the-less believe it should be. Firstly, I'm slightly puzzled by the citing of WP:BLP1E as both a reason to delete, and a lot of the reasons for endorsement. BLP1E is about making a BLP article about a person into a page about the event (as I see it), if you read this page you will see it IS about the event, so that shouldn't be an issue. The other main reason for deletion seems to be further BLP violations. Nobody (afaik) has actually pointed out how the article violates BLP, past the name of the article. Personally I don't think that (a) we should delete articles based on their names, there is a move function for a reason, and (b) I don't really see a massive problem with the title, it's not calling her bigoted, it's simply explaining the incident. However, I wouldn't mind a move to... I don't know, say "Gordon Brown's "bigoted" jibe" - similar to the BBC, makes it clear that we're not calling her bigoted. Past the title, I still think the article is within BLP. It's written from a neutral point of view, and doesn't endorse either side. It's verifiable, with no original research or possible incorrect accounts. As to the crystal ball, it's quite clear this is notable now, and quite clear it's going to have a long lasting effect on the United Kingdom (I know, "where's that?" ;)), as it will change the votes, with the media making such a big deal out of it. As to NOTNEWS, I'm not quite sure what makes people think this comes under that. I presume we're talking about the "News reports" item on the list at NOT. This is not "routine news", in the UK (<cheeky :D) we don't have our "leader" insulting citizens into a microphone every day, and at a time like this it is more than something to fill up the news papers, it is effecting one of the main parties for the election, and will therefore quite possibly have an effect on the whole country, and you're citing "not news" *facepalm*. Even if it doesn't, it's still quite clearly effecting Gordon Brown (I know, "who's he?" ;)) and Labour. So to summarise, I think this passes BLP, CRYSTAL, NOTNEWS, NN, BLP1E, etc etc. and therefore do not support deletion. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I wouldn't say this, except for all the "who's he"/"where's that" bumfodder.) Note that this will affect Blairism and "New Labour" as opposed to the actual Labour Party of historical accomplishment! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

afaik, 'tis still technically Labour if one wants to be pedantic ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

• FYI someone has created Bigotsgate. It's currently G4 tagged, but I'm not sure that necessarily applies. Especially given that the AFD was cut short (not necessarily in error, mind-you: I haven't decided) and is now at DRV! –xeno^talk 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Scientizzle clearly made the right decision in this case. I do think "BLP" is often misapplied on Wikipedia because it's a magic wand for justifying almost any deletion or salting, and I deplore the excessive use that particular criterion gets, but this time it was applied correctly and proportionately. I think the deletion and salting were necessary in the circumstances and I endorse both.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to bug, but could you expand on why exactly was it "applied correctly and proportionately" in this case? What part of BLP, specifically, did this article not satisfy? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about the part that links a non-notable, low-profile individual to baseless charges of bigotry? This isn't rocket science. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the name I don't see how the article does that. We may not be able to say "x is a bigot", but I don't see the problem with saying "y said x was a bigot". - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry about this answer, Kingpin13, because I think you might find it deeply unsatisfactory, but the part of BLP contravened is the unwritten part. This isn't about Gordon Brown, who as far as I'm concerned deserves everything he gets, but about Gillian Duffy, who doesn't. And I know the article didn't mention her by name, but that isn't the point. Some are born notable, some achieve notability, and some have notability thrust upon them. Gillian Duffy definitely falls into the third category: an ordinary, innocent woman who didn't seek the massive publicity she has received.

  I completely recognise and acknowledge that she can't put that particular genie back into the bottle. The tabloid press are going to be watching her until well after the election. But I don't think it's okay that Wikipedia allows itself to become part of her problem.

  Also, this is Wikipedia, not Britishpoliticsipedia. The British election is massively notable, of course, and it deserves a great deal of coverage in a wide variety of articles. But we do already have all that coverage already and we don't need another.

  I also see the argument that this is a plausible search term and ought to be a redirect to some article where this matter is covered. That's a powerful point and I don't want to minimise it. Nevertheless, I see protecting Gillian Duffy as more important than an online encyclopaedia's content policies.

  At the end of the day this is a matter of opinion and I fully understand why you might disagree with me, but my mind is quite made up on the subject.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not at all, thanks for the reply, I can see where you're coming from. Just one point first, I don't think you should say you don't care what we say about Gordon Brown, since he "deserves" it. Anyhow, moving on, Gillian Duffy may have had notability "thrust" upon her, but I hardly see how that means we shouldn't have an article about her, and you seem to be presuming Gillian Duffy doesn't want this coverage, if a Wikpedia article bothered her, she can easily ask for it to be removed, and I'd be hapy for it to be, per BLP. But you seem to be coming from the angle that we should presume from the start that subjects don't want articles about them, under that we could delete nearly all our BLPS. Whether or not Duffy sought or deserves publicity doesn't really seem to matter to me, unless she's made it very clear she doesn't want to be the subject of all the internet articles she has been in. I don't see how the article says anything bad about Duffy, or why it should bother her. Of course we don't need this article, but it's undeniably notable. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• According to today's Times, she "refused to leave her home" and "when the press tried to talk to her she mouthed No at them." I doubt if she knows about Wikipedia to ask for her article to be deleted but (moving down a comment I made higher up), would you be happy if, for the rest of your life, a Wikipedia link from your name led to a statement that "The Prime Minister said Kingpin was a bigot"? "Grandpa, we looked you up on the internet - what does bigot mean?" JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a difference between (a) a neutral article which takes into account all aspects and context, and one which simply states "The Prime Minister said Kingpin was a bigot", and (b) writing an article about a person, based on other articles already available, and going and harassing that person for information. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Well, I do think the "notability" point is a bit of a red herring. I agree that by Wikipedian definitions Gillian Duffy's totally notable, with heaps of coverage in reliable sources, but the argument to endorse this deletion isn't about notability at all.

  I think it's okay to cover Gordon Brown, and to say well-sourced positive and negative things about him, because Gordon Brown is the leader of a G7 nation. There's a lot to say about him and he's rather waived his right to anonymity.

  I think it's not okay to cover Gillian Duffy, because the only thing there is to say about her is that Gordon Brown called her a "bigoted woman". It'll be the curse of the rest of her life, of course, and we can't help that, but I think it's inappropriate for us to draw any further attention to it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. But I do think there is more to say than just "Gordon Brown called her a bigoted woman", and these things are to do with Gordon Brown and the vote, rather than her. I don't see why she should be "cursed" by this incident, Gordon is the one who should be ashamed, and as you say, it's fine to write about him, and I feel this article is more about him. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I just speedily deleted Bigotsgate as a recreation of a deleted article. Fences&Windows 18:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion — per WP:NOTNEWS, this article should never have been created in the first place. At most it should have rated a brief mention in the article about the politician or party in question. Even for the short time it existed, it was picked up by scraper sites; see [1]. Anyone reading the New York Daily News online will now see, as a sidebar, a "biography" of Ms. Duffy that starts with the words "The bigoted woman incident..." This is exactly what WP:BLP is designed to prevent. *** Crotalus *** 20:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crotalus, that is an excellently illustrative example of the relevant BLP concerns. — Scientizzle 21:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Firstly, as noted above, this material was not deleted from Wikipedia, but moved to United Kingdom general election, 2010 without keeping the article title as a redirect; this is precisely in line with the consensus at the time of closure. Secondly, there was and is no chance of a different consensus, due to BLP and WP:ONEEVENT concerns about the woman in question. Thirdly, it was perfectly reasonable to close this particular discussion early, given the clear consensus and the fact that the election in question was less than seven days away. While we generally don't let the real world set deadlines for us, in this case there was consensus that having a separate article was wrong, and that meant that keeping it around for the sake of counting hours might cause avoidable harm. Yes, it's true that any close after only one hour is seriously bending the rules, but the result of that rule-bending is perfectly correct, and so it should not be overturned. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn & rename. BLP is utterly irrelevant, it is not a biography about her, and mentioning her name does not make it a BLP1E. Wikipedia seriously needs to get its head out of its ass on these BLP over-reactions, and catch up to the real world. It is laughable to think that harm from Wikipedia matters to her right now, she has real reporters chasing her all over the shop, and her name is being mentioned on national media about fifty times in the last hour alone. Wikipedia is an irrelevance, except to those self-righteous editors who think they have a serious role to play here, aside from being behind the curve, as ever. This incident is well beyond NOT#NEWS territory already, any competent editor should be able to see, if they bother to examine the depth and breadth of coverage and worldwide political analysis and commentary properly, that this incident is well on its way to passing EVENT without any help from the '5th largest website in the world'. A burst of newswire reprints, this is most certainly not. It is easily comparable to Joe The Plumber in impact after just one day, and unlike that incident, this may turn out to be more than just an amusing sideshow too. Still, as ever, Wikipedia will probably drag its feet and busy itself with meta-level irrelevance, until the article is inevitably created in some form. MickMacNee (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, like ol Joe, if this woman goes on to get a job with some middling right-wing blog, sure, she will be article-worthy. As it is right now, neither the event nor the person is notable enough for an article. BLP is of the utmost relevance her,e and if you do not understand that, then about all I can do there is Facepalm, as that us patently absurd. Tarc (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You can facepalm all you want, I know what the BLP policy is supposed to be for without all the hijacking and histrionics that accompanies it, and I know what this article could be, if it weren't for such histrionics and over-reaction. The fact that you seem to think I even want to write a biography on the woman illustrates this over-reaction and your inability to see anything here but OMFG! BLP! BLP! quite well. I imagine you haven't even bothered to look at the coverage of the incident and whether it meets EVENT or not, I think you think such considerations are simply an irrelevance to doing the good work of not writing about anything if it even remotely refers to a living person. I'm watching yet another programme right now with a few million viewers which is banging on about it for the hundredth time tonight, mentioning her by name even, shock horror. Call the police! MickMacNee (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry that your mindset is so tabloid-ingrained, and you think the Wikipedia should follow suit. Tarc (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry you think the Washington Post and New York Times are tabloids tbh, or that Wikipedia is above bothering itself with what British TV has covered on and off nearly all day and all night. Infact, I'm sorry you think this rubbish is washing as a legitimate argument at all, or why you need to even pretend you have examined the coverage, and your argument is not merely philosophical/ideological as to what you do and don't like Wikipedia covering depending on whether you can or cannot shoehorn BLP into anything and everything. MickMacNee (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. I've counted five or more mentions of her full name on BBC One in the last half an hour alone, from at least three different presenters. We are even into cultural references now too. Still, that's the BBC for you, tabloid shit that it is. You wouldn't find Wikipedia doing what they do, plastering their website with aggregations and comparisons of the worldwide coverage of this incident, and discussing its long term impact and effect on the election. No, not Wikipedia. LMFAO. And for the win - "The story of the week, and I think, probably still bigger than the debates (the final leaders debate, which only finished two hours ago), is [name of course can't be mentioned here lol], how damaging was it?" - Andrew Neil to Micheal Portillo on BBC One, two minutes ago. MickMacNee (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  All the coverage in the world doesn't make "one event" magically become "two events, Mick. Even newbie editors know this; why don't you? Tarc (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So Tarc, are you saying we should never have articles about one event? Have you read WP:BLP1E? It's not saying that at all, it says we shouldn't have BLP articles about individuals notable for one event, and if we do they should be moved to an article about the event. Take a look at this article we're debating over, it is about the event, so surely the fact that it's one event does not matter? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I did not say that, do not put words in my mouth. Certainly there are exceptions, i.e. John Hinckley. We have had several different problems with all of this, as the article has gone from being about a person to about the "event" and so on. WP:BLP1E wipes out an article about a person, that is an absolute. For the event, we have a simple WP:NOTNEWS. it was a flash-in-the-pan controversy, soon to be forgotten once the election is over. That is why it is unworthy of a standalone article, and more suited to a blurb in an article about Brown or the elections in general. Understand? Good. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Please. Do not even pretend that consideration of actual notability of the incident, demonstrated or predicted, has anything to do with your stated desire from the get go to erase this from the pedia on grounds of your mistaken ideas about BLP, and that an article in any form would be a BLP! violation. I think everyone here should already be well aware your powers of prediction are infallible, and that what you say will happen, will of course happen, and that if you say it is a flash in the pan after one hour, it must be so, but anyone else who wants to credibly endorse this deletion as a cast-iron case of NOT#NEWS would not be endorsing it after a one hour long debate after barely a quarter of one news cycle had happened. This would be a crap way of assessing the potential of any new article, let alone ones whose notability is derived from ongoing news coverage. No, these people would be doing what should have happened first time round, and properly debating the coverage that existed, and coninues to exist, not arguing the validity of a one hour closure which already looks wholly out of date compared to the actual event. NOT#NEWS closures are pretty easy if the debate is given time to assess the actual news coverage. In this Drv, it's as if people aren't even aware of the steam roller phenomenon, but you and I both know it exists, only you are happy to ignore it if the outcome serves your ideology, which is a common feature in a lot of the BLP! policy/process abuses nowadays. For events, we have not only NOT#NEWS, but things like WP:EVENT, carefully crafted and written to avoid such slap-dash kneejerk BLP! reactions and premature closure of event type Afds. And even with your tendency to pull the crystal ball out to support your main objection, you must be very uneasy at claiming this incident will not meet EVENT. It has three of the four requirements nailed on already, and the only thing in question is evidence of lasting effect, the subject of which you will already find abundant commentary on. You are either ignoring it, or you genuinely just don't have a telly or don't read a newspaper. Either way, this is not a credible view. And as a final note on your ideas about NOT#NEWS, we can pretty much dismiss any idea that if it doesn't continue to get front page news coverage after the election, that it should not have an article. That sort of logic truly is a newbie approach to notability. If that's where we are, then nobody is going to look back on this Afd closure and say 'good call'. MickMacNee (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thankfully, your opinion on this matter is in a distinct minority, and equally thankful that you are not in a position to craft policy in the project. That's the last I have to say. Tarc (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Your best effort at making policy is to dismiss mainstream media as tabloid junk, and dismiss people who do not share your opinions about BLP, with a few BLP violations of your own. The result of your best efforts is the triumph of making Wikipedia the only information source on the planet that knows nothing of this incident, and to funnily enough, make a BLP mistake more likely by forcing people to the search box, where they will find as second result, a UK election article with the wrong Gillian Duffy in it. Genius. Your idea of 'doing no harm' by ignoring notable events makes sod all difference to her life, not one bit, this is pure self-aggrandizing tosh, and your total lack of a substantial defence of it beyond belittling others belies it for what it really is, nothing but an ego trip. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well there we are, that's how flawed your knowledge is if you think we have a blanket ban on one event articles irrespective of the level of coverage, just because a living person is involved. You seriously have no idea what BLP is for frankly, and you certainly have no clue as to why BLP1E is utterly irrelevant here now. It is brilliant that you mention newbies, because applying BLP policies literally to any content that is remotely connected to a living person, with no idea why you are doing it, is a classic newbie mistake to make. MickMacNee (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is why people like you should be barred from having anything to do with BLP-related issues, as your attitude and critical misunderstanding of its most basic application does far more harm than good. Do us a favor Mick, go find another playground to play in. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well yes, it's a common theme from the people who consider themselves the guardians of all things BLP, and never make a total balls up of applying it in proper proportion and with good sense, that they should not have to be bothered with defending their ideology to 'people like me'. Still, it's always good for onlookers to be reminded where you stand. MickMacNee (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, WP:TABLOID. What about the report from the IMF, published in the same time-frame? Guy (Help!) 22:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why did you create the shortcut TABLOIB, if you were just going to link to NOT#NEWS? Does NOT#NEWS only refer to what tabloids cover? I think not. Was your intention to infer with it, that this incident is only being covered by tabloids? If so, then you haven't looked very hard. If at all tbh. What the IMF has to do with it is beyond me. MickMacNee (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Consensus was pretty clear, and DRV is not AfD part 2. Resolute 22:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There was no Afd 1 for a start, let alone a long enough period to establish if this was simply NEWS or not, as many people are predicting it is. It didn't even remain open for longer than one quarter of one news cycle. It was a pethetic excuse of an Afd, it was nothing more than an exercise in steamrolling. MickMacNee (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- Consensus was unambiguous and overwhelming. The AfD could not have been closed any other way. Reyk _YO! 22:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Admins should be encouraged to make early snow closes when the article is about a prominent current event and consensus (either way) is clear. That reminds me, it is time to get rid of Ellie Light. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete Sorry to pile-on but there are still occasionally people saying we should keep tabloid, one-event nonsense concerning non-public citizens, so I want to endorse the eloquent explanations provided above that Wikipedia is not a blog; when reliable secondary sources declare (in retrospect, after a careful analysis) that this incident is really notable, we can have a new article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a fantasy to suggest Wikipedia always waits retrospectively to cover notable events, I know people like to think Wikinews covers all this and Wikipedia takes a more sedate approach (and ironically, Wikinews has at least has bothered to cover it, I suppose one project should), but this is not how it happens most of the time. For the most part, Wikinews is treated as an irrelevance for such notable current events type content. The people suggesting this coverage is just a tabloid news cycle frankly don't know or don't care what the actual situation is, and are imposing their over-broad and rather hysterical ideas about BLP onto anything and everything remotely news related. I am at a total loss how the the thrust of the content is supposedly about a non-public person, this is actualy about the comment of a Prime Minister and its effect on a national election, the fact that it involves a private person is neither here nor there, and appropriately handling of that aspect while still delivering a proper, informative article which is being covered extensively, is not rocket science. If Wikipedia doean't have enough editors who can appreciate the differences, then it is a lost cause, and will never achieve its goals. Only Wikipedia is pretending this incident is not big already. If you personally haven't already found reliable secondary sources discussing the impact of this incident in spades, then frankly, you have not bothered to look. The coverage is so extensive the BBC is even aggregating and summarising it, easily found by anybody with a PC. Wikipedia is protecting nobody by sticking its head in the sand right now, endorsing dodgy practices such as that shotgun Afd. I mean seriously, how can anyone credibly claim that this article was assessed against NOT#NEWS, when the article didn't even last not even a quarter of a news cycle? It was a classic kneejerk steam roll, based on some very flawed interpretations of BLP. MickMacNee (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right, it's not how it happens a lot of the time, even though policy and guidelines say that it is how it should always happen. That's not a great argument for going against policy and guidelines yet again, though. Guy (Help!) 04:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's not long since there was general consensus to extend the AFD discussion period to 7 days to ensure that the discussion would get good representation from all editors, not just the ones who hang around hotspots like ANI. A one-hour close when there was not unanimity is clearly contrary to our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It is not how it happens a lot of the time because, despite your misconception, there is no blanket ban on creating articles just because they mention a notionally private living person, that is the BLP obsessives take on the policy who don't really care that the pedia has another mission, it is not the actual policy at all if you read it, or the hundred and one other guidelines that go into detail about how to deal with current events type content. People might be able to ignore the level of coverage and real world events which already make the nauseating and self-righteous 'do no harm' argument made here resemble the utter irrelevance it is in such no brainer WP:EVENT cases like this, but even they must realise now that they have screwed up royally with their kneejerking, when it is being reported after not even 48 hours, that she has signed a deal to 'sell her story', and that no, this isn't just a flash in the pan, and no, this isn't yesterday's news. When people don't go around closing Afd's after one hour, Wikipedia is usually well able to handle inclusion/exclusion of such incidents quite easily, without ultimately violating BLP, deleting the article after 7 days if people's predictions about what a non-event it actually was turn out to be true. As it is, Wikipedia has just screwed up, yet again, because people have such a total obsession with BLP!!!!, and the fact that people's magical powers of prediction, let alone their total inability to even consider the sources while they pontificate on what they think of an article, is only ever given weight on the delete side. MickMacNee (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well stated Mick. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per NOTNEWS, even if the event were all over the news. This is an encyclopedia and it's fine to temporarily lock or delete a subject if people are trying to use it to influence an ongoing event. Although we often have up-to-the-minute info on current events, that's an accident of our low overhead editing process and not an encyclopedic goal. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist for a full discussion. This has the potential to become the same level of article as read my lips, no new taxes and Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I don't believe this single event is worthy of its own article, in the same way that we don't have an article about John Prescott punching a farmer who pelted him with an egg during the 2001 campaign. That created just as much news and was just as controversial for a day or two, and was then pretty much forgotten - I very much doubt this incident would be any more newsworthy. A mention in Brown's article and the 2010 election article is all that's needed here for now. Bettia (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The two incidents aren't even comparable in their depth and breadth of coverage or impact on the election. I find the comparison ludicrous in the extreme. MickMacNee (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The Guardian alone has written about this 44 times in one form or another, that's not even after a full 48 hours. If you can show the Prescott punch was even remotely comparable, I'll reconsider. MickMacNee (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Overturn due to continuing coverage after the AfD (specially "the only gaffe that got any attention during the campaign"[2] from 6 April) The early close avoided a long-winded dispute that would have finished anyways in a delete or a consensus to mention it only in the election's article. The closer's statement "(...) there's an overwhelming consensus forming that this article is counter to WP:ONEEVENT & WP:NOTNEWS" was a correct assesment, IMHO. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  A perfect example of the magical powers of prediction that are only listened to when invoked for BLP!, but ingored when coming from the keep side. But as we all know, prediction, either way, is irrelevent. The evidence of coverage was already there however, and is still piling in, and the only thing the early closure has 'avoided' is a discussion as to why this incident is still top billing on the BBC One TV news as I type this. That would presumably just be a pesky nuisance to have to discuss for seven days, as happens in 99% of other cases. The closer naively thought that rational discussion of ongoing coverage and potential recreation would be possible after his irregular early closure, and a Drv wouldn't be hijacked by people who quite obviously have no interest in assessing the notability independently. This was clearly a fatal mistake, which has killed this article stone dead, irrespective of any future developments, and merely produces the usual situation, whereby Wikipedia's article on the election is the last place anyone should be looking if their goal is finding out accurate information. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it practically never happened, let alone being what is being described as a major incident and highly disastrous for the Prime Minister, during the last week of an election. That 'incidents' section was crap earlier, suggesting more notice was taken of the SNP challenge and the twitter mistake, and even more bizarrely, that only three incidents have even occured. Anyone who knows, usually by having eyes and ears and being located in Britain, knows this is just utter garbage. But bizarrely now, somone has attempted to illustrate the obvious, that this was the major stand-out incident in the campaign, highly noted and analsyed, by using a table format. A crazy 'solution'. Britons stand back and laugh at Wikipedia for such decisions, while anyone not in Britain will just have to do the usual, and get their knowledge elsewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Infact, scratch that. That table format is still attempting to bullshit readers by suggesting that 'bigotgate' was merely one of three incidents that day, and was at least on an equal par to the SNP legal challenge failure. The third 'incident', a UKIP bit of irrelevance, I never even heard of that day, as I'm sure nobody else did. What utter utter garbage. MickMacNee (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The close hasn't avoided anything as we have our long-winded dispute right here. And the content about the matter was copied by the nominator to another article under the closer's nose. And the incident is covered in numerous other Wikipedia articles now. The cat is out of the bag and running in all directions... Colonel Warden (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Bigoted women incident was a problematic title and i cant comment further on the original article as I didnt see it. On a related point there doesnt seem to have been any merit in deleting an article with a less loaded title such as Bigotsgate. I totally agree that protecting the woman concerned ought to take precedence over policy and guideline, even for a dazzlingly notable subject such as this. However, in this case a neutrally written presentation clearly shows the woman to be blameless - her concerns over immigration were very moderate, in line with majority opinion including the views of black and asian Brits . As for the woman having "no comment" to the press, in sources such as [3] & [4] its suggested thats because she wishes to secure a lucrative exclusive deal, however even here full details reflect well on the woman as the sources suggest she had to much integrity to attack either Brown or Cameron and so the initial deal fell through. On Wednesday evening Gordon Brown emailed Labour activists saying he's "under no illusions as to how much scorn some in the media will want to heap upon me in the days ahead" Lets be under no illusions about the notability of the incident. Theres now even multiple quality second order sources entirely devoted to how the incidents been covered as part of the "global media meltdown" that has seen the incident "dominate TV coverage of the campaign". According to ITV news last night, an ITN poll found 40% of folk who were previously voting Labour are now either voting against or have became unsure. Fair and neutral coverage of the incident will help reduce the number of folk who form the false impression that the woman really was bigoted rather than an innocent victim of Mr Browns elitism. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That is more of a sad reflection of the general idiocy of the mainstream media becoming more and more tabloid-ish as time goes on. We need to raise our bar for inclusion here, not drop down into the gutter side-by-side with them. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What, so we should join you in working on high quality content like Ultramega OK, "Nazi Driver is about cutting up Nazis and making stew out of them."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs)

• Um, any particular reason your trolling through my contrib history, Warden? We do have rules against this very sort of harassment, you know. Tarc (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a sad reflection on Wikipedia that we have people here prepared to dismiss gloabal coverage and analysis from the likes of the New York Times as tabloid junk and not worthy of simple consideration, let alone seven days of Afd debate as to its significance, due to their misguided ideas about what 'doing no harm' actually means in the context of already notable and noted incidents. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bigotgate also deleted and salted. Syrthiss (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Now at DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 30#Bigotgate. –xeno^talk 15:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion the elimination of the page title "bigoted woman incident". Disparaging, begs the question. –xeno^talk 15:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If the question is, what was this incident that is all over the media all about? Why are political commentators worldwide describing it as a fatal blow for the chances of the incumbent Prime Minister in the election due in less than a week, then yes, I guess it does beg a few questions. To which Wikipedia has no answers apparently. Not even a hint that anything even happened. MickMacNee (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I was referring to the logical fallacy of begging the question ("bigoted woman incident" presupposes the conclusion that the woman was bigoted). –xeno^talk 18:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So.......what's wrong with the button marked 'move' then? MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Good question. Vote modified accordingly. –xeno^talk 19:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as irrational. An early close like this was does not allow opinion to develop, as it probably would have as t a few more days made it evident that what might seem trivial was in actuality seen by the world as quite the opposite. Whether or not people should have so seen it is not relevant. . Our interpretation of WP:BLP and ONE EVENT often seems to take no account of what really does enter history, and this will be one of our more dramatic examples. . What tabloids only report, I agree on rejecting; this is not the case when it concerns full coverage for major national and international newspapers. The present title is not descriptive of the woman., and any aspect that way could be solved by the unusual device of titling it "Bigoted" woman incident or the similar. WP covers the world as it is , not the world as we might individually think it ought to be. FeydHuxtable's argument that the incident is worth covering as an incident in its own right is convincing. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The More 4 rebroadcast of The Daily Show has just been banging on about this incident for the past ten minutes. It displayed both her name, and the 'tabloid' name of the incident, on screen, while doing what every bit of comedy media has been doing the last week, running a few bad mic jokes. Presumably this was also beamed out to millions of Americans too. Good luck to all the yanks trying to look this one up, as neither term exist according to Wikipedia. Oh John Stewart, you out of control BLP violating madman you. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a member of the Green Lantern Corps discussing British politics on The Daily Show? :P _{(sorry, I couldn't resist)}Umbralcorax (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very droll. Frank Skinner spent half his show on it tonight also. It's a full on cultural reference now. Wikipedia gets more irrelevant to the real world by the hour, forget the maintenance phase, this is full on decline. MickMacNee (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is keeping you here y'know. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime you've got something usefull to say, just say it. Examples might be how this deletion has any proveable merit in terms of protecting this woman, or that this incident does not already meet WP:EVENT. Anything at all, just not blatant rubbish like dismissing the world's media as tabloids, or pretending to be able to predict the future, or any of the other non-arguments you've offered up so far to endorse this deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've just deleted 2010 Gordon Brown Bigot incident as G4 - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is a bit of a mess as we need to untangle several different things: 1. Do we have an article on the topic, in addition to United Kingdom general election, 2010#28 April? I don't think we should as I believe the content in the article I link to is sufficient, but I don't believe that BLP rules prevent us from writing about this incident per se - it is very public, widely reported, and it is wrong-headed paternalism to think that BLP prevents us from writing about political scandals. Those citing WP:NOTNEWS as a blanket restriction on writing about current events would do well to read the WP:EVENT, which goes into detail on how and when to write articles about events. 2. If we do have an article, what title does it have? I abstain from proposing a title, but "Bigoted women incident" was particularly unfortunate and "Open mic incident" is a horrible Wikipedia invention, it sounds like something that happened at a pub music night. 3. Is "Bigotgate" a valid redirect, or is it an attack? (I think it's valid, and have stated this at the other DRV). Fences&Windows 13:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporarily overturn but begin a Wikipedia wide conference There is too much variability in WP. See Joe the Plumber. Same kind of person as Mrs. Duffy. They both should have an article or neither one. Mrs. Duffy continues to have coverage internationally even now. The Wall Street Journal Europe has an article on her today, days after the one incident, showing that she is not just one incident but a circus. Whilst others point to "other crap exists" there is also a guideline that says we should give equal treatment to all articles because it is the fair thing. One problem is that politicians have millions of supporters and we should treat them all as meatpuppets and just rationally decide on the issue. Deciding on the issue as a group, not a specific article, will make handling the gaffe of your favourite politician or least favourite politician on the same terms.

Another reason to overturn is that it was closed after only hours, which is impromper except for obvious vandalism. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious BLP issues do not need to wait for wiki-process to play itself out. As for the famous plumber, I actually did argue to delete Joe's article at the time because all he was was a one-shot media blip. But afterwards he went on to be a field reporter for some far-right-wing blog, thus surpassing WP:ONEEVENT. I see zero indication that this woman intends to cash in on her proverbial 15 minutes; quite the contrary, she is avoiding the spotlight altogether. Your analogy fails. Tarc (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc may see zero indication, but Mrs. Duffy is not avoiding the spotlight. She just sold her story to the Daily Mail. This is not an obvious BLP issue because one event people are many in Wikipedia, such as John Hinckley. The main lesson for this article is that Wikipedia should develop a standard for inclusion. Otherwise, political opponents will favor articles unfavourable to the opposition and political supporters will oppose articles unfavourable to their candidate with both sides wikilawyering with excuses. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mrs Duffy has been quiet because, after being advised by the professional PR firm which she quickly engaged, she has sold exclusive rights to her story for a five figure sum. You can read all about this in the Wall Street Journal. When this story appears tomorrow, there will be another big spike in coverage and so it goes. The idea that Wikipedia is making the slightest difference to any of this is absurd. WikiNews is covering the matter in detail. Wikipedia is still covering the matter in detail as the material in question was copied, not deleted. All we have here is a procedural matter - an AFD that was improperly closed too soon and a cut/paste violation of our licence terms. These violations should be reverted so that the matter may be dealt with in an orderly way. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, would you stop citing ONEEVENT as a reason to delete this article please? It only applies to BLP articles, not to articles about the event itself, which this is. I said this earlier up, but you replied with something about me putting words into your mouth, when what I was doing was asking you to clarify. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will cite whatever I goddamn well please, my dear Kingpin. Thank you. Tarc (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, of course you can cite it, but don't expect anyone to respect you for doing it. WP:ONEEVENT is about not writing articles about people known for only one event; it does not prohibit writing about current events. If you don't understand this I suggest you need to read policies and guidelines more carefully before citing them. If you do understand this, then please stop Wikilawyering. Fences&Windows 21:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an event is current does not mean it is notable. I am quite comfortable with my interpretation of policy, thank you, and the last thing I care about is repect from editors who favor article inclousion at all costs, to the detriment of living people. Such editors are beneath contempt. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Lovely. Go to google.com, start typing in this woman's name, and it now makes a suggestion of her name + "wiki" as a common search phrase. What are the top 3 results returned from that? The now-deleted article from her name, "Bigotsgate", and "2010 Gordon Brown Bigot incident". So to all those that have either created the above or supported the recreation of the above, give yourselves a nice little pat on the back for such a capital job at building a quality encyclopedia, a job that resulted in consigning this woman to a pejorative accusation against her. Actions have consequences; what is written here can and does have a damaging effect on living people. Tarc (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an event that happened prominently, and Wikipedia can't make it magically disappear by not covering it. We don't say anything libellous about her, and she voluntarily spoke to the PM on camera so it is not as though her comments were intended to be private. An encyclopedia that failed to include one of the most widely reported incidents of an election campaign would be doing its reader a disservice. I don't think that Gillian Duffy will be losing sleep over Wikipedia writing about this; she's probably more worried about journalists camping out on her doorstep. Fences&Windows 21:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your backhanded compliment is better aimed at Google tbh, they are the ones who cache hastily deleted pages and create auto-suggestions based on the most popular search terms. In terms of Wikipedia proper, it still never happened apparently. Which is why people will keep trying to create redirects/articles and you will keep pretending the resulting crud is their fault rather than a by product of a co-option of BLP which produces hysteria and over-reaction in the face of reality, which doesn't actually do anything to protect this woman, as well as making Wikipedia suck balls as a credible information source. Still, at least you fired up Google to do some research for part of this review, instead of working from the script. It's a sort of progress I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist I don't think it's a very good practice to close an AfD this early when one side of the debate (which clearly exists in this case) has been given inadequate time to express its opinion. However, given the BLP issues involved, this should surely be restored to a different title. When this is relisted at AfD, there will be a better perspective on whether WP:NOTNEWS applies, given the passage of time, and hopefully the snowball clause won't be invoked in such a way that it stifles discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Those of us living in the UK may have noticed this continues to get a lot of news coverage. In fact, I believe it was on the front page of the Telegraph yesterday, and also on the front page of the Mail on Sunday this morning, which brings me on to what I came here to say. The Mail seems to have gotten an exclusive interview with Duffy, who appears to welcome the media coverage, and is using it to "lash back" (as I see it) at Gordon Brown. I hope this goes a long way to satisfy those BLP issues, in that if Duffy wants to remain hidden from the public, taking an interview with on of our most popular newspapers isn't the way you'd expect her to go about it. So I'd request that those with concerns that we would be giving her unwanted publicity review their !votes. It may also help address the concerns of those who seem to think that ONEVENT applies. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You would frankly have to be blind not to notice that this incident is not anywhere close to equivalent to the trivial garbage it has been lumped with in that pathetic 'notable incidents' section. Still, we are talking about an Afd that was shut down after an hour, and a review of that decision where people laughingly think Wikipedia waits a year before writing articles, or want to pretend they know how to predict what is and isn't huge better than the world's media. The perfect storm of ignorance and wiki-politics. MickMacNee (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn but it probably should be merged. There's no reason though to close something like this so quickly. Shadowjams (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for longer discussion, because the consensus is not as strong as is being suggested and the article does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. WP:NOT#NEWS arguments are pretty convincing reasons to delete, but not to speedy delete. Moreover, merging with another article (my feeling is that United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010#28_April would be the best candidate) is an option which has not been fully explored, and needs more time than one hour. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010#28_April exists precisely because the contents of Bigoted woman incident were merged there, and it was merged there as a result of the consensus in the original discussion. It has been edited since, but the point is that all the merging that ought to be done has been done, nobody objects to that, and there's nothing to "overturn" on that score. What the editors contributing to the discussion objected to is the existence of a separate article. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call that a succesfull merge outcome. More like a still birth. That content is woefull, and it speaks volumes that people spent more time trying to stuff that 'incidents' section with trivial incidents to justify their predictions in the hour that that Afd was allowed to stay open, rather than add any of the massive amount of sources that existed, and are still coming, for this incident. Still, at least we have plenty of other news stories to occupy our time with, even though we are NOT#NEWS (no laughing at the back!). I guess that article exists because it doesn't name any living person, it's the only logical conclusion from Afd/Drv kneejerks like this. Never mind that it has a hundredth of the amount of sourcing that would have existed for this article, which still has three days to go on the original Afd, had anyone bothered to follow our actual rules. MickMacNee (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Major incident that should have its own topic. Prefer the article name is something more Encyclopedic however. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - I have much sympathy with the close since, at that time, this looked as though it was just a transient incident. However, as events have moved on, it is clear that this has become a defining moment of the Brown premiership. The implications of this event go far beyond this single incident. TerriersFan (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn While I think WP:NOTEARLY is often mere process wonkery, the close was far too premature to even call that an AfD discussion. Rather, it was a speedy deletion that really didn't meet the criteria. DGG, Stifle, and others make absolutely good calls that there are other issues in play here. If anything, I almost would rather us have a 24-hour delay on reporting the news than this sort of silly thrash. WP:NOT#NEWS is not normative and hasn't been... unless someone wants something embarrassing deleted, and then it's an OK AfD criterion. Hmm. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: an issue here is whether this incident needs a full encyclopedia article because it was "one of the most important to happen in British politics in the election campaign", such that "a prime-minister's political career has been destroyed", and "a major incident and highly disastrous for the Prime Minister", "a defining moment of the Brown premiership" etc; or whether it was a WP:NOTNEWS-type media storm in a teacup with no impact in the real world. That question can now be decisively answered by a look at the YouGov voting intention polls. The incident took place on the 28th and most of the press furore was on the 29th. Here is its impact:

date	28	29	30	01	02
Intending to vote Labour	27%	27%	28%	27%	28%

JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. A perfect example of the utter abuse of policy this Afd/Drv represents. Numerous third party reliable sources describe this as the incident of the election, a definite and self-admitted major blow for Brown. Almost immediately, and for days on end, coverage of the other 'notable incidents' in that rubbish election article pale into insignificance by comparison. Yet you turn up, do a bit of original research and assert a few of your own personal opinions as fact, to vote delete/endorse. People letting this stuff fly as being anything that even remotely resembles proper policy backed assertion is an outrage tbh. Kneejerk POV votes are of course expected, the real issue here is how an admin can so blatantly set aside the Afd rules to shut it down after an hour, for a potential article that is so blatanly not a BLP it is unreal, is the real issue. It is not surprising he has buggered off on 'holiday', I hope he didn't go anywhere with access to British or American television or newspapers. MickMacNee (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigoted woman incident early, at 17:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC), the effect was that of, essentially a WP:BLP/WP:IAR-driven speedy delete. At 17:14, 28 April 2010, there was still limited media coverage and I felt the precautionary principle, which I read as an inherent and critical characteristic of the biographies of living persons policy, dictated decisive action. Given the real-life consequences that have precipitated the BLP policy, I think it's poor form and a very questionable practice to "wait" on borderline biographies. I acted with the full knowledge that the incident could become an important, independent topic; it certainly hadn't met, in my opinion, a practical notability threshold at the time of the close to justify its inclusion above and beyond concerns over (perceived) negative biographical information.
  Since the AfD closure and the opening of this DRV, it is clear to me that this has grown into an incident of import. Reasonable, informed editors can disagree now on whether the incident itself deserves its own article or belongs as a subsection of the election article; five days ago, there was only speculation as to the extent of the incident's impact and indications that the article subject was unwillingly thrust into her harsh spotlight. I'd rather err on the side of overcaution in these situations and I strongly think BLP should empower admins to make these decisions for the sake of the article subjects, to say nothing of the project's ethical and legal obligations.
  As a reminder, I closed the AfD with

  Should this incident evolve into something of greater import, the article can be recreated at a more appropriate name with the necessary context provided by reliable citations.

  I see no practical reason (other than a slavish devotion to process) that this should not occur right now. I've made repeated comments that I'm willing to cooperate as much as possible towards a reasonable outcome, and I've offered to userify the content to facilitate a proper BLP treatment. That still stands. As far as I'm concerned, this DRV could close now (endorse, overturn...won't affect my ego) and we can move onto the content. I'm nothing if not pragmatic, and I don't really see the utility of this discussion any more beyond further grandstanding. This was a good-faith action that may or may not have produced the optimal process, but the optimal outcome is still certainly within reach. — Scientizzle 15:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well endorse-to-overturn is roughly 2-1 at the moment, so the outsome seems fairly clear. But if this was to be somehow overturned and sent back to a 7-day AfD, I'd strongly urge that the article remain deleted in the meantime. Err on the side of caution and decency. Tarc (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How on earth do you conduct an Afd on a non-existent article? This farce of a Drv is effectively an Afd on a non-existent article, which is why it has been oh so effective at producing arguments that actually relate to the content anyone could or would have created given the slightest chance to do so, rather than acting as a venue for you to show once again that your reactionary positions are entirely down to your view that entire sections of editors are "beneath contempt", and have no relation to the merit of the article or guideance like WP:EVENT in the slightest. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't rocket science, Mick; it would be the same rationale we use when we do courtesy blanking and such. And for a recent precedent for an article, there is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely (2nd nomination). During the AfD discussion, the article itself was blanked out for privacy/BLP concerns. So, if you are done frothing, my request is not all that out of the ordinary. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy blanking isn't deletion, I don't believe that was your orignal meaning at all. MickMacNee (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hope you don't charge too much for mind-reading tricks at the local fair, because you ain't very good at it. Tarc (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Tarc, please try and be helpful, and cut out the personal comments. Keep this about the page, not each other huh? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  When other users attempt to undercut my input by saying "that isn't what you meant", I will defend my position accordingly. Despite our esteemed essay to the contrary, sarcasm is sometimes a useful defense against the patently absurd. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Kingpin's right. This is unseemly. Cut it out, please.--Chaser (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  When another user assumes bad faith, it is well within reason to offer a defense. Tarc (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't agree that this has "has grown into an incident of import." It grew into a short-lived media frenzy, yes, but it would only have had real import if it affected the election outcome, and the opinion poll voting-intention figures show no measurable effect at all. The day after the election it will be forgotten by all but political obsessives, except as the subject for an occasional joke. JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the kind of argument that would normally be dealt with at Afd, where you would likely find plenty of people disagreeing with your analysis and your methods. It certainly has no place in a Drv, where the only issue is the validity of the closure. MickMacNee (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion for closure: 1) Move Bigotgate to Bigotsgate (suppress redirect) 2) Restore Bigoted woman incident, move to Bigotgate (suppress redirect), redirect to United Kingdom general election, 2010#28 April. 3) Close DRV as "deletion generally endorsed, history restored per licensing concerns and placed at 'Bigotgate', redirected to the section on the incident, any split into a new article should be discussed at Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2010". –xeno^talk 16:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (e/c @Scientizzle) BLP violations cannot be userfied, period. So that begs the question, was this a valid BLP speedy close or wasn't it? IAR is irrelevant, the actions and responses mandated in our actual BLP policy, (rather than the many flawed perceptions of it that exist), are mature enough to deal with what was a routine example of a new article on a breaking national story. Anyone who thinks we don't routinely handle these, is utterly mistaken. The involvement of a notionally private living person was frankly, irrelevant, easily handled in compliance with BLP without the over-reaction. The cache already even contained national reliable sources iirc, making the claim of limited coverage quite dubious, which combined with the clear mistake of thinking this was in any way a proposed 1E biography, would have allowed any number of other courses of action except calling IAR to early close and delete, (which then has the killer follow on consequence of auto-response admin actions - salting of this and any and all subsequent redirects/recreations, even after the utility of certain redirects even has become in your face obvious). That would have prevented the setting off of this drv steamroller, it would have prevented the one-line ACRONYM arguments which have no intention of examining against notability to dominate the issue, irrespective of the reality on the ground, because whatever you say now after the event in all your apparent good faith (which suggests to me you've never seen many of these situations actually develop on wiki), in reality, that history now means that it would take the most naive and optimistic editor willing to spend the time to attempt recreating this article (which is the very best outcome for some people's ideology), and later expect it would get a fair and rational hearing from a balanced set of reviewers according to our actual content policies. No, this content's card is marked from now on. You can see from the election article the consequences of thinking this fits niceley over there as an alternative, having not even had that as a possibility to be discussed in the Afd, as it now attracts diversionary fluff and trivia all around it, while nobody works on the actual incident content at all, in the knowledge anyone will come along at any point and cite these precedential actions as reasons to go on a blanking spree, citing the three magic initials. MickMacNee (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ongoing media comment today, from CNN even. I've seen it referred to in every peice I've read today about the election. MickMacNee (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, so, it wasn't a fad. I'm changing to my !vote to overturn because of the continued coverage and the incidence in being "the only gaffe that got any attention during the campaign" (from the CNN source above). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The rules state 7 days, not one hour. The outcome was not assured, since most of those who spam delete everywhere, don't bother checking for sources. Dream Focus 01:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]