Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 16-31

Allison Stokke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Holder of multiple national records in the pole vault, subject of dozens of news stories, at least 50 of them having nothing to do with her recent internet fame, speedy deleted as A7 (article about a person with no claim of importance or significance) in the middle of an AfD. Holder of multiple national records is clearly a person of significance. Requesting overturn to let the AfD run. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. As the creator of the article, I am happy to let it undergo AfD, but it should be obvious that A7 of WP:CSD does not apply here. Lampman 23:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted for reasons explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke by myself and others. If she becomes notable based on her sports achievements at a later date we can create a new article at that time. Burntsauce 23:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That was an AfD discussion. The arguments brought forth there do not apply here, as we're discussing the speedy and whether A7 applies. Lampman 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they apply. Deletion review is not for restoring pages that masquerade as encyclopedia articles but inevitably belong deleted. —Centrx→talk • 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you believe an article on a holder of multiple national records is "masquerades as an encyclopedia article" that's your opinion. My point is that the subject for discussion here is whether speedy was proper procedure, or if the community should have its say. It is hard for contributers to debate the absolute value of the article, since it doesn't exist. Lampman 23:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • What multiple national records has she held? I haven't found that in the links provided. Corvus cornix 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • She holds the national record in pole vault for high school freshmen and sophomores, at 12-8 and 13-5.75 respectively[1]. "Stokke, from Newport Harbor High School, is a pole vaulter with a PR of 13-5 3/4. As a junior, she took second place at the CIF State Championships with a mark of 12-9, the same mark she hit as a sophomore, when she set the national sophomore indoor record. A member of the USA Today's All-USA Girls Track Team as a sophomore, she set national age-group records of 13-5 3/4 at age 16 and 13-4 at age 15. She set a national freshman record of 12-8 and was a Verizon Junior All-American in 2004." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The non-meme links I can see only say that she was a regional high school champion, which clearly fails notability. If she makes the Olympics or wins the NCAAs, then write an article about her as an athlete, but the concentration on the internet meme is a BLP violation, and speedy deletion was proper. (BTW, I am basing this on the AfD discussion and the links provided, I can't see the article.) Corvus cornix 23:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Return to AfD. A7 does not apply if there is an assertion of importance, even if the assertion should prove unsourced or insufficient. The assertion of even an informal national record is an assertion of importance. Doesn't prove it, and may not be enough, but no single individual gets to decide that, & I thought that this at least was generally understood. Speedy is not elastic. BLP is not a speedy criterion, and this is not obvious BLP even if it were. Arguments to the contrary, unilateral deletions for BLP can only be justified by imminent harm, and if the story is already out in the web, there won't be any additional imminent harm. Short of that, BLP is not decided by what any one admin or editor wants to call it, but by the community. I would have removed her picture immediately if it had been there, biut the rest is arguable & should be argued. DGG 23:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deletion is proper if the bio is non-notable, and/or if there is a BLP violation, both of which apply in this case. Corvus cornix 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No you're wrong; BLP violation is only cause for speedy if the article is libelous, which it was clearly not. NN is only cause for speedy if it is absolutely uncontroversial, but as this discussion shows it is clearly not. But again, it is hard for contributers to assess these things when the article isn't there. Lampman 23:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you actually think this warrants an article in an encyclopedia? Given that you ostensibly reluctantly "Started page that will inevitably come, might as well make it a good, respectful article", why do you think this page belongs on Wikipedia. Why do you think it could ever be made into anything more than a newspaper article? If you want to write a newspaper article, see Wikinews. —Centrx→talk • 23:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could expain that, but it's not an argument I'm willing to have, because it's a complete sidetrack. The question here is not whether she is notable, that's a question for the AfD. The question is whether her notability was asserted, which it was, and as such the rules clearly state that the article cannot be speedied.
        • The real issue here is whether administrators should be allowed to sidestep rules and ignore community consensus. I for one believe not. Lampman 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy deletion is proper when the article is used solely to comment upon a person's appearance, which is what it was doing (apparently). Corvus cornix 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, it wasn't. It was a neutral summary of her records, her achievements, and the fact that she'd gained a notable amount of unwanted lewdness. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will take into account that you have not read the article, but I can assure you that that was not the case. There was not a POV word in the article, there was one short line - not about her appearance - but about public reaction to her appearance. The main focus was on her athletic abilities. If you had been able to read it you could have made an informed judgement rather than rely on hearsay, and that's why the AfD should be reopened. Lampman 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Then it should have been speedy deleted as non-notable. Corvus cornix 00:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Bloody hell no. Horrible nasty thing. Keep deleted and monitor all future creations by the author. Gah.--Doc^g 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Internet memes ARE NOT WORTHY. Sean William @ 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IDON'TLIKEIT is an argument for afd not drv.Geni 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse on BLP grounds, but there's no way it was an A7 speedy. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right about A7. And BLP does not warrant speedy, only if it's libelous. Lampman 01:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, but on the other hand, if this article stands, is it going to focus on her athletic achievements, or the fact she's been a pervert magnet for half the Internet? While there is the danger of using WP:BLP as a big deletion stick (Another POINTY AfD today) there are plainly some articles that Wikipedia isn't doing itself any favours by including. Fine, relist if really necessary (after all the process was wrong, which is why we're here) but I don't see the advantage. EliminatorJR ^Talk 10:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A lot of people make and break records in high school. Even living in California, students break all sorts of school records and barely a peep in the local papers. What I am seeing on Google now is just news about her pictures being used in the blogosphere. Even some of the sites that perpetuated the meme are closing up shop and issuing an apology to her. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• go back to afd Not A7.Geni 01:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Get a life, people. This is a real live young woman we're talking about. I'm the person who deleted the article and closed the AfD. I don't particularly care if A7 applies or not. I don't particularly care if the abuse of power by certain admins angers some people. There's no grand principle at stake here which says that every article which can be written must be written. Move on to something important. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist clearly not an A7 - there was assertion of notability. (the grounds it was deleted under) Nor is it a G10 (Attack). Also I would like people to remember DRV is about policy, not content, whether you like it or not is immaterial - the issue is whether the deletion was proper under the deltin policy. Viridae^Talk 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I endorse this deletion on the grounds cited in the deletion listing by David.Monniaux, particularly the biographies of living persons policy. The article did not reflect well on Wikipedia. We should be very wary of partarking, or even to appear to partake, of the culture of prurience and cyberstalking that afflicts much of the web. We're different, folks. We don't need this article. --Tony Sidaway 02:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist', improper closure. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I quote from the deleted revision using my magical admin powers: "According to her coach and her parents Alison has been somewhat disturbed by the excessive publicity." This is a clear BLP concern; we shouldn't be subjecting this girl to further unwanted attention and ogling. Krimpet (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did the Daniel Brandt argument become policy? "I'm my own person, take my article off!" –– Lid^(Talk) 03:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daniel Brandt has been an activist for decades, constantly grappling for publicity and press on his endless tirades. All this girl is notable for is being lusted over by a bunch of horny old perverts on the internet, and she was unsurprisingly disturbed by this unwanted publicity. There's a huge difference between the two. Krimpet (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look, I'd never heard of Allison Stokke before I heard it mentioned on IRC just now, but this comment is ridiculous. She's clearly of note for breaking some pole vaulting records at a young age. The article that was deleted contained no image of her, was short and informative. I see no reason why it should be removed. She's concerned about negative attention, not an informative article. Her picture is all over the news, FFS, and if she's gonna be an athlete she'd better get used to it. Would you delete the article of Serena Williams if she requested it be removed?! === Jez === 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. WP:BLP supersedes process, as it should. We all know this. Chick Bowen 02:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? There still needs to be a process to see if BLP even applies, otherwise it's saying 'safety trumps freedom' to justify throwing people in jail without trial. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The process is administrator conferral and common sense, and this discussion right here. And never compare an article to a person. People have rights; articles don't. Chick Bowen 04:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • DRV is here to certify correctness of process, not make content decisions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Screw process. This is a real person. Do you not get the fact that real live people do not give a damn about our silly processes? They care about what's being splashed all over the Internet about them. Anyone who cares more about process than content does not care about the people our content affects. FCYTravis 18:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There wasn't anything offensive in the deleted article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you don't get why the article's existence was offensive to basic human decency, you have no business commenting on issues affecting living people. You're arguing that for the entirety of her life, the next 65+ years, this woman should have to put up with an "encyclopedia article" which reminds everyone that when she was 18, a bunch of basement-bound bloggers passed her photo around like some piece of meat? You have no sense of ethics. This article has no need of existing right now. FCYTravis 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • for the entirety of her life, no, I'm arguing that an article, four sentences of which are devoted to discussing other achievements and aspects of her life, and three to her internet fame, should be allowed to exist for the seven days it takes to finish the AfD that was already in process. If your concern is about 65 years down the line, why not let us take the seven days to get it right now? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Eventualism applies only in reverse for living people. It does zero harm to anyone to delete the article immediately and then argue about it, and then consider later whether to write an article on her. By leaving the article up, we are continuing to disseminate the harm or potential harm. FCYTravis 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Maybe what's occurring to her is "offensive" to "basic human decency," all subjective terms that have no place in this discussion, but may otherwise. If we were simply plastering the pictures all over the place and renamed the article "pole vaulting vixen," maybe you'd have a point. But none of that is or was happening, nor would anyone let it at this point. But you have to demonstrate how an article that works off of numerous sources does any harm first. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No he doesn't. You have to demonstrate why it should be allowed to stay. Quoting from WP:BLP, The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • No, he does if he wants this to stay deleted. The justification for how this does not violate BLP is clear. --19:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • Zero harm? You think it would do zero harm to delete every article in wikipedia that any administrator thinks is possibly harmful to anyone at any time in the future, and then only letting people discuss it without seeing the content? We're not throwing around ED-type allegations here, we're simply reporting what the secondary sources said. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's quite simple, really, Night Gyr. By keeping an article on this, we will never allow people to ever forget what happened to this woman. We will come up on their Google for the remainder of their natural-born lives. That is something we must take into consideration. Blogs shut down and disappear without a trace. People forget. But Wikipedia is forever - and that's not always a good thing. FCYTravis 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The issue here is not whether the article should exist forever, it's whether it should be allowed a full deletion discussion. You're ignoring that and strawmanning. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • There's absolutely no point in giving it "a full deletion discussion" if the article is going to die, period. This one was going to. You keep thinking everything is about process. Let me clue you in - real people do not give a flying fuck about our silly processes. FCYTravis 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Well sourced articles that do not violate policy are not "going to die." That does not happen, sorry. I know you want it to, but it doesn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Oh, but they have, and they will continue to do so. You can ask the whole ArbCom to recuse if you wish, but this is the future of Wikipedia - less tabloid, more encyclopedia. Jeff, please, you and I both have better things to do than argue over this. It's happening whether anyone likes it or not. FCYTravis 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • I'm glad you're so confident. Just because you need disruption and abuse to get your position across doesn't mean the rest of us do. You're right, we both have better things to do - so start by stopping with defending disruptive nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                • This is personal attack. Let's keep it civil. -- Kesh 01:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, clearly out of process with given no time to have a discussion on the issue, A7 obviously not applying dueto numerous notability claims (backed with sources) and the people screaming BLP need to realise BLP is for the deletion of information from articles, not a reason listed under WP:SPEEDY (except in cases of extreme libel). This recent BLP vs Keep period hs been mind boggling. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Yeah, I know it was deleted. I don't see, and have never really understood, why it's worth angering and alienating members of the community over failing to allow even a debate to take place, and trusting that a closing admin will interpret things properly. But anyway, this is a NN high school athlete that would have no coverage at all if she weren't a victim of unwanted publicity. I guess I can see why it made the news once, but that doesn't make it a topic we should really have in the encyclopedia. If she becomes legitimately famous for her accomplishments as an athlete, or if she becomes notable in some other way, the article can be recreated, and the unfortunate incident can be covered. But for now she's not there yet. Mangojuice^talk 05:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would have no coverage at all if she weren't a victim of unwanted publicity" -- Did you miss the 52 news stories I cited that discuss her before the internet publicity? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I meant, no coverage here. It's quite obvious to me, that her track and field accomplishments (though fairly imprssive) would not have led to her being written up in Wikipedia had it not been for this unfortunate internet meme. The edit history confirms this: the page was first created back at the end of April, with "Hot pole vaulter..." as the main point. Mangojuice^talk 11:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist obviously failed CSD criteria, was already on afd and was headed towards delete, hell the admin even deleted the AFD! Thats just not done. I also feel this subject is notable per her records, All americans are clearly determined notable by consensus as we have over a hundred in Category:McDonald's High School All-Americans.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious overturn; unlike most Internet memes, this actually rated an article in the Washington Post. I'm very disturbed by the new trend of using WP:BLP as a justification to delete articles when the real reason for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Were there unsourced or poorly sourced statements about Ms. Stokes in this article? If so, remove those statements, and start from scratch if needed. If not, then it doesn't fall under BLP. Period. There is no such thing as an article title that inherently violates BLP. *** Crotalus *** 06:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Unsubstantiated rumors about Crotalus horridus would fly under BLP :P Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There would be no need to invoke BLP because such a page would violate WP:V and WP:RS. On the other hand, if a major national newspaper printed a story about me, then an article would be justified even if the subject of coverage was trivial and/or embarrasing. *** Crotalus *** 06:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • False. That would be Wikinews, which is ----> that way. Having a single article published about you in a major national newspaper or magazine does not make you encyclopedic. If that was the case, I would be encyclopedic, as a 70,000-circulation national road racing magazine published a page-long profile feature on me. That doesn't make me encyclopedic. We do not write "biographies" of every single person who was once in a newspaper. FCYTravis 18:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse outcome, do not endorse means used to get there or rationale. In the end, this is indeed a 15-minutes-of-fame story that belongs on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. But BLP certainly does not apply here. I looked at the deleted article, and I fail to see any unsourced or poorly sourced negative information, nor any non-neutral language used to attack, nor even any undue weight issues. In the end, I would've still argued to delete on notability grounds, and I think that would have been the eventual outcome. But BLP has got to quit being used as the big hammer when someone just doesn't like it. Sometimes, it will be encyclopedic to cover bad things that happen to people. In this case, it's not. But we need to quit overextending BLP. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn notability clearly established. Internet meme or not, she is notable.  Grue  11:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh for Christ's sake. If the Internets were not circulating pictures and going "PHWOOOOAR!" would we even have the article in the first place? We can either have an article excluding the mention of this ridiculous crap, which is a one-liner but an acceptable stub, and permanently protect it, or we can leave it deleted, or we can redirect to a page on junior US athletics records and leave it at that. Wat is not acceptable is the article in the form as deleted, as should be blindingly obvious to everybody. Internet meme my arse - nice looking girl drooled over by nerds without a girlfriend is the limit of that shit. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, however it is we got there, per JzG in particular. In cases of minor internet celebrities (and she is minor), first do no harm. Process concerns will have to take a number. Mackensen (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the assertion of notability is more about how a website posted a picture of her and then a big pervert furore took place, which is not good - BLP is expressly for this kind of shit. Neil (►) 12:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Here’s another couple of articles that should be speedied if we are gonna be consistent: Prince William: the poor kid didn’t ask for the attention and I’m sure he would be happier without it. Notability, of course, doesn’t apply when there are BLP concerns. Star Wars kid: this is pretty obvious – unlike Stokke he didn’t deliberately do anything to get notable, unlike her the attention he got was purely negative, and unlike her he was far below the age of majority at the time.

• To be honest I couldn’t care less if the article stays or goes. I’ve seen the girl jump and I’m convinced that, come Beijing, there won’t be a power-tripping admin in the world who can keep her from having her own article. What I don’t like is admins playing God. Of those who endorse deletion I’ve seen a lot of arguments about her notability, but I haven’t seen anyone able to explain how this article warrants a speedy. That’s because it doesn’t. Lampman 12:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BLP. Her only real assertions to notability (to date) was being the subject of a pervertapalooza. Neil (►) 12:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That's simply not true. High school athletes can be notable if they show enough potential. Kevin Garnett and Lebron James were both on the cover of Sports Illustrated while still in high school. But more importantly: WP:BLP is not grounds for speedy! Lampman 12:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Was it well sourced? Because if not, you may have been able to delete that portion for the time being. You do realize, however, that she was on the front page of the Washington Post, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Was she on the front of the Post for winning her high school pole vault? Neil (►) 15:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that relevant? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It was better sourced than 99% of the articles out there, with inline citations from reliable news sources. Again, contributers aren't able to make an informed opinion because some admin circumvented the rules, so they have to rely on hearsay instead. Lampman 14:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: how many "high-school champions" are there out there? Just how notable are this girl's athletic achievements? Given that she is so young, it is highly unlikely that she has progressed to the point where she is significant on a global scale, and most of the references to her actual abilities that I have seen were from local news only. If in some years she progresses to senior competition, rather than just fading away into the crowd, maybe we can resurrect this article. —Phil | Talk 14:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding from the articles I've read is that she's a national record holder for her level, meaning that she holds the record for pole vaulting for high schoolers. It's significant on a national scale, for sure - global, maybe not, but that doesn't really make a difference. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I restored a temporary copy of the most recent version of the article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31/Allison Stokke Temp in case anybody wants to see the contents. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already deleted for the same reasons this article was. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got it in one.--Doc^g 15:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that the original deletion was inappropriate, however, a histoy undeletion would be useful here. I know you won't do it, but it's worth noting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, instead of Wikilawyering about process and making hysterical accusations, you could address which of the three permissible outcomes you prefer: merge to an article on high school atlhetic records; a one-liner without the perv-o-rama; or deletion until she achieves some more widespread and substantive coverage outside of the athletic achievement. Any of these three would be fine per policy. Do feel free to choose one. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • None of the above. A full article on her and the situation is entirely warranted per all relevant policies. Instead of being rude and accusing people of Wikilawyering, you could admit that maybe, just maybe, there wasn't a violation for anything here. So I pick option four - full restoral. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted Apart from this lurid incident and short-lived Internet meme, she is just yet another gifted young athlete. David.Monniaux 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, high school athlete plus some news stories is not enough to overrule WP:BLP here. Kusma (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You have obviously misunderstood the argument: BLP policy is not about speedy. The issue here is whether speedying the article was correct. Lampman 15:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep in mind, also, that no BLP issue has been adequately supported. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, but there was no particular reason to speedy it. It was already listed on AFD, that would have been fine. I don't see how it's an emergency for us to get rid of a sourced article that doesn't say anything not already being said by lots of news sources. In other words, there's no reason to use cries of "BLP! It must go!" in this case. Friday (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why are you endorsing? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a flash-in-the-pan human interest story, and we're an encyclopedia here. If we didn't have this ridiculous "you can't see it because it was deleted" bug, you'd be able to see where I prodded it for that reason. Friday (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that's unfortunate that we don't get to discuss those merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • DRV isn't about if you think it should exist or not, it's about whether you think the process was correctly followed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree. It would be a completely lame waste of time for me to argue to undelete, only to want delete it again by a longer process. No further information would have come out at AFD, it would just have produced the usual keep versus delete arguments, which are already well understood. All that's left would be to interpret the results, and we've already got the right interpretation in this case. Friday (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not to mention a lot of people don't think this is the correct answer. The endorsement gives the impression that you don't want those voices to be heard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • • Jeff, we hear nothing but your voice. Those who want this crap undeleted are free to speak here.--Doc^g 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Unfortunately, we're at a loss, since we can't see what was there. So this ends up being a worthless discussion on the merits of the article if we can't see what's there. I'd hate to think that the overriding intent is exactly that, but it's becoming harder and harder to assume otherwise. There's no way to have a good discussion on the merits of an article we can't see. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please keep it civil. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • (edit conflict)The whole point is to figure out with a broader consensus what the right answer actually is. Otherwise it's just saying that the guy everyone knows is guilty doesn't deserve another trial, even though he got railroaded by a corrupt judge in the first one. Respect for the rules is necessary to keep a smoothly functioning system. The time and effort of running an afd is far less than the aggravation caused by disruptions of process. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's no point in running an afd. We are debating it here. Although why we are debating this horrible, intrusive and two-week-old internet meme, I have no idea.--Doc^g 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You mean WP:CUTEGIRL is not a good reason to keep? Friday (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • You mean WP:IFEELBADLYABOUTIT is a good reason to delete? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • We were running an afd until RoySmith cut it short, and you cut off any attempt to actually discuss the content by removing his temporary restoration. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist We have an AFD process which works very well, and this article should be judged on its merits. There are a great many newspaper articles which have substantial coverage of her athletic achievements prior to and independent of any internet fame for a photo. If we need a policy provision allowing deletion of articles which some feel might be embarrassing to minors, then by all means add such provisions to WP:BIO , WP:BLP , or WP:CSD. Wikipedia should follow its policies and guidelines, and not the whims of admins who feel their moral compass points truer than those of their peers. Edison 16:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Blind adherence to process should never outweigh common decency and common sense. -- Donald Albury 17:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the original deletion was appropriate in the spirit of WP:BLP. Wikilawyering over this could well have real life ramifications for the subject of the article, so there is no reason not to stop it early. We're an encyclopedia, not a tabliod. If you want to write a decent article on a meme, Wikinews is ----------------> over here. Martinp23 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins, Oliver Wendell Holmes. That's what we're talking about here. Was the deletion in-process? Maybe not, but I don't care. Was everything in the article accurate, verifiable, and backed up by proper citations to good sources? Probably, but again, I don't care. The point is, Wikipedia having this article may cause harm to an innocent person. As far as I'm concerned, that's the only argument that matters. Something can be 100% right and still be wrong. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What harm? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The discussion that the speedy deletion has generated here is probably an indication that it's a contentious enough decision that it should not have been speedied - certainly it does not seem to qualify per CSD guidelines. Nevertheless I believe that the outcome would have been to delete this anyway, and to force it back through AfD is a bit too much process wonkery for me. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Not a valid speedy deletion. Plenty of neutral reliable sources available to produce article on this subject. Catchpole 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - What on Earth has Wikipedia come to when people are defending a "biographical article" the sum total of which consists of the fact that a bunch of bloggers leered at her photo? To quote CBS News, "Meet the Greta Garbo of the Internet: Allison Stokke. She’s 18 years old, athletic, attractive and wants to be left the hell alone." We're going to leave her the hell alone. FCYTravis 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be terrible. That wasn't what the article was. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not commenting either way on the article, but if "wanting to be left the hell alone" were a criterion, wouldn't we have deleted this article some time ago? Should we revive discussion of an "opt-out" policy for living people? JavaTenor 18:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The more tabloid trash articles like this we have, the more I start to agree with Mr. Brandt. Perhaps we should issue a policy which says we don't cover living people at all. It's going to come to that point if we keep treating the subjects of our articles as if they don't matter. FCYTravis 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We aren't Encyclopedia Dramatica, either. --Carnildo 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Marginal notebility plus BLP concerns = delete. (I am happy to agree that A7 doesn't apply, but that doesn;t decide this case.) Eluchil404 18:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete != speedy delete debatably deletable material shouldn't be speedied. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've emailed the Washington Post writer responsible for the front page article about her; I'll forward Allison a copy of the deleted article if I can get in touch with her. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a threat which violates policy and common sense and will almost certainly lead to your desysopping. FCYTravis 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note, he appears to be offering to email a copy to the subject of the article, not to the Washington Post, if I read it correctly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the speedy. Perfectly valid delete on BLP grounds. Anyone who thinks differently really doesn't understand the intent of BLP and needs to rethink their position. There are many voices here saying that now and it will become increasingly clear that articles such as this will not survive in the end. Having protracted wrangling about it for each such incident is divisive and unnecessary, and will become increasingly clear over time that it will not be tolerated, I predict. Some of the people speaking out to try to save it are making rather shocking statements... that the deletion is the right thing but that we have to have a DRV or an AFD anyway, that BLP doesn't say that privacy and doing the right thing aren't important, or even that if things don't go a certain way that they will contact the media with deleted content. That last matter is gravely serious and shocking, and unacceptable of someone the community placed trust in. "endorse delete" and close this DRV early as being out of order. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, the offer was to email it to the subject of the article, not to the media. JavaTenor 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was valid about it? Was it an unsourced negative page about a living person? Nope. Was it an attack page? Nope. So no, the deletion was not "perfectly valid." Also, anyone thinking of closing this early or in the requisite five days should know that the strength of argument is what's important here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you read WP:BLP?: In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems. In the best case, this can simply lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, this can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.,=. Corvus cornix 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm very aware of it. There's no doubt here. This did not qualify. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article condemns itself: "became an overnight internet phenomenon" == Not notable except for being a meme. "Alison has been somewhat disturbed by the excessive publicity" == the publicity is doing her harm. QED. After paring back the tabloid sensationalism, the fact that people drool over her, there's nothing left. Do no harm. This is an OBVIOUS speedy. Unless this is a project I (and many others, including, dare I say it, Jimbo himself) do not care to be associated with, that is. Perhaps you should fork, Jeff. Your views are clearly far, far outside the mainstream. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow. I'm civil to you and you make an asshole comment in return. Nice job. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • EH? you lost me there. What comment are you referring to? I refuted your statement of "there's no doubt" it did not qualify, by showing that conversely, there's no doubt that this WAS a good deletion, that it DID qualify, as the article itself proves it. And if you don't see that, your views are indeed far outside the mainsteam. And IF your views are far outside the mainstream of this project, forking is the correct thing to do. It's how open source projects grow and prosper, after all. Perhaps you are right, and the rest of us are wrong. The entire project is GFDL or otherwise free content (that's the point after all) so you can start afresh if you so wish, as other forks have done in the past. But I despair of reasoning with you, you seem so devoutly certain that there are absolutely no circumstances under which something might be a BLP issue. Here we have someone non notable who does not WANT notoriety, who has been victimised by having it thrust upon her and you just don't have the common, man-in-the-pub decency to let her be. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Letting the AfD run its course would be less drama and make more sense, as now this DRv is performing as the AfD, which its not intended to do. Then Delete because of the BLP concerns. Regardless of the "vote" total, of course. Unless someone can come up with an argument that trumps that. Who knows? Also: if we cannot get a majority of !voters to support deletion for reasons of BLP or indeed WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY in cases like this, we have a cultural problem that we need to work on. Ham-handed attempts to cut off discussion are not the way to do this. Herostratus 21:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Ignoring lurid and sensational coverage of her status as an "internet phenomenon", there is very little here. A stub containing just the first paragraph of the last deleted version would probably be okay, but it would almost certainly need to be protected. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted until she conquers the world as a vaulter. Passing meme that'll be forgotten about in two weeks. Moreschi ^Talk 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist on AfD Setting a national record in a recognized sport is normally considerd notable, in any of itself, regardless of any "internet meme". This is true even for an age-restricted record. Unless we ahve changed our inclusion policy drastically quite recently, there should be an article on her for the sports achievements alone. Whether the intrnet stuiff should be there is an editorial decision, ther is enough for an articel even if it is removed. It is all well cited, and does not appear to me to be "negative or controversial". But even if it is all removed, national sports champions clearly pass WP:BIO and surely do not warrent A7 speedy deletes. This is simply absurd, IMO. DES ^(talk) 23:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WP:BLP and Jimbo's edit. It may be an out-of-process deletion but it embodies the spirit of those two. As Spike Lee said, "Always do the right thing." howcheng {chat} 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/Relist - The application of BLP has been a farce of late. Why was BLP drafted in the first place? To get rid of uncited and potentially libelous information in light of the Seigenthaler embarrassment. It has been railroaded into a get out of jail free card for speedying any biographical articles that an admin doesn't like. Just give a shout of BLP and you can be sure of editors cowering away. Yet this is never what BLP was about. FCYTravis gives an impassioned cry of "Think of the children" but this is entirely irrelevant. Wikipedia is about notability, whether you're notable for being leered over, or notable for filming yourself looking like a clumsy idiot is irrelevant. Wikipedia is for the reader first, the subject's thoughts contribute very little whether we have an article or not; if you want to edit with a "Sympathetic Point of View", then head over to Wikinfo, a mirror more suitable to your tastes. Wikipedia is about neutrality, if a fat Chinese kid is noted because of his appearance, then that's what the article should concentrate on, not how awful and mean his detractors have been, it is not undue weight. And on a slight tangent, although I agree with the recently added "Subject (person's) name may not be the best place to put the article on incidents", in this case, it clearly would. I'm sure some misguided user thinks High School Pole Vault lechery controversy sidesteps BLP issues by not mentioning names, it's not, and anything like that is a ridiculous name for an article.

• Incidentally, I would vote to delete the article. This 15 seconds of fame crap just doesn't cut mustard, I had never even heard of her until now, and the articles are human interest fluff. Unless this interest persists, it just isn't notable enough (but more so that the web crap which we have), but then again I think the Essjay article is a pointless piece of Wiki-navel gazing. I'm still arguing to overturn and relist this deletion because I can see BLP speedies getting more and more contrived and gregarious. We'll be deleting well-sourced neutral information because an editor thinks sections carry undue weight when they're just biased, we'll be deleting well-sourced biographies because we think the articles existence may possibly remotely harm the subject, rather than how its harming the readers for not being there. As an example of this stupidity, I'll cite the recent Crystal Gail Mangum deletion logs in which the protected redirect is deleted for some really moot Wikipedia essay which seem to be clogging up the project space. - hahnchen 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a strong opinion on the article itself. It looks like a non-notable athlete but we have lots and lots and lots and lots of articles about athletes I would consider non-notable. The 'human dignity' etc. argument is reasonable (though I note that Star Wars kid is still a blue link, surely a far worse problem in that regard). I rather dislike admins refusing to allow non-admins to see the contents of an article for the duration of a deletion discussion. I also dislike admins making ridiculous accusations such as saying other people 'have no ethics'. If you're going to put yourselves up as the super-reasonable defenders of the encyclopedia then you have to actually be reasonable and able to have a civil argument. Haukur 00:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion. But let parties take this to ArbCom or policy process determine if there are times and places where egregious WP:BLP warrants a speedy. and:
  • Smack closing Admin with a trout for using an A7 justification when the AfD as listed doesn't justify that criteria at all, doubly so because even a speedy doesn't have to be done within three hours of opening an AfD. Even a WP:SNOW justification would have been better.
  • Smack all editors involved with a trout for thinking a) "This must be deleted [or kept] or WP will fall!", and b) for thinking something that's highly covered in news sources and teh internets will remain [or go away] whether or not it's at WP.
  • Smack all with trouts who think that the family itself can't find and use the libel removal process outlined in WP:BLP on their own if they feel it necessary - we don't need to defend them, they obviously can defend themselves.
  • Smack those with a trout who think temp undeletion is a problem in this case while DRV proceeds - again, if it's a properly verified article with no OR, then the information is elsewhere on the Internet, so what's the problem? This is clearly an individual case basis, where viewing the article itself at this time would help understand if a relist is necessary or not.
  • Smack Jimbo Wales with a minnow for bringing to life such a beautiful system where policies collide on such a grand scale that case-by-case determination is necessary.
  • Smack me with a trout for thinking any of this is important.

- LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh w/ Me or Logical Entries} 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist - not eligible for speedy, requires a full debate. BoojiBoy 02:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted for two reasons. First, not notable. If this student-athlete did not deserve an article two years ago when she broke a record of some kind, she doesn't deserve it now because someone posted her picture on a blog and some hairy-knuckled internet wankers drooled on it. Second, violates BLP and What Wikipedia is Not. It is impossible to write a neutral encyclopedia biography when the only thing documented in the sources is "She holds a pole-vault record and is pretty, and when he picture was posted on a blog some hairy-knuckled internet wankers made disturbing comments." Her mom says she is disturbed by the attention but is handling it well. That is not an endorsement for permanent enshrinement in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of cute girls whose pictures get posted on the internet without their permission (even if a newspaper writes about it). Thatcher131 06:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Speedy delete not warranted, notability asserted (Not for the pole vaulting, that - while great - is not notable, but for for the discussion about photo privacy and uncontrollable internet memes, evidenced by this story by CBS news). —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. I can see both sides of this and I have sympathy for the new idea that Wikipedia simply should not treat every internet meme as encyclopedic because it got a couple of news stories. I don't, however, think that necessarily applies in this case, and I think the community should be allowed to decide whether it does. To those voting to keep it deleted for (what may be) good reason, the question at hand is not the article's propriety, but whether the deletion of the article was proper. I do not think it was a proper deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 08:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: Clearly non-notable individual. Google does not show notability, nor does being given 15 minutes of unwanted fame.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist (I need to mention that I have not seen the article in question, all the info I have on this article comes from this discussion, and the afd that was closed.) I came across this article's afd while doing my weekly read through of the afd's and found it interesting that it was closed so quickly not once, but twice for the same reasons that seem to be clearly false. First is the subject notable? In my humble opinion the answer is a resounding yes, not just for the current wave of internet fame, but for the fact that she holds National records for a sporting event. This notability precludes use of the CSD A7 Argument. Second, does the article cause damage to the subject or family of the subject? Again I can't speak directly to this, but unless the article showed personal info (Home address, phone numbers, e-mail addresses) I find it hard to think that a short paragraph on a current news topic could be considered harmful to the subject. So that throws out the BLP argument. As for wiki-lawering and the such I find it hard to stomach that so many people are blindly following an admin or two who clearly have stated that process be damned I'll do what I want. I can't help but think that this would be de-syopable but that doesn't seem to be mentioned at all. Also I think it could set a dangerous precedent that its okay for a syop to go and delete then get approval without letting people see it. Finally I am amazed at the MASSSIVE amount of Crystal balling going on here. I gaze into my crystal ball and see this becoming a landmark case in internet law, finding out who really owns the image of a person, and is it legal or an invasion of privacy to pass a picture of a living person around without conscent of that person? Does this argument allow for the article to be kept?? No, but its the same as the endorsers claims that she is an internet phenom that will be forgotten by the end of the month. EnsRedShirt 08:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Now the world is catching on regarding our removal of obviously notable articles. Great job, folks, Wikipedia needs more bad press like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary: I predict that the person who wrote that on their web log will be castigated by others in like manner to this, and Wikipedia taking the same high ground, of not hosting a biographical article on a private individual who has explicitly stated her desire not to become known for the things discussed in the second paragraph, as several of the people who have voluntarily shut down their web sites have taken, will prove to be one of our finer hours.

    Your attempt to raise the bogeyman of "Look! It's generating bad press." in order to sway the argument here will fail (not least because a web log isn't actually a press). I've read some of the comments outside of Wikipedia on this issue, and there is a definite swell of opinion that the people taking down the web sites have led by example in the correct direction. I also predict that this particular cry from you may well backfire on you, personally, from outside of Wikipedia. If you don't want that to happen, please put more thought into your arguments. Uncle G 16:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone please end this? We have plenty of input, and now we’re being ridiculed on one of the world’s biggest sports sites. Opinion seems to be split down the middle, but there’s really only one question that needs to be answered: was the speedy entirely uncontroversial? This is the only case in which a speedy is permissible, otherwise it must come up for AfD (and no, BLP concerns do not allow speedy). A quick look at the above should give an answer to that question. Lampman 14:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone here care what some random blogger on "one of the world's biggest sports sites" says about our project? <crickets> Thought not. FCYTravis 17:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. A7 was invalid, AFD closure was invalid and no admin can enforce his/her personal ethics on a project that has millions of users (despite mentioning "BLP" in deletion summary). As for the subject, she is clearly notable as proved by the number of reliable sources. Prolog 15:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist I fail to see how the subject of a front page story in the Washington Post, followed by a CBS story about the Washington Post front page story can be accused of not asserting notability. I also fail to see where BLP says that sourced content can be speedy deleted. If coverage of this turns one into a "tabloid", I guess the Washington Post, Sydney Morning Herald, Los Angeles Times, NPR, San Jose Mercury News, CBS News, USA Today, and AOL Sports are all tabloids too. I can think of worse company. --Maxamegalon2000 17:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist While I can think of many reasons to delete this article, speedy deleting it under BLP is not the way to go. While I understand and agree with many of the BLP speedies, this is very much a gray area (as far as policy is concerned) that needs community discussion. I really don't like the direction these BLP deletion rationales are going in. -- Ned Scott 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - seems to be very controversial, doesn't seem to be obviously unimportant, no BLP Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 01:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Several above have mentioned sources relevant to this discussion, but not all have been linked here. Here are a few: Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register, Washington Post, CBS News, San Jose Mercury News, among others. For what it's worth, I agree that it's odd to have a biography of this young lady, especially given her stated desire to reduce the level of attention paid to her (I believe we may ultimately end up with some variety of "opt-out" policy here), although there may be something encyclopedic to say in some other article about the nature of privacy in the internet era which could use her case as a case study. JavaTenor 02:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist Twelve hours ago, Google showed 447K hits on her name -- now there are 592K. And referring to her as a "girl" is demeaning -- she is a woman. Please see my other comments on Talk:Allison_Stokke. Bete Noir 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This deletion review is becoming notable. http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/06/01/allison-stokkes-wikipedia-entry-keeps-getting-deleted/ Paxse 05:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please actually read the discussion that preceded your comment, where this particular "It's generating press!" bogeyman has already been addressed. Uncle G 11:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This woman has been the victim of some disgusting behaviour by a blogger, and just because some equally disgusting men have chosen to turn this into an "internet meme" does not mean Wikipedia should substantially further that harm by covering the incident. I have zero confidence in the judgement of those (virtually all men, surprise of surprises) who have voted to overturn this deletion, and I'm just disgusted that there would be so many. Rebecca 05:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please desist. Abusing your administrative privileges to reveal personal details about editors will not be tolerated. Bete Noir 07:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, where on earth did that come from? I said no such thing. Rebecca 07:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably the virtually all men comment. I'm not aware of any wikipedia policy that takes the gender of those commenting into account. In adition you will note that most of the overturns are procedual at this point we have no idea how many actualy support the existance of the article compared to those who think that the way this has been delt with is unacceptable.Geni 10:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's somewhat foolish, as anyone familiar with the World Wide Web should be aware, to assume the sexes of people that one knows only as pseudonyms on a web site. And it's very bad form for an administrator and ex-arbitration committee member, who should know our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, to take a discussion of the deletion of an article and attempt to turn it into a discussion of the editors that are participating in the discussion. Uncle G 11:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was simply noting a clearly evident fact; the vast majority of those wanting to keep this disgusting article are men. This isn't about personal attacks; it is about chauvinistic behaviour on Wikipedia, and I'll be damned if I'm not going to criticise it when I see it. Rebecca 04:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said: As anyone familiar with the World Wide Web should be aware, it isn't a clearly evident fact. And an ex-arbitration committee member should know the second sentence of our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Uncle G 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - speedy deletion was clearly out of process. The deleting Administrator may not care about abuse of power by Administrators, but I do. And so should we all. Js farrar 11:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist clearly out of process, no BLP issues or speedy delete criteria as far as I understand, the whole AFD process seems to have been subverted by a single admin. KnightLago 14:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No BLP issues?!?!? This woman has made it very clearly that this mass sexual harrassment is causing her grief. We shouldn't be adding to it; I don't think I've ever seen a clearer case of BLP. Rebecca 04:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sexual harassment" is a strong accusation, and being one of the editors of Stokke's article, your use of this hyperbole does not please me. I can't find anything in Sexual harassment about creating NPOV biographies qualifying one for this unpleasant label. Do you know the fable about "The Man Who Cried Wolf?" Bete Noir 04:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll quote from the article you cited. The first line, indeed. "Sexual harassment is harassment or unwelcome attention of a sexual nature." This entire meme is exactly this. You are adding to that unwelcome attention; you are being complicit in sexual harrassment. Rebecca 04:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're being confused by the multiple meanings of the English word "attention"; please see http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/attention and study the distinction between entries 2 (the kind related to Wikipedia articles) and 3a (the kind related to Sexual harassment). And please read WP:CIVIL and WP:LEGAL before you accuse your fellow editors of involvement in criminal activities like harassment. Bete Noir 07:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • In this context, the difference is a purely semantic one. To quote from Hemlock Martinis below, "The news stories will dissipate, but this article is supposed to be there for the long haul. That's harm." I'm not going to stroke your ego here - while you can attempt to weasel out of it as much as you like, you are being fundamentally complicit in sexual harassment. Rebecca 07:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Calling the Stokke situation Sexual harassment is an insult to the millions of women -- and men -- who have actually been truly harassed. And I, for one, believe that women can be strong, smart, and tough: Allison will continue on her chosen course despite having thousands of men -- and women -- staring at her photos. A polite article (such as mine) on her amazing achievements of both athletic skill and (relucant) Internet celebrity is not just justifiable, but necessary. Bete Noir 07:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. While her achievements in the pole vault might at first glance seem to qualify her for an article under WP:BIO, I doubt that Wikipedia already has articles about the girls' high school record holders in the high jump, long jump, etc., or the boys' high school record holders in the pole vault, the long jump, etc. (This is not an invitation for someone to make a WP:POINT by creating those articles now -- I'm talking about whether such articles already exist.) And if she doesn't qualify for an article under WP:BIO as an athlete, there should be less urgency to demand an article about her as an unwilling Internet semi-celebrity (whom I had never heard of before this deletion review). --Metropolitan90 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if we're going to be going by her words, let's think about this quote for a moment: "I worked so hard for pole vaulting and all this other stuff, and it's almost like that doesn't matter. Nobody sees that. Nobody really sees me."[2] Now which is going to help more here, presenting a neutral and balanced article about an accomplished pole vaulter who also became an internet phenomenon, or sweeping it under the rug and letting the lewd blogs hold the top google slots? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither. What is going to help more is recording the fact that this athlete holds a U.S. record for her class in her sport at United States records in track and field, so that when people put this name into Google Web that is the page that comes up. I reiterate an important principle: Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. If you want to think about that quotation, think about the part where she says that it is "almost like that doesn't matter" and with that in mind consider how the pole vaulting achievement apparently matters so little to all of the Wikipedia editors employing it as their argument that they haven't actually added it to the article that is there to document such things. Uncle G 16:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair, that article doesn't cover any women and has zero incoming links. That doesn't mean wikipedia places no value on women athletes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a straw man. What I actually suggested that you think about was the fact that a few Wikipedia editors employ the significance of the pole vaulting achievements as an argument, yet their contributions histories show no edits at all to United States records in track and field, to actually write about these achievements in the article that is there for them to be written about. As the subject's quote above said, it is "almost like that doesn't matter". Uncle G 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• See this [3] relevant story. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've created a biographical stub of another notable athlete at Tori Anthony, in case anyone's interested in pointing out what issues apply there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's called making a wp:point. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you clarify how this is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? That's a very serious charge. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it isn't. A WP:POINT would be someone creating that article and not believing it belonged on Wikipedia. Night Gyr clearly believes it does. Haukur 19:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A little perspective from a journalist, Randy Schultz: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2007/06/03/a1e_schultzcol_0603.html --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain why you think this article provides perspective but a Wikipedia article giving the same information would partake in a "culture of prurience and cyberstalking"? Haukur 20:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. There is no need for an article on that person right now and we don't write editorials. --Tony Sidaway 20:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  That didn't answer the question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly does. Only reason deletion is regarded as controversial at all is because of prurient interest. --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it really doesn't, and your second statement is wrong - while prurient interest is certainly a factor, that's not why this is controversial. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Tony, no one's voiced any reason why the article I posted ought to be deleted. you think maybe you're just overreacting the opposite direction? "I don't like her getting this kind of fame, so she must not be notable at all!" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I think the only reason this article was deleted was the 'prurient interest'. The way, the truth, and the light 22:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Look at the deleted revisions, and the deletion log. This article was created in late May by Lampman to document the prurience. An earlier version of the article, basically a nonsense article, was apparently deleted in late April at request of the author. --Tony Sidaway 22:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Created "to document the prurience", perhaps. But I still don't understand why you applaud that when it happens in that article you linked to but decry it when it happens in a Wikipedia article. Mind you, I don't support our article in the state it was when it got deleted - at least the links to that blog and YouTube video should go if it gets resuscitated. Haukur 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Good articles are created for bad reasons all the time. There are numerous articles originally created with utter crap that have led me and other editors to consider it a mission to turn them around into quality stubs. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If the AfD had been allowed to run its course, it would almost certainly, in my opinion (having read this DRV), have resulted in deletion without any of this spew coming out. I wonder if the Administrator who abused his power by speedy close/deleting out of process is satisfied with his work? Js farrar 01:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting read. I don't think that's the case at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I say that due to the number of "overturn and relist" !votes. It is my personal belief that (a) the article should be deleted, but (b) the article should not have been speedy deleted out of process. Hence my !vote for "overturn and relist". Js farrar 14:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You falsely assume the "relist" is because people want it deleted, when it's just as likely people aren't into disenfranchising other Wikipedians the way many administrators are. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Surely the rationale behind "relist" must be "delete this, but delete it the right way"? Js farrar 15:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not necessarily. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• relist please she is a noted athlete holding many records we can document this at least yuckfoo 02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is not a noted athlete. She is one of many thousands of high school record holders around the world, none of the others of which have have an article. The one and only reason she ever had an article on Wikipedia in the first place was because she was a woman who was sexually harrassed by a bunch of bloggers. This does not mean that we should join in said harrassment. Rebecca 04:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can document it quite satisfactorily in United States records in track and field. Uncle G 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having finally gotten a chance to see the article while it was shortly undeleted (and being able to use Special:Export to save a complete copy), I can't see anything in this article that is causing her harm. Her short-term fame is the reason she's getting attention, and that's just 'cause she's a hottie. I don't think the article is effecting any of that at all. Deleting under BLP is stupid. Deleting it because she's not notable would be understandable (and I'd even support that). However, that is not a reason to just endorse deletion. As odd as it sounds, we need to show that this stuff needs to be taken to AFD, so we can help calibrate what is an appropriate BLP deletion and what is something to go to AFD, as it's getting out of control. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, what the hell? "...and that's just 'cause she's a hottie." I'm disgusted, if not surprised, that this is used as an excuse. This entire meme has been a disgusting case of sexual harrassment, and we should not be being complict in that. To that extent, it's an absolute textbook case of a BLP speedy deletion. Find another test case. Rebecca 05:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebecca, with all due respect, shut up. Took enough of this crap over irc without you flipping out here too. I'm really getting tired of your over-emotional-reactions, and playing the "she was a victim" card. If the information is encyclopedic, then we shouldn't remove it just because someone is getting unwanted attention for it. That's called being en encyclopedia. However, the article is painfully not notable, which is a reason to delete it. It's just not a speedy deletion, no matter how emotionally enraged you are. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologies for getting heated there. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This is disgusting. Get rid of the damn thing. If we made a page for every Internet meme, we'd just be another Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Hemlock Martinis 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, and a lot of us agree with that, but it shouldn't be speedy deleted as BLP. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you kidding? BLP is the best god-damned reason that this article shouldn't exist. There's a whole lot of people here who seem content on whining to keep this High Schooler's article up, when you could be doing something useful, like writing on topics we know are notable. Like Economic warfare. Considering how "notable" that topic is, the article sucks. Instead of wasting our time about high schoolers whose claim to fame is a pretty face, let's write an encyclopedia. Sean William @ 05:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Not being notable and just being a stupid meme is the best reason this article shouldn't exist. Why? Lets say she liked the attention, and thought it was all great. We still should delete the article. BLP is being stretched to be some kind of moral code, which is not what it was supposed to be. It's too subjective, and too weak of a reason to speedy delete an article. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is that kind of article that the Biographies of living persons is for. Do no harm. All the rest is wikilawyering [4]. --Tony Sidaway 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tony pretty much summed up what I meant, just with better form and prose. --Hemlock Martinis 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The "harm" is too subjective for a speedy delete. BLP should be a reason in a deletion debate, but it's not something to speedy delete for. I do think there are some that are clear to be BLP speedies, but this isn't one of them. We're not talking about derogatory information, or something like that. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • And this isn't harm? This is Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. What we do is meant to be chronicled in perpetuity, and having a small article about a bunch of jocks lusting over an unsuspecting high school girl at their sports fansite is NOT encyclopedic. The news stories will dissipate, but this article is supposed to be there for the long haul. That's harm. --Hemlock Martinis 06:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The fact that it might do harm can and should be a factor, but how much harm and in what way should play a factor in it being a speedy or an AFD. And even then "harm" might not be enough of a deletion reason (alone, that is). I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but it's something that should have gone to AFD. There is no reason that this deletion couldn't have waited for seven days for such a discussion to be completed, even if we decided to blank the article during that time. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing like a blanket accusation of bad faith to cap things off, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, we should respect feelings of young woman victimized by a wanking blogger. MaxSem 07:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion A article about a young woman abused by unwanted publicity does not belong on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 12:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles that meet our guidelines for notability and verifiability do belong on Wikipedia. This includes content you may find objectionable.Prolog 14:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted High school athletes are non-public figures; they are children participating in school activities. The horrible way that she has been treated on the internet will not continue on Wikipedia if I have any say about it. --FloNight 13:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • High school athletes with coverage on CBS, LA Times, Sydney Morning Herald, the front page of Washington Post, et cetera, are not non-public figures. By this "horrible way" you mean a neutral and verified encyclopedia article about her? Wikipedia contains content you may find objectionable. Prolog 14:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps FloNight means exactly that focus on writing an "article about her" — the concentration upon the person, by constructing a biography, rather than upon the athletics records, which can be written about in United States records in track and field. Uncle G 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - A lot of eDrama could've been saved by the simple recognition that a speedy delete was improper, given the sourcing and notibility of the subject. Tarc 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looking at the history for Allison Stokke, my edits to that page no longer appear. My own User Contributions do not show them either. I do not believe this censorship/blanking is normal procedure. This has been reported in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Bete Noir 17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and list on AfD Did not meet speedy criterion since a claim of notability was made. The individual in question would likely have met WP:BIO even without the recent internet meme, so at minimum this needs to be relisted if it isn't an outright overturn and keep as is. JoshuaZ 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and list or keep Ye gads, 50 indepedent sources, national record holder? Why is this even an issue? If the meme is a BLP issue, keep it out of the article or severely redact it. Applying the BLP deletion sledgehammer to an actually notable person is taking it way too far. -N 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist This is the type of deletionism that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock. We are aggressively pushing a particular point of view when we consider that our judgment of notability is superior to that of news organizations like the Washington Post and the New York Times. -The Cunctator 20:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any evidence that people are laughing at us for deleting this? Or was that just a rhetorical flourish?--Doc^g 20:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Regarding the article talk page" Note, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Allison Stokke was opened and closed as Keep due to this DRV being in progress. If this DRV decides to remove the article, that closure is without prejudice for a deletion of the talk page decided during THIS debate. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Why would it even effect the talk page? We don't delete talk pages of deleted articles that contain deletion discussion. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh wait, the name, nevermind, I can see why. *smacks forehead* -- Ned Scott 18:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Wikipedia feature, deleted without ample discussion; has widespread audience, deleted on account of "not following GDFL" due to lack of attribution, but no work at all goes into remedying this attribution problem. I feel BJAODN can be restored and rehabilitated. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleted unless we have a group of editors willing to go through and make sure that everything under those 60+ subpages are all attributed appropriatly, which I am in favor of if you actually want to keep it. But I'm sure the majority of editors of this encyclopedia have better things to do than waste our time with this page. — Moe ε 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even a minority of editors is still plenty - this is a large-editorship encyclopedia. Besides, why should we be like all the other encyclopedias? This is Wikipedia. This is a new kind of encyclopedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Good God, this is a project to build a free-content encyclopedia, not manage the rejects! Focusing efforts on a group of pages that ran directly counter to that end (violation of the license so not properly 'free' content, not encyclopedic) is asinine. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then permit Uncyclopedia to have the pages in question so that they can unravel the pages and credits in question, AT THE VERY LEAST. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, who are you talking to? Last I checked Mackensen was not the author of the BJAODN content. Picaroon (Talk) 22:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am talking to the Wikipedia editorate in general. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      Comments from this user indicate a distinct lack of understanding of the GFDL... for instance, Uncyclopedia cannot have it because, of course, they are CC, not GFDL. Among other things. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Wrong. Uncyclopedia can practice GDFL if necessary. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • I don't think it's that easy to just halt a project and let it lead another route like that. — Moe ε 23:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So? Difficult things have been done before. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of idiocy which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Especially not a copyright-violating collection of idiocy which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Picaroon (Talk) 22:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Valid under CSD G12, never mind the BLP problems given some of the unnaceptable personal attacks on living people those subpages included. The content of those pages was not attributed to the contributors who made the posts and therefore not compatible with GFDL. Pooring time and efforts into sourcing those edits would be a momental waste of time and energy - I thought we were trying to build an encyclopedia not a collection of bad "jokes". WjBscribe 22:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would NOT be a waste of time, especially if outsourced to Uncyclopedia. For years BJAODN was an outlet for people who didn't want to contend with just making boring edits. Some of us are trying to build an encyclopedia and a collection of bad jokes. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong, we are here to create a encyclopedia first and foremost and nothing goes above that priority, especially if you're here just for BJAODN. If you're here just to create jokes and not be serious at all you deserve to be blocked. — Moe ε 23:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am NOT just here for BJAODN, OK? I like creating an encyclopedia as much as the next guy. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never said you were, I was targeting a more broad audience. And it's not called censorship, it's called "enforcing copyright law". BTW, Don't panic, nothing is irreversible. — Moe ε 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even copyright law allows one to keep copies for oneself for educational use under fair use, I think. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. It boggles the mind why people are arguing in favor of breaking the GFDL for material which has no place in an encyclopedia in the first place. If you want to write nonsense, or archive nonsense, Uncyclopedia is thataway. Burntsauce 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The merit of archiving nonsense is debatable, but what's not is that it's a GFDL violation minefield. Krimpet (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn on the basis that there was no attempt to obtain consensus *BUT* I can see some of these pages getting heavily, heavily redacted and/or deleted once that consensus is established, and I would not at all oppose that. Alternative option - set up a committee to mine the clear non-violators from the pile (while keeping deleted), put those up in an Archive, and set up a new-gen BJAODN with clear rules and guidelines, and reversion of any additions that don't meet them. Minimum standard should be - does not fail BLP, diff included (of course this is difficult for genuinely deleted articles but a link to them should be acceptable with name of user(s)). I would be happy to volunteer for such a task if required, and I'm happy for those who disagree with me to scrutinise anything I think worth redeeming - many of which are *not* GFDL violations as they clearly and unambiguously linked to the diff and username, or version, which contained the information. Orderinchaos 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted this is one time I do endorse IAR on grounds of common sense. The main page is more than sufficient.DGG 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closing sysop failed to point out that many of the violations of GDFL involved are reversible. I believe that WP:BJAODN is NOT a violation of GDFL in and of itself; the mere fact that a tradition started of violating GDFL was an innocent mishap and it grew into a custom. I will continue commenting, as I believe and consider it my right to do so. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to re-open this debate as soon as possible, or start a new one along the same lines as before. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:The deleted pages were kosher under the transformative-works provision of fair use, and one's right to access the deleted pages is also kosher under fair use. The bad jokes and other deleted nonsense constitute humor and satire, not an attempt to tell the truth; moreover, the works were transformative in many areas, not merely derivative. They transformed the original works. 204.52.215.107 01:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A7_Speedy Delete Captain cannibas75 21:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I still disagree. This is from the Wikipedia Notability Argument page:

• [edit] Valid content is deleted

The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that, indeed we are actively preventing that, if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance). Further, currently obscure, or seemingly obscure, subjects may garner more popular interest at a later date. In such a case, deleted articles will constitute a loss of valuable (and perhaps, in the transitory world of the internet, irreproducible) information.

• [edit] Obscure content isn't harmful

Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.

I understand that you may find Stephen Durnan obscure, but I am arguing that there is some interest in him. There is an article on "Durnan" on Wikipedia and Stephen as well as many other Durnans are mentioned in it. Since I have a great amount of information on Stephen Durnan, being his relative, I wrote this article telling his story using verifiable information that I have such as Census reports, Marriage Certificate, and Death records, as well as the Oral History that I have great knowledge of being his distant relative. I make clear distinctions between what is verifiable, those things that can be assured due to evididence, and the oral history. This man would be only a minor footnote if he had only one or two children, but this man had at least thirteen children and his grandson had 19 children and the Durnan family is large enough that a circus tent is involved in family reunions. A search of Genealogy sites shows tremendous interest in Stephen Durnan as there are a great many decendants. I could have wrote about one of his sons, but there isn't as much interest in his son as much more history of the son is known as opposed to Stephen. Stephen appears out of nowhere in the family lineage and for that reason, there has been a great deal of interest in his life by his numerous decendants. Therefore, I am asking you to reconsider as the information contained here is verifiable, as I am his direct decendant, and while his notability may be limited, it is by no means a worthless subject. I also affirm that there is no conflict of interest as I was careful to write the article in a neutral manner and with the hopes that those who search the Durnan surname, can link to Stephen and read more of the story since so many Durnans are direct decendants. If there is enough notability in the Surname, I argue that there is enough notability in the man that is responsible for much of that surname in the United States as well as Canada today. One of Stephen's decendants is Bill Durnan, famous hockey Goal Tender but that is already listed on the Durnan surname page. Thank you. -Eric E. Durnan

• I provide the verifability in that I am a direct decendant. You cannot say that Wikipedia does not contain ancestry information. While Stephen Durnan is no General Lee, this is found at General Lee's page:

Ancestry

Robert was the son of Maj. Gen. Henry Lee III "Light Horse Harry" (1756-1818), Governor of Virginia, and second wife, Anne Hill Carter (1773-1829). Henry married first, Matilda Lee (1766-1790), daughter of Hon. Philip Ludwell Lee, Sr., Esq. (1727-1775) and Elizabeth Steptoe (1743-1789), who married secondly, Philip Richard Fendall I, Esq. (1734-1805).

Anne was the daughter of Hon. Charles Carter, Sr. (1737-1802) of "Shirley", and his second wife, Anne Butler Moore (1756).

Henry III, was the son of Maj. Gen. Henry Lee II (1730-1787) of “Leesylvania” and, Lucy Grymes (1734-1792) the "Lowland Beauty".

Lucy was the daughter of Hon. Charles Grymes (1693-1743) and Frances Jennings.

Henry II, was the third son of Capt. Henry Lee I (1691-1747) of “Lee Hall”, Westmoreland County, and his wife, Mary Bland (1704-1764).

Mary was the daughter of Hon. Richard Bland, Sr. (1665-1720) and his second wife, Elizabeth Randolph (1685-1719).

Henry I, was the son of Col. Richard Lee II, Esq., “the scholar” (1647-1715) and Laetitia Corbin (ca. 1657-1706).

Laetitia was the daughter of Richard’s neighbor and, Councillor, Hon. Henry Corbin, Sr. (1629-1676) and Alice (Eltonhead) Burnham (ca. 1627-1684).

Richard II, was the son of Col. Richard Lee I, Esq., "the immigrant" (1618-1664) and Anne Constable (ca. 1621-1666).

Anne was the daughter of Thomas Constable and a ward of Sir John Thoroughgood.

• May I kindly assert the above arguments again that while Stephen Durnan is no Jesus, or General Lee, he is an object of limited notability in the fact that there is a "Durnan" article on this very site that mentions him. I did not create that page/article. I merely attempted to create a page from that page that would contain a link to Stephen for those that wished to learn more about the family and those with that surname. Stephen Durnan may be obscure to many, but the above-quoted argument that I found suggests that obscure is not harmful and I assure that the content is valid. What harm will be done in adding this to the encyclopedia? The fact that Stephen is mentioned in the Durnan article and his name is raised on many web sites dealing with the Durnan surname, tells me that there is some, albeit limited notability. As the argument states, if there is so little interest in Stephen Durnan, then you will not be expending any bandwidth and no one will search for it anyway. I do not believe this to be the case as the article for "Durnan" receives visitors and I believe that the site for Stephen will too. Can this article be put back up and tagged for discussion? May 28, 2007 21:03 CDT

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries. —Centrx→talk • 14:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. Senordingdong 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not notable at this point The information provided was a listing of basic facts about his life and the names of his children, and a unsourced account of his adventures of a farmer, of which the most notable event seems to have been getting a hernia at a barn rising. Somewhat more than this is needed, as we've been consistently deleting local worthies unless there's some actual notability from somethings, and sources to prove it. I don't think the article asserts any reasonable notability, and a speedy was probably appropriate. I will be glad to email the content to the author, --e mail me from my user page so I know the email address, but I do not think that any further work on this is likely to make an acceptable article. DGG 23:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has the material since after putting it up for review, he went ahead and recreated it word-for-word at Stephen durnan. IrishGuy ^talk 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, for the record. Totally unsourced article; claims of editor to personal knowledge are not reliable sources for an encyclopedia. No prejudice exists against a reliably-sourced rewrite. Xoloz 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Srikeit 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The article is marginally more coherent than the request, but in the end, as it says, "Very little is actually known about Stephen Durnan". Yup. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, while the article was quite long, I don't see a single assertion of notability. Valid A7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That fundraiser page is for the Wikimedia Foundation. The sum of all human knowledge doesn't necessarily have to be all in Wikipedia. Dictionary stuff is knowledge too, but it belongs in Wiktionary. Source documents belong in WikiSource and so on. Geaneology info of non-famous people (or people who aren't known outside their specific field of expertise) belongs at some Wikia project. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out here on the admin board, the following users are all sockpuppets of the same person and have been blocked: Newport, Poetlister, R613vlu, Brownlee, Londoneye, Taxwoman, Simul8, Osidge, Holdenhurst and Runcorn. These ten users were in the habit of supporting each other's comments in deletion debates. As such, I request that the following debates be overturned, because the present outcome is obviously the result of sockpuppet vote stacking. Note that in all cases the closing admin was unaware of this.

Overturn and delete:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_24#Category:Jewish_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Jewish_businesspeople

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_10#Category:Maimonides

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_10#Category:Jewish_scientists

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional portrayals of psychopaths

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinnernet

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_4#Category:Jewish_fencers

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsa Zsa Riordan (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:Actors_by_religion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Garron

Overturn and rename:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_20#Category:United_States_National_Guard_officers

Overturn and undelete:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_22#Category:Jewish_Christians

The POV should be obvious. Note that this is not a list of every deletion debate he's participated in, just the ones that would have had a meaningfully different outcome had he not. I have no objection to splitting this debate if some arguments apply to one article/category but not to the others. >Radiant< 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The most recent one of these was a month ago. Wouldn't it be a better idea to simply renominate the ones you still feel should be deleted? For the record, the psychopaths AfD was already endorsed here (I don't know if there was sockpuppetry involved here, but still), and I wouldn't dare touch London N1. I really think these should simply be nominated on their own. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have to agree that the most useful procedure would probably be simply to renominate anything that you believe should be deleted. Of course in the nomination you would point out that the prior debate was affected by the sockpuppetry and therefore shouldn't be considered valid. However, I would support relisting anything that was deleted potentially as a result of duplicate !voting. Newyorkbrad 15:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Yes, renominate these deletion discussions. Better to err on the side of caution.--Alabamaboy 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for any where his votes actually changed the results. After that, if anyone wants to re-open discussion on one or more of these, let them do it according to the regular rules. Od Mishehu 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but only for where it made a difference. There's a list here for any CfD/AfD that may have been overlooked: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/May 2007#Vote and Consensus Frauds. Actually there's a disclaimer there that those are just the most recent. There's probably more from earlier but I'm not sure anyone really wants to have to redo everything. Bulldog123 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Garron — Lack of contribution by the sock-puppet would not have changed the no consensus outcome, since the significant argument was presented by another person.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinnernet — Lack of contribution by sock-puppets would still have left several editors with differing opinions.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional portrayals of psychopaths — This is another discussion where knowledge of the sock-puppetry reveals a clear thread of conversation in the lower half of the discussion. However, lack of contribution by sockpuppets (which includes one additional sock-puppet who was not ballot-stuffing, incidentally) would not have influenced my contribution to the discussion. ☺ And there was significant discussion amongst non-sockpuppet editors.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1 — Another thread of conversation becomes apparent, once one knows that there's a single person there. However, article merger does not involve AFD, and the fallout from Runcorn's sock-puppetry is already being addressed for these cases at Talk:London postal district.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsa Zsa Riordan (2nd nomination) — Once one knows that there is one person behind the accounts editing in the lower half of the discussion, a clear thread of conversation becomes clear. This is also evident from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsa Zsa Riordan. These discussions were clearly influenced by the deception. This is the only discussion where renominating, checking for sources first of course, would appear to be appropriate.
• What is of more concern is any AFD discussions that Runcorn closed where xyr sock-puppets were involved in the discussion. Uncle G 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second Wipipedia AFD was a bad example of that... but that has luckily already been addressed. A list of all AFDs he closed should be looked into... --W.marsh 16:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I have listed one of these articles for a new afd here. I suspect most of this stuff will have to be relisted separately... --W.marsh 16:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this, or maybe relisting in the case of the overturn -> deletes. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have a very strong opinion here, but I would think about just relisting all of these. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• For the ones where you know what the result will be, there's not much point in re-listing, but there wouldn't be any harm in it, under the circumstances. This is a good reason to remember that the strength of the arguments and the quality of the article are more important than the number of people saying it should be kept or deleted. — CharlotteWebb 20:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think that any of the AFDs apart from Zsa Zsa Riordan would have come to a different result if the same discussion had been had without the sock-puppet contributions? I think that they would have all come to the same result, for the very good reason that you touch upon: The actual substantial arguments were being made by other editors, and weren't swayed by the sock-puppets, so discounting the sock-puppet contributions doesn't really affect the discussion. I definitely think that we should not run Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1 again, for the simple reason that editors appear to be already resolving it without deletion on Talk:London postal district. Let's not disrupt that. Uncle G 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist all. It would be quite difficult to discern a proper consensus from any of these debates considering his/her extensive sway over them. It would be best to give them a fair debate this time. Krimpet (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist separately and of course find any others. The articles are not identical, & the preesence of the sockpuppets so screwed up the debates that I wouldn't attempt to rejudge them hastily in one lump like this. (Knowing this does clarify some earlier unexpected decisions) DGG 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist all in order to determine an untainted consensus. Durova^Charge! 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist most of them. The categories all had a decent amount of non-sock support, so I'm not sure if a deletion would've been achieved even discounting them. Relist all cats. Fictional portrayals of psychopaths certainly saw the balance tipped by the socks, though the one major keep opinion was given by a non-sock. Relist Fictional portrayals of psychopaths. Taylor Garron had incredibly low participation, and only one of the sock army posted there; it probably should have been relisted rather than closed as no consensus. Relist Taylor Garron. Kinnernet had a good amount of non-sock support, and may have been a no consensus without them. Relist Kinnernet just to be safe. London N1 is under discussion at Talk:London postal district, so I don't think action is needed right now. Finally, Zsa Zsa Riordan is going through AfD now, and that can probably be allowed to run its course. WarpstarRider 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All categories on here or all categories they've ever participated in where there could have been a difference? Some of it goes back a long time; more than a year. I'm not opposed to the idea but it would relist a LOT more cats and some more articles. Does anyone want them added to this list? Bulldog123 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was just referring to the ones listed at the top of this section. I'm sure there have been a lot more XfDs that were influenced by this group; I guess you could bring them here as well. WarpstarRider 03:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist any discussion in which there's a reasonable possibility that the sock voting influenced the outcome, including all of these, so that a real consensus may be reached. Any relists should specifically note that the previous outcome was influenced by sockpuppetry and should be considered invalid. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist all that were closed as "no consensus" and any others where there's any reasonable possibility that the socks influenced the outcome. I think consensus is something that's always worth shooting for, and untainted debate is more likely to lead us to a real consensus even in those cases where the influence of the socks may not have been the deciding factor. Xtifr _tälk 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here are a few others we should consider relisting:
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 16#Category:Jewish musicians
    • Six sock !votes and lots of comments. Many of the "keeps" are also conditional so I believe a consensus for either side may have been reached otherwise.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Peruvian Jews
    • Six sock !votes. What's shocking is this list was actually deleted DESPITE the many sock !votes, but then it was overturned at Deletion Review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February#20 February 2007#List of Peruvian Jews) almost exclusively by the socks.
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2006 September 10#Category:Jewish sportspeople
    • About three or four sock !votes, ending in no consensus. I'm not sure about relisting this. It's a maybe, but I feel the others are warranted.
  • There also was a major skew of opinion on the Category:Actors by religion CfD long ago, but it seems most of the subcats were already deleted, including the parent cat, so there is no point in relisting. Bulldog123 19:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Peruvian Jews the substantial arguments are made by other editors, and the sock-puppets are mainly echoing those arguments. Ignoring the sock-puppet contributions leads to the same result when making the decision based upon the actual arguments rather than upon a head count. Similarly, the no consensus decision for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2006 September 10#Category:Jewish sportspeople would still have been no consensus if none of the sock-puppets had contributed. Uncle G 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: any no-consensus closes more than a month or two old, and any keeps more than four or five months old can probably be relisted without review. Any deletions engineered by this Master of Puppets should probably be brought for review no matter how old, though. Xtifr _tälk 02:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists requires review here, as does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (2nd nomination). Discounting the sockpuppets leaves very few actual arguments that have been elaborated in detail. Uncle G 07:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Those that would have probably been deleted under WP:SNOW had sockpuppets not voted. Relist the rest. Whsitchy 14:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There are several editors above who have said "Relist all discussions which, upon review, turn out to have property X.". A point that they seem to be missing is that this is Deletion Review. If they don't actually review the discussions, to see which ones have property X in the first place, saying that all discussions with property X should be re-listed is not really much help. Everyone polices Wikipedia. It's everyone's responsibility to review the discussions. I've been labouriously going through the project-namespace contributions of several of the sock-puppet accounts and reviewing the various deletion discussions, and my opinions so far are as above.

  (summary: Most of the discussions wouldn't have had their outcomes affected, for the simple reason that the substantial arguments were put forth by other editors, and would have led to the same decisions on the merits of the arguments even with the sock-puppet contributions, many of which lacked actual arguments of their own and simply parroted the arguments of others, ignored. Of those that wouldn't, one doesn't need dealing with via deletion and is already being discussed on an article talk page, one has already been nominated for deletion, and the two remaining are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (2nd nomination).)

  The way to help this process is for other editors to do the same. (Kudos to those editors who have.) Remember the principle underlying {{sofixit}}: This is a volunteer project; other people aren't necessarily going to do the work for you. If you don't review the discussions, they won't necessarily get reviewed. Uncle G 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to respectfully disagree that the outcome of these cases should be determined by simply ignoring what the socks had to say and evaluating whatever is left. That underestimates the influence the socks may have had on these debates. A lengthy, heated debate can actually discourage people from participating (I know it does to me, though I'm starting to get over it). So, the piling on of the socks may actually have scared away people with good arguments to offer. Anyway, consensus is good, so I see no harm whatsoever in relisting each and every no-consensus that was trampled by the sock hordes. You did raise some good counterarguments for a couple of them, but I would still prefer to err on the side of caution, and relist all the no-consensus ones. Don't overturn them. Don't assume they were ok just because the taint isn't obvious. Just relist them. Xtifr _tälk 14:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Apparently this was speedy deleted, though the talk page remains at Talk:NWA_Hawaii without any note of speedy deletion. While this page may deserve deletion, I do not think it is/was a candidate for speed deletion and that AfD is the proper approach. Antonrojo 13:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Have you requested reconsideration by the deleting administrator? Newyorkbrad 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware, until now, that I could find that out through Special:Logs. The page had been deleted and restored previously, and the current note states there are very few ghits, when I am finding over 2,500 so I'll ask for more detail on the reason for deletion. Antonrojo 16:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Per my deletion summary: Spammy, written by the subject, edit war between subject and detractor, lack of independent sources, fewer than 150 unique Google hits and not a lot in there to work from in neutralising. WP:CSD G11 and A7. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Written by subject? What evidence do you have of that? It's not ideal, but there is one independant source mentioned. If there's an edit war the people in it should be blocked. Never take sides (deleting takes the side of the detractor). The number of Google hits is immaterial, it's the reliability and the quality of the content that is important. The thing is officially sanctioned by the National Wrestling Alliance. At least redirect it to the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• An email to OTRS from the subject complaining that other people were changing his article. Note that the editor has no significant contributions outside this subject, virtually all contribs to the subject were by this editor or by the external parties with whom he is clearly in some dispute. There are fewer than 150 unique Googles to look through and note that "NWA Hawaii" gets 2640 hits (including non-unique) whereas adding -Wikipedia takes that down to 1710, so it looks like we'r ebeing used to promote something. Hence my strong preference for waiting until an independent party decides to write this rather than a conflicted editor. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flags of Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Procedural nomination by closing admin, following discussion on my talk page with a dissatisfied participant in the May 20 CfD. My reading of the debate is so completely different from that of the objector that I think a review would be helpful to both us. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep - The consensus for keeping the category was clear and unambiguous; 2/3 of the people voted to keep the category. jbmurray, who is disputing the decision by the administrator, seems to be unhappy that none of the participants in the discussion specifically cited WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth whereas BrownHairedGirl cited this guideline when closing this discussion. In that case, may I clearly state that when I wrote my comments to keep the category, I was referring to the criteria at WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. Dr. Submillimeter 12:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The closing looks reasonable to me. However, at some point in the future I would suggest a group nomination of this and similar categories, because such countries only has a single flag and is unlikely to have more than that any time soon. There is something to be said for the scheme, but there's also something to be said for not using cats that can only contain a single article. Endorse now, relist at some point in the future when people who care more about this issue than I do feel this is appropriate. >Radiant< 12:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just on this point, that it would have been better to suggest a group nomination... and beyond the fact that I raised this suggestion in the debate over what wasn't in the end my proposal. I've received this response before, but especially as someone relatively new to these Category deletion discussions I'm reluctant directly to propose mass deletions. See for instance my comments also at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Categories_for_people_comment.2Fquestions. Again, there may be some consensus behind your response, Radiant, (in which case again I'd be happy to be pointed to the relevant discussion) but it seems to make equal sense to try a test case before proposing mass deletions. I.e., in this case, discuss the case of Category:Flags of Nepal on its merits, and should consensus be reached there then apply similar logic to other categories in the parent category. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it certainly does make sense to do a test case before a mass nomination. However, sometimes people will object to the test case merely because it isn't a mass nom (which tends to be spurious with respect to articles, but not wrt categories). That's basically what happened here ("keep as part of the overall scheme"). In such cases one may want to proceed to the mass nom at some point. >Radiant< 13:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Let me adapt some of what I said at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl: I'm surprised by the closure of the above category, not least because in the closer's summing up introduced a whole new argument, for which no consensus had been sought or found within the discussion itself. Moreover, the argument is hardly "clear": I'd say it was clearer that when Wikipedia:Categorization, for instance, talks of "large" categories, it means categories with over 200 members, such as for instance Category:Songs by artist.

Dr. Submillimeter now says that he/she had this argument in mind when commenting in the debate. I'm all the more disappointed that there was therefore no response to my specific request for the precedent as to the notion that "putting the articles 'below the line', where [they are] likely to be missed" would "disturb" the "the Category:Flags by country category tree." Had the reference been made at the time, when I asked to be pointed towards some precedent, then there might have been some discussion as to how applicable this guideline may be to the debate.

I should say that I recognize that there was a 6:3 supermajority, though I had understood, contrary to Dr. Submillimeter, that these discussions were attempts to reach consensus rather than votes.

Indeed, the context of my disappointment is less the NPOV summing up, or even whether or not Category:Flags of Nepal lives or dies, but with problems both with the Wikipedia category system (mentioned in the discussion) and the fact that there is such a marked reluctance to engage in discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion (for which I could provide many further examples). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jbmurray, first point: it would be nice if you could assume that I acted in good faith. As the per discussion on my talk page, I don't recognise this repeated suggestion that I "introduced a whole new argument", although I would not rule out doing so if there was a clear wider policy breach at issue (as an extreme example, if all the votes were to keep a Category:Lying evil politicians who eat babies and conspire with Satan to destroy human civilisation, I'd still close the CfD with a "speedy delete" as an attack category). That's part of what jbmurray missed: that a closing admin's job is to weigh the arguments and not just count votes. In this case, the arguments made by the keep voters agree with a current guideline, and there was no significant support for any other position based on guidelines.

The one change I might make I was closing the CfD again would be to note that a group nomination for the parent category and its sub-categories was option, but there seemed to be very support for the proposition that these categories were inherently a bad idea, so I could have been legitimately criticised for following that route. In this case, I do wonder if there might have been less complaint I had made a one-word closure; I hope not, but it would be a pity if closing admins were to feel that closing a CfD with some sort of an explanation was only going to raise the chance of accusations of bias :(

However, the conclusions I draw from this are a little wider:

1. That it is very advisable for participants in a CfD to cite the policy or guideline on which they base their !votes, so that that the discussion is comprehensible to those not versed in CfD minutiae.
2. That an explanation of a closure can help (and where a CfD is not overwhelmingly clear in its outcome, I try to close with more than a single-word "keep" or delete"), but that it cannot explain every aspect of CfD policy and practice. In this case, I think that Jbmurray appears to be at a bit of a disadvantage in not being familiar with all the relevant guidance, and I wonder whether we have sufficiently clear explanations of the CfD process?
3. That people new to CfD may find it a rather bewildering process. To some extent hat's inevitable due to the huge number of guidelines and conventions involved, but I hope that we can all remember that CfD should not be seem to develop too much of a cliquey jargon which could make the rest of community feel excluded from the process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for this, BHG. Let me first clarify that I have at no point meant to suggest that you acted in anything other than good faith. If you have received that impression, I apologize. I disagree with the way in which you closed the debate, but I hope I can express that disagreement without suggesting any deliberate malfeasance.

Second, I agree with your conclusions (above, in this discussion) on the whole. I was indeed glad (as I said on your talk page) that you pointed me to WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. I am sure I had read that page, but I had not made the connection during the debate to that clause. I wish that the connection had been made during the debate. I think that would have helped the discussion and the search for consensus. Again, I disagree with your reading of that clause (and therefore the reading that Dr. Submillimeter claims to have implicitly followed), but think that precisely for that reason it should be up for discussion. It seems to me it refers to categories with over 200 subcategories. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, and perhaps it could be clarified further. I am genuinely seeking out (as I hope should be obvious) the reasoning and rationale and precedents behind categorization policy and decisions. Hence I explicitly asked for such precedent during the debate. I admit that I sometimes get frustrated when it seems to me that the answers to these questions are taken for granted and not worth providing. And again, I'm sorry if that makes it sound as though I am not assuming good faith. But once more, often I find in these CFD discussions either that there is little attempt to reach consensus, or that there is little done to point to previous consensus. That may indeed just be an unfortunate impression. But it's why I followed up on this particular closure. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment OK, meanwhile I've tried to spark some discussion on one of the issues that emerges from this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Question_about_Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very little discussion has ensued. I've changed the guideline accordingly, until such time as there's some interest in addressing the question. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure - and for the record, my reference to the category scheme in my !vote was an implicit reference to WP:OCAT as well; I will endeavour in any future similar nomination to mention it more explicitly. Otto4711 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as reasonable, though not necessarily what I would have !voted.DGG 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The only thing I can see with that category, as a vexillologist, is probably two or three articles going into that category; the flag of Nepal, maybe the royal standard and of listing of all Nepali flags in a list. While I do admit this is too small of an article and should be combined with something else, 2/3rds of the people who went there disagree with me, so I endorse the CFD. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wjhonson/Shawn_Hornbeck (edit | [[Talk:User:Wjhonson/Shawn_Hornbeck|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

page speedied without any valid speedy reason Wjhonson 01:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Per deleting admins's summary: Someone seems to be making a WP:POINT. If that article is deleted and endorsed then this is inflammatory, if it is not, it is unnecessary. Attempted end-runs around policy and process should be discouraged. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please be so good as to explain in detail how the contents of that page were any sort of end-run around any policy or process. Perhaps you're not familiar with exactly what the page said. Wjhonson 02:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Policy and process were not followed in any of the proposal, the discussion, or the deletion. This is part of the problem. The admins probably do not understand and certainly do not follow the policies which they quote and link to at every possible opportunity. Smackyuk 02:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Mispost Meant for the Daimonin review below which has been censored. 84.43.30.186 12:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, whether or not it's an end-run around process (which, given the contentious DRV on the subject, it very well might be), this was a GFDL violation since no attempt was made to preserve the history, and the nominator did not even make very many edits to the article when it was in the article space. Valid G12 deletion. --Coredesat 04:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Another vote from someone who did not actually read the page that was actually there, but only thinks they know what it said. Can we not have a coutesy undeletion of the last version so we can all see what it actually said? Wjhonson 04:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm an admin, and I saw what was there. I'm not sure if this can be undeleted for the review given that there are copyright issues involved, and you apparently revert-warred with a user over a {{db-copyvio}} tag on the page. --Coredesat 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - G12 is not a reason. If need be, the relevant non-offending history from the old article can be restored and userfied. We userfy deleted pages all the time on demand. Personally, though, I really don't like single-incident biographies. If this article is going to exist, it would be much better to title it by the incident like "search for Shawn Hornbeck" or something and redirect the name to it. --BigDT 05:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is yet another tired attempt to challenge the operation of the biographies of living persons policy. The deletion was of course unimpeachable. --Tony Sidaway 06:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The deleted article was not a biography. The deleted article consisted of one single sentence. I'm surprised that some of you would comment without even looking at what was there JUST RECENTLY. This has nothing at all to do with what was there two, three or twelve edits ago. ONLY with what was there, last. So at least check before you comment. Wjhonson 06:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. All the deleted version of the page said was "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Shawn Hornbeck"." However, the BLP-violating previous version of the page was still in the history. I think this is best left gone. Neil (►) 09:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see any obvious purpose for this page other than preparation for an end-run around deletion policy. Wjohnson created the article with a single sentence and a link to the deleted WP page, his post to my talk page leads me to believe that tis was done solely to avoid a G12 speedy as a GFDL violation should the deleted content be pasted in. Without the deleted content it is pointless, with it it is WP:POINT. The idea that we should have to follow yet another set of process, rehashing the same arguments between the same people in yet another venue, is just silly. There are ways and means of pursuing this dispute, this is not one of them - the phrase "get a clue" springs to mind, actually. If Wjohnson is genuinely convinced that there is an encyclopaedic subject here, he needs to work with those members of the community who have raised valid concerns with the presentation of it as a biography, rather than appearing to want to end-run round those concerns and take the dispute to yet another venue. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss valid reasons, you need to have some first. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion In the case of BLP, once it has been decided, then it makes sense not to permit the material on a user page, or the whole procedure is a little meaningless. I am somewhat influenced by the fact that I consider this one, as entered under the name of the young victim and in such detail, as the clearest example of true cause for BLP deletion we've seen this week.DGG 23:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments The above comments are quite silly. The page was solely there as an EXAMPLE of how you might tag a page for Verbatim copying under the GFDL. Period. That's it. Nothing more. The page itself had no such copying, it was an example of the TAG. Get it? That's it. All the rest of this is just self-mutilation by those who think the purpose was some sort of end-run which it wasn't. The page had no biographical content. The knee-jerk reactions are really juvenile, don't you think? Wjhonson 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course you did. and this version was just a test to see what an end-run round deletion policy would look like if someone chose to do it, right? And you just randomly chose a particularly controversial article rather than an uncontroversial one, what bad luck. How silly of us to think otherwise. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've undeleted the page so everyone can see what it actually says. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: I'm afraid that this is a fairly obvious attempt to hide a recreation in the history of a page. A clever attempt to evade policy, perhaps, but not something we should encourage. If the user really just wants to make an example of a tag, he can do so under another page name and without inappropriate history (which can be linked to even from external sites). Xtifr _tälk 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

notaility not established, no independent reliable sources Smackyuk 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WTH was this about? What possible definition of consensus are you using? Half of your own admins had severe reservations about deleting this page. The last admin to post also backtracked on the issue of notability and went for verifiability instead. Now it is deleted (by yet another admin) back on notability. !?!

One thing this 'discussion' has made abundantly clear is the admins notable, to use a much-favoured phrase, lack of understanding of Wikipedia's own guidelines and policies. Just look at the [discussion] for examples of admins bumbling about misunderstanding and misapplying these. 'Final decision based on the merits of the arguments' -- what a joke! The final decision was not even based on the final argument of an admin, noone responded to MT's last comment in more than 24 hours, and the throughout the 'discussion' admins and editors alike had widely differing view -- there was no consensus.

Another point. It is clear that there is a systemic lack of understanding of the realities of OS software development and free software in general within Wikipedia. Perhaps you should consult some kind of encyclopaedia and learn about the concept rather than trying to delete what you don't understand? Do you really think the figures from sourceforge et al are unreliable? Do you really think gamespot and the like are more reliable sources for an encyclopaedia?

To put it in simple terms: perhaps admins should read and learn (and possibly even understand) more, and judge and delete less?

Wikipedia is destroying itself because of its own arrogance and self-obsession. Smackyuk 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely shocking. Deleted as if a consensus was reached, and the discussion was completed? Not at all. The admins couldn't even reach a consensus, let alone a consesus of deletion. Encyclopedia? Wiki? Where. This is no encyclopedia.

The issues..'Notability' and 'Verifiability'. (The latter only being revealed around 36 hours ago, if that) Notability was, by the end of it, achieved. Verifiability was, by the end of it, achieved. So what's the problem? Some of these admins shouldn't even be dealing in deletion cases when they don't even understand the guidelines themselves. Faith in Wikipedia is virtually gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.112.95 (talk • contribs) 19:03 (UTC), 30 May 2007

• Endorse deletion. The issue brought up was a lack of independent reliable sources. There are still no independent reliable sources that anyone has provided. What's the dispute here? -Amarkov moo! 03:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I was one of the major advocates of deleting the article. Amidst all the hype of the discussion, multiple trivial sources, and more, I noted that there were two small sources, Lockergnome.com and About.com, which provided substantial reviews. I don't know if that's significant enough to meet WP:NOTE and WP:V, and haven't had time to make my own judgement about reliability of these sources. I was actually expecting at least the possibility of a relist or no consensus, even though the article itself hadn't been edited to reflect some of the site references in the AfD. Despite the vitriol above I'm not convinced the consensus was delete (though I'm also not interested in challenging the Admin's rationale in closing.) I've also posted my request to content review, to potentially userfy the article. LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh With Me / Logical Entries} 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per BLP concerns. Good call. Nandesuka 12:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, I see nothing here worth reviewing given that no reliable sources have been presented. Nominator is basically bashing admins rather than trying to address any of the concerns. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. --Coredesat 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Crookes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A WP:BLP delete. I understand that this article is a sensitive one, but it seems to be a clearly notable subject. If WP:OFFICE action should be taken, so be it, but otherwise I'd like to see a process. Rjm656s 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm on the fence, actually. If memory serves it was stubbed after Crookes sued WP, Google, and one other site. He's probably notable, and the stub isn't hurting. Have you discussed with the deleting administrator? Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created as an attack page and was sourced to a wiki, a blog, and some government statistics (original research). If it were re-created with the newspaper stories about the lawsuit, it would be a trivial news report. See also OTRS # 2006072110015911 and [5]. —Centrx→talk • 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• He may well be notable, but Centrx is certainly correct in that the article was created (and edited after that) as an attack page. On the other hand, could the article not simply be rewritten from scratch (so we can stop faffing about at DRV, just rewrite) citing proper reliable sources in a version that is compliant with BLP? This article does seem to have a history of BLP problems, but could not a valid article be written? Certainly several of the deleted revisions were pretty useless. Moreschi ^Talk 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that a new non-inflammatory page about this person that is cited to some reliable newspaper articles could be created, but I think it unlikely that it would be anything more than a news report with undue weight. —Centrx→talk • 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see why this has to come to DR... just recreate the article with some sources. Voila, problem solved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • can't be recreated, deleting admin salted it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, sure enough. As that's the case, yes, Overturn. If we've got a chance to create a not shitty article, we should embrace it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unsalting it is not the same as overturning the deletion and restoring the page with all its history. —Centrx→talk • 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, and some balance, as is required, so the article is not a coatrack. Moreschi ^Talk 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, article as deleted was not a valid G10, and at least unsalt so that it can be replaced with a neutral stub. This man has gotten a lot of press, we can't allow his legal threats to shut down the writing of a valid article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legal threats are the context which warrant care, but I deleted it because it is not and could not be made into an encyclopedia article. Also, "lots of press" does not make for an encyclopedia article, usually the opposite. —Centrx→talk • 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore the stub version in the cache. At least allow a restore, Night Gyr nailed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not start from scratch at least, rather than restoring the attack pages in the history? —Centrx→talk • 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've recreated as a one-sentence stub and have unsalted, but in my opinion there's no good reason for the world and his wife to be able to see the history, which contained some pretty awful stuff. Moreschi ^Talk 18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• At this point I think we can just close this, the disliked revisions are deleted and there's a stub waiting to be improved. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this a joke? The article contains one sentence - "Wayne Crookes is a person", a stub tag, and a "not verified" tag. I don't have an opinion now on whether or not an article can/should exist, but in no way, shape, or form, is "Wayne Crooks is a person" acceptable content for an article. I'm inclined, unless someone wants to put something in there, to speedy it A7 (but leave it unsalted). Again, I don't care if an article on the topic exists, but we shouldn't mock the guy that sued us by having such silliness. --BigDT 18:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not being silly. Jimbo, no less, did just this once, creating a BLP stub that said "X is a person". You don't like it {{sofixit}}. The current version is neutral, accurate, and has the virtue of brevity. Moreschi ^Talk 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it's being expanded, with sources, as I speak. Excellent. Now, can someone close this? Moreschi ^Talk 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as moot - article has been recreated as a stub. From what I can see the history contains possible libels, and certainly violated WP:BLP. Rather than blow hot air here - go and create a good article from the stub--Doc^g 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A properly referenced article that probably warrants existence but at the very least should go through AfD. Deleting administrator states "No assertion of notability, article in poor taste, BLP by spirit, if not letter" - if it is not by the letter of BLP then it should certainly not be deleted using that (given the conflicted opinions about BLP deletions). Notability must be assumed at least to a basic degree because of the references. violet/riga (t) 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by closing admin. BLP is about protecting the dignity of people. The fact that the child in question is dead does not remove the fundamental BLP issues - her family, including her brother mentioned by name in the article, still have every bit as much potential to be hurt by this article as she would be. BLP is our policy about being ethical citizens. This article has clear ethical issues - this is an ephemral case where we do not add meaningfully to the world and we substantively take away. It should remain deleted. Phil Sandifer 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted We are not a newspaper, nor a shrine to the dead, and murderers are not automatically encyclopedic. If it turned out that the killer was a former juvenile offender released with a new identity, that might deserve an article which would mention the victim. Otherwise, keep deleted. Thatcher131 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, cached version was not problematic, notability was asserted with sources, was not a news article as some assert, and, sadly, the subject was dead, so BLP isn't really a useful distinction here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP is a policy about ethics. The ethical foundations of BLP apply very well here. Phil Sandifer 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it simply does not apply! You can't twist the meaning of the policy. violet/riga (t) 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're seriously saying that we should ignore the ethical issues behind BLP because it doesn't fit the letter of the policy? The process wonks have found their final frontier. Taylorized ethics. God help us all. Phil Sandifer 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • BLP is a policy about covering one's legal behind. BLP is also about living people. 0/2. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm curious. Do you misunderstand BLP, ethics, or both? Phil Sandifer 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • None of the above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As you would put it, 0/1. Phil Sandifer 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hardly. You know nothing of my ethical positions, and you apparently think I can't read BLP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominance comes a measure of responsibility. Wikipedia is, fundamentally, a project that aims to improve the world. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion, grace and understanding." Quick. Guess what policy page that's from? Phil Sandifer 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • BLP. Now, explain why that's relevant here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • BLP is not "a policy about covering one's legal behind." BLP is a policy which assures that our actions will be ethical. FCYTravis 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't buy into that propaganda for a second. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ummm... propaganda? Phil Sandifer 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yup. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I do not think that word means what you think it means. Phil Sandifer 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I for one am not prepared to act unethically, nor will I endorse a policy interpretation that encourages others to do so. Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree 100% with you on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your actions indicate otherwise. Hell, it appears that you've argued elsewhere that WP has no ethical duties or guidelines it's required to follow, so this "agree 100%" doesn't seem to make the slightest bit of sense. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think Calton nailed it. Elsewhere ([6]) you have posited that you act ethically as you know it. So either you're being inconsistent, or your ethics are not in tune with consensus as I believe it to exist, because the ethical thing to do is to remove this article, we are not a tabloid and we should not be causing harm to innocent victims and their families by long term notoriety of what is basically just a horrific murder. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Or, my ethics are simply as relevant as yours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Thousands of people are murdered every year. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - There was nothing which demonstrated encyclopedic interest. Scurrilous, unsourced and almost-certainly-false rumors about the relationship of this case to another one do not demonstrate that. FCYTravis 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion -- I'm questioning the, um, point of bringing every common sense deletion of someone's misguided attempt at an encyclopedia article about a non notable living person based on their being involved in some news story or other. Is this an exercise in seeing how many people will trot out to vote on these? If I had the impression that the users bringing these here actually wanted to collect biographical data on everyone mentioned in the news in the 21st century I would suggest starting a project somewhere else to do that; it's not our mission. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So why exactly are we here? Jkelly 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you question the point of challenging "common sense" deletions, but not the deletions themselves? The administrators at this point know that the deletions are controversial, so they really should stop doing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Controversial != wrong. No change for the better was ever effected in any society without controversy. Wikipedia is no different. FCYTravis 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but this was, and continues to be, controversial and wrong. Stop. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Caring about Wikipedia's impact on turning 15 minutes of fame or infamy into that person's Permanent Life Record is not wrong. FCYTravis
          • Assuming your position > everyone else's is wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - the article was not about this person, the references were not about this person. They both referred to other events. There was no assertion in the slightest of encyclopedic notability (and yes, in cases like these we do have a certain duty of sensitivity etc). Wikipedia is not a news reporting agency, and articles about people should be about those people. Not about other events. Moreschi ^Talk 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion. This seems to be an out-of-process deletion per the edit summary on the speedy deletion: "No assertion of notability, article in poor taste, BLP by spirit, if not letter."

  As for "No assertion of notability": WP:CSD#A7 refers to "Unremarkable people" and "An article about a real person [...] that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." I haven't read the article to ascertain its importance or significance, nor can I because of the deletion, but continuing: "If controversial, [...] the article should be nominated for AfD instead." I would say that the reactions here (and other articles) constitute controversy.

  While "poor taste" may appear in an essay or in discussions, I'm not familiar with any policy or CSD that makes any reference to it. It strikes me as a very POV interpretation, and not grounds for deletion of an article.

  "WP:BLP" seems to be a primary point of contention both here and at other discussions of recent OOP deletions; but as Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu isn't an "LP", that seems patently inapplicable.

  I don't have any vested interest in this article, and don't particularly want to argue the merits of the article itself as (aforementioned) I haven't/can't read it. But AFAIKT, this seems to have been a sourced and verifiable article that, while possibly meriting a deletion discussion, did not qualify as a speedy deletion as was implemented. There is no CSD for I don't think it's encyclopedic. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, redirecting to the article on the murderer (which still exists) may have been appropriate, to avoid redundancy, but this article did not fit any speedy criteria. C'mon people, take these to afd. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn for process --the BLP concern can only be about the accused, who has pled not guilty, and the article about him remains on WP. The N consideration for speedy is no assertion of notability, and that was not the case, for if the possible murderer was notable, it is reasonable to think that the victim might be. Not that I would necessarily agree in the end, but it was not a speedy. It is clearly not an uncontroversial deletion, and needs a open discussion. The discussion should be taking place at AfD, and not here. There have been too many examples lately of IFEELITINMYHEART as a reason--one way or another. I would have done just what Night Gyr suggests. DGG 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the content, that attitude positively disgusts me.--Doc^g 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I find myself in agreement with the comment by closing admin above. ElinorD (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is dead. --Tony Sidaway 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's avoid rhetorical use of terms like "dead" in discussing an article about a murder victim. Newyorkbrad 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - unencyclopedic articles with little or no meaningful content directly related to the subject must die. This stays deleted. Nick 01:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, in discussing an article about a murder victim, it is jarring to see phraseology such as "must die" employed. Newyorkbrad 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion look folks an article (with a picture) about the horrific murder of a little girl. Stop and think please. This is not in the least encyclopedic. And since it narrates her kid brother finding her - it is most certainly a BLP issue. This isn't a game. We are not doing this.--Doc^g 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per User:Phil Sandifer. The people screaming for overturn are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel in their quest for rationales, not to mention indulging in a fair amount of pot/kettle behavior ("Assuming your position > everyone else's is wrong" nearly made me spit up my coffee). If they have a point to make, make it elsewhere and not at the expense of Wikipedia and the poor bastards, thrust into the public spotlight, who have have to suffer so some people can make some kind of point, whatever the hell it is. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - this is a very sad case but the girl is not notable and we have a long established policy that being a victim in a notable murder does not make one notable. Any encyclopaedic content in this page is already included at Dante Arthurs. TerriersFan 03:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. There is no assertion of notability in this article, as it's been shown many times that being a victim of a murder does not make you inherently notable. BLP concerns are quite obviously irrelevant, but A7 is reason enough for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 03:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion because it fails A7. Not because of BLP, which has nothing to do with biographies of dead people. The "L" stands for "Living". Neil (►) 09:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per BLP, and per doing the right thing. That's right. Per BLP. She's dead, true, but in my view, BLP's spirit applies here just the same. Those that say that it does not, based on the precise wording of BLP, miss the point. Those that insist on an AfD are process wonking, in my view. Those that don't see why this is the right thing to do perhaps should seek another project. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This is a news story, not an encyclopaedia article. Wikinews is the next office down on the right. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion', primarily per Doc and Lar. Newyorkbrad 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Let me get this straight, now BLP is used to delete articles about dead people??? Wow, this idiocy has just reached a new level.  Grue  19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse deletion per Amarkov and Neil, with the emphatic provision that this is not an appropriate exercise of BLP (for various reasons into which we need not to get here [but surely have addressed and will continue to address elsewhere at DRV]); the underlying article, though, cannot, I guess, be understand as asserting notability (I should say that I continue to believe that a declaration that an individual was a victim of a notorious crime is an assertion of notability, such that speedy deletion should be inconsistent with A7, but that I recognize that, BLP aside, there is a clear consensus for the idea that A7 should apply to such declarations and that, even as policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive and even as consensus can change, it is not appropriate for us to overturn that consensus at an insular AfD or DRV). Joe 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I should clarify that although the deletion wouldn't fall under BLP's purview, it would fall under "common sense" and "human decency". I said A7 as it'll satsify the process wonks. Neil (►) 12:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your clarification. To be clear, my thinking, then, does not appear to follow precisely that of Neil; I, for one, as a few others here, I think, would most strongly object to deletion if the underlying article made an assertion of notability, not only because I would find, absent A7, no justification for speedying but also because I could not imagine BLP (even if one tries thence to apprehend some moral spirit) to extend quite as far as others might seem to think it to extend, and surely not to permit deletion before discussion. Joe 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I see some abbreve-itis here. It's easy to throw around BLP, but if you know it stands for "Biographies of Living People", it's impossible to apply it to a dead person. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse Deletion: The AfD from March was closed as a Keep, thus I can see the rationale for bringing this subsequent un-debated deletion to DRV. However, ultimately I agree with TerriersFan, in that the relevant information is already contained in the Dante Arthurs article (which has itself survived several AfD attempts, and fact of which was noted in the AfD for this article), and notability has not otherwise been asserted sufficient to maintain a separate article. Given that the review appears more controversial than the original deletion, I feel we should let it remain deleted; it can be re-created later, in the "organic" way that new articles are created all the time, if the circumstances then warrant it. — digitaleon • talk @ 04:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Mae He (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted with no process at all, citing WP:BLP as the reason. The article was well sourced, including citations to multiple national news stories. There was and is no BLP issue here, not by the current terms of WP:BLP at least. And if there were, that case could properly be made in an AfD where the matter could be discussed, changes to the article proposed, and a proper consensus on whether the BLP policy calls for any modification of this article, rather than its being deleted by one admins unilateral action. This was in no reasonable sense an "attack page". There was no need for a speedy deletion here, a delay of a few days to let the matter be discussed at an AfD would have done no serious harm, and IMO the proper policy based result of an AfD would have been "keep", perhaps with some editing down. Overturn and let anyone who wishes nominate for AfD. (The deleting admin has already been notified that other editors disagree with the deletion, and has declined to undelte said he would undelte the history, (but implied only as part of a merge) if consensus developed to do so.) DES ^(talk) 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. No legitimate rationale for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps not under your apparent ethical system but I am not sure everyone else would agree. I think many would say that deleting this is the ethically correct thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD, whatever BLP issues there are are probably not bad enough to warrant speedy deletion, since the article was sourced. List it at AfD since there are potential problems here with notability, among other things. --Coredesat 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - Yet another in a series of tabloid articles attempting to document in excruciating detail for all eternity every single child who was ever temporarily in the news. This page was not a biography, but instead a 20-paragraph report of every single twist and turn in the court case over her custody. Part of it could be merged into a broader article on child custody, but beyond that, the details of the case are hardly encyclopedic. FCYTravis 16:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps so, but that could and should have been discussed at an AfD where options such as merging, or rewriting could have been discussed and tried. Or the editor could have been bold in editing and edited down to a stub while discussing on the talk page. Speedy deletion should be the last resort, not the first. DES ^(talk) 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh for goodness sake! There's a civil discussion going on on my userpage - during which I've indicated a willingness for undeletion to be considered. But alone comes DESiegel, doesn't bother discussing anything or entering into that discussion, and plops it here. Can he please provide evidence for his assertion that I have "declined to undelete". No. Please try using discussion rather than process next time.--Doc^g 17:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize, i misread this edit as your view. I still maintain that deletion first and discussion afterwards is gettign the cart before the horse, and while you discusssed, you did not promptly undelete. DES ^(talk) 17:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might add, this "process" consists of discussion. Please try using discussion first, rather than the delete button, next time. DES ^(talk) 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. To claim that the administrator has declined to undelete when discussion is on-going hardly seems accurate. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand - are you endorsing the deletion because DESiegel inaccurately described Doc glasgow's stance? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Mackensen (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Per WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, biographical articles should only be speedily deleted if an article is both unsourced and negative in tone. Editors may disagree with whether or not it is negative in tone, and I personally do not think so, but it is a fact that the article is well-sourced. And to respond to User:FCYTravis - if you believe the content of an article is not notable or not encyclopedia, I believe the correct process is to list it at AfD, and not speedy delete it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This article reads like a tabloid, not a biography. Heck, the first line introduces this person as a victim of a custody battle. There is no reason for this article to exist. Sean William @ 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't that be a discussion at an AfD? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Sean William @ 17:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's exactly what it's for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per HongQiGong. Some endorse comments read more like delete votes at AfD and that's where this should be. violet/riga (t) 17:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion BLP allows for bold action in cases like this, not to mention that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a branch of Wikinews. If this person is notable a year from now, then a short, encyclopedic (not 'blow by blow story retelling') article might be appropriate, but this is just tabloid-surfing and an AfD is unnecessary before-hand. If DrV consensus is to run it through AfD, then it should after the fact without foul, but there would have to be an acceptance of the decision. BDJ's participation above should remind us that endless DRV-AfD cycles are a possibility and consensus should reflect awareness that at some point, the discussion has to stop. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLP only allows for speedy deletion if the article is negative and unsourced - not if an admin thinks the article is not unencyclopedic. The article is not a hoax or an attack page, suggestions on how to improve it or even proposed deletion using the "prod" tag would have been much appreciated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reading BLP right now, I see nothing to indicate that this is permissable. Also, I have no clue why you're tossing my name out there in that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted It is impossible to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about a person's life when the only reliable sources relate to a single incident, no matter how well documented. How sad that the family troubles of this person have been so well documented that for the rest of her life, potential employers, co-workers, suitors, neighbors, and anyone with a purient interest in the private lives of other people will be able to discover every detail of her private life, and how disgusting that some Wikipedians think we should be a party to this with our top-ten web site simply because there are enough sources to keep us clear of libel laws. Jimbo's edit to WP:NOT makes it clear this sort of article is no longer appropriate. If process demands that it be kept, then fuck process. Thatcher131 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be that the article should be renamed to one about a courtcase or a custody battle, and this incident is notable because it reached a state Supreme Court, with the Embassy of China sending representatives to listen in on the case, but I don't believe "fuck process" is a legitimate reason to delete an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any idea how many custody cases reach state supreme courts each year? Hundreds if not thousands. Unless a case leads to an important precedent, I find little reason to consider any particular custody case encyclopedic, and the fact that this article would enshrine in perpetuity not just the subject, a minor at the time, but also unproven allegations of abuse against the parents, argues for me against inclusion. Thatcher131 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The incident has also appeared in a whole lot of press coverage, including multiple articles on ABC News - to link a few[7][8][9][10] - would you not say that makes the incident notable? As I've said, maybe the article needed to be renamed, but there's nothing in WP:BLP that warrants its deletion. You said earlier that it is "sad" that this person's custody battle is documented here, but the article only reflects existing sources. If something is inaccurately reflected of our sources, we can improve it. That you think it's "sad" her custody battle is documented is not a reason to delete an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WIkipedia is not a newspaper. Lots of things that get lots of newspaper coverage don't belong in an encyclopedia. And as far as I can concerned, respecting basic human dignity is a reason to delete an article, especially one about a little girl who did nothing wrong but which will ensure that she will forever be known primarily for her family's problem. Do you understand the level to which this article invades her privacy, and will continue to invade it for years if not decades? Never mind ECHELON or Warrantless searches in the United States, fear Wikipedia. Thatcher131 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Under that rationale, any number of WP articles could be deleted, and huge chunks of an article like Iraq War can be removed. I understand your empathy for the little girl, but our job as WP is only to reflect the sources. And one can also argue that she "deserves to know the truth" - we can go back and forth forever with these types of rationale based on personal preference forever. What we need to do is stick to policies, they're there to give a semblance of order. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Poppycock. Most of the sources for Iraq war are newspaper articles because it's an ongoing event. In ten years there will be books written about the war, and in 20 years there will be revisionist histories criticizing the first wave of books, and so on. A war is an encyclopedic event; a child custody battle is not. Thatcher131 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • And that's a notability issue, that's something that should have been discussed at an AfD. WP:BLP only allows for speedy deletion if an article is negative in tone and unsourced, not because it's "sad" that a person's custody battle is documented. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after EC) Whether it should be kept, or in what form, would IMO be better discussed with the article at hand for all to read, and edit. That is what an article talk page could do after a stubing edit, or an AfD discussion. "It is impossible to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about a person's life when the only reliable sources relate to a single incident" we have many articela about hsitorice figures notable only for their participation in a single incident. not all articles named for a person need be full biographies -- indeed not all can. Yet there is no rule sayign that we msut have either a full biography or nothing at all. Maybe we should ahve a policy to that effect (although i disagree). But we don't yet. If this deletion is undone, that does not for a moment mean the article will never be deelted, much less never drastically rewritten or merged. Why are people being so much in a rush to delete? Would a few days discussion in an AfD have been a major problem? DES ^(talk) 17:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, and let's remember that basically all articles on WP are works in progress. The article needed improvement or renaming, not speedy deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jimbo's edit does nothing of the sort. A neutral, encyclopedic article is not only possible, but existed at the time of deletion. Nothing said in the article was not already a very high google hit with or without us. It's time to kill that "top ten website" red herring for good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Could anyone please comment on WP:BLP#Articles about living people notable only for one event? It seems to me that it would qualify, but I'm open to persuasion. --Ishu 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't authorize people to simply hit the delete button willy-nilly. It also doesn't mean we cannot have any articles on such people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. You beat me to the edit conflict on that point. --Ishu 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. When you write an article about a certain person, you are expected to write about that person. This was not an article about her in the slightest. Possibly an article that complied with BLP and was actually about her could be written, though I would prefer not, as as far as I can tell she is a private individual. Not an article we need. This custody battle may well be notable. She is not. Write an article about the custody fight, then, not this non-biography. Moreschi ^Talk 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted: per Thatcher131. You have got to be kidding me. There was a lot of ink used on one incident? Gee, what a surprise. We have tabloid press gossip even on notable papers - I'm um, shocked? No, actually, I'm not. What I am wondering is why we're wasting time on a process-wanky Drv for an article about someone which is so clearly not an encyclopedic topic. This is not only Articles about living people notable only for one event, this is not even remotely a Significant one event. I'm sure I can find lots of ink on any number of completely nn people, based on one incident which the press picked up and ran with, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Article is ethically bankrupt. Phil Sandifer 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion -- I'm questioning the, um, point of bringing every common sense deletion of someone's misguided attempt at an encyclopedia article about a non notable living person based on their being involved in some news story or other. Is this an exercise in seeing how many people will trot out to vote on these? If I had the impression that the users bringing these here actually wanted to collect biographical data on everyone mentioned in the news in the 21st century I would suggest starting a project somewhere else to do that; it's not our mission. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So why exactly are we here? Jkelly 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question of notability should be discussed at an AfD. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you question the point of challenging "common sense" deletions, but not the deletions themselves? The administrators at this point know that the deletions are controversial, so they really should stop doing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, Seriously, speedy is only supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions and you HAVE to know that deleting well-sourced articles is going to be controversial. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A controversial speedy is necessarily an incorrect one? Not seen that before. Be nice if the article was actually about the title, at any rate...Moreschi ^Talk 19:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of speedy deletions is to accelerate the pace of eliminating narrow classes of material that almost everyone agrees should be gone, as the rules say: 'These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. If a page does not uncontestably fall under a criterion, or it has previously survived a deletion discussion (except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements), another process such as Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be used instead.' It's not supposed to be unlimited power to remove anything an administrator doesn't think belongs. 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Gyr (talk • contribs) 14:16, 30 May 2007
    • (after EC) From WP:CSD "These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. If a page does not uncontestably fall under a criterion, or it has previously survived a deletion discussion (except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements), another process such as Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be used instead." That at least strongly suggests that deletions known to be controversial should not usualy be speedys. DES ^(talk) 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's come to my attention that editors like User:Badlydrawnjeff and User:Doc glasgow for some time now been involved in disputes about biographical articles, what to keep, what to delete, and how to apply WP:BLP. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I just became aware of this and have no opinion in the overall matter. But I honestly feel like the Anna Mae He article in question here just became a careless casualty in this "war". The article was not an abuse of process, this was not a case of multiple AfDs and multiple DRVs - the article was simply speedy deleted even though it was sourced. The article may have problems, but it was a work of good faith attempts to have a good article. I have no desire at all to be involved in these ongoing disputes about biographical articles. I would really appreciate it if deletion was overturned and suggestions are offered as to how to improve the article, or even have the article go through an AfD process, instead of just speedy deleted. Maybe it needs to be renamed, maybe it needs to be trimmed down, maybe it needs more sources. It's more than a little disheartening that good faith editing is just speedy deleted because of an ongoing dispute about biographical articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and the article certainly reads like it belongs in one. --Carnildo 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AFD - This DRV is looking too much like an AFD. All uncited information and information cited from unreliable sources should be removed before that though. I think blanking the page for the AFD and having users go to the article's history to view the text might be appropriate though, as it is a tabloidish story. Wickethewok 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion This article was not a biography, it was sensationalist journalism. This is Wikipedia, not Wikinews. -- Donald Albury 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Others have said it better: this is not a biography, it's an unencyclopaedic account of a messy custody battle and a millstone to hang around the neck of a child who has no say in it. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia policy to offer a substantive opinion on any of this, but I do think a speedy deletion was uncalled for. While it's true this was an unencyclopedic biography of a living minor, the custody battle seems notable enough(sadly) to at least merit a discussion of its inclusion. Also, I really hope this: [11],[12], doesn't go any farther, but if the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved, we may actually be forced to include it.Lindentree 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court declined cert. End of case. Just one of thousands of contested custody cases. Thatcher131 00:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, although I think the Anna Mae He Act might be worth a stub. I must note, though, that the Elian Gonzalez article also seems to cover the controversy far more extensively than the person, despite purporting to be a biography. Despite the obvious notability difference, he too is still a minor. Could somebody please clarify for me why it cannot be speedily deleted to protect him? Lindentree 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that Anna Mae was the subject of an international diplomatic incident, or that her case was covered by press on four continents. I could be wrong about that. The Gonzalesz article is largely about the case, perhaps it should be moved to Elian Gonzalez custody dispute or some such in order to clarify that it is primarily about the incident not the person. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn for discussion There are possible BLP concerns, since the subject is a child is a custody battle, but the article has existed for over a year, and should not be deleted by unilateral process. AfD is the place for discussion. It is frequently said here in denying overturns that only process is relevant here. An incorrect speedy is process. N was asserted by the article. If one disagrees, that's what AfD is for. DGG 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per FCYTravis and per Thatcher131. ElinorD (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my deletion We are not doing this to a child. We are not restoring a horrible, intrusive, mess in order to satisfy process wonking. No.--Doc^g 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AFD. Given that this child may have a state law named after her, I think there's a good argument that a) Wikipedia should have some coverage of the case and b) Wikipedia is not substantially increasing the profile of this individual, although a potential rename of the article would probably be appropriate. Endorse Wow, I hadn't actually seen the deleted content before making this statement - I had just looked at the sources via a Google News search. I think the case itself may be worthy of an article, but the deletion of the (pretty awful) content as of the Google cached version was appropriate, as any article on the case would require a major rewrite. JavaTenor 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep deleted or restore to a different name - if the article is about the custody battle, call it Hae vs Baker custody battle or something - don't claim that the article is a bio of the girl. And there's plenty in there that is unsourced. --BigDT 00:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted: Not everything that appears in a newspaper appears in an encyclopedia. This is a classic example of that. Danny 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - this is the sorta shit WP:BLP was made to keep dead - David Gerard 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There is absolutely no place for any article like this on this encyclopedia. I therefore express relief that it was deleted, an act that I would have been urging on any administrator within earshot, had I known about it before Doc. Needless to say if any administrator restores it I shall call for him to be stopped. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - truly awful article with an almost non existent amount of encyclopedic content on the actual subject. Don't get me wrong, there's sources and such but none of the content is encyclopedic and none of it is about the subject - sourced butn unencyclopedic content must die. This article stays dead. Nick 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion largely per Thatcher. – Steel 01:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per my comments on the 5/28 DRV log, just change the background and the names, but the principles are substantially the same. Newyorkbrad 01:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I read the article; the word that comes to mind is "grotesque". It's not about the child except in the most indirect of ways, and this isn't something that we should be covering. Endorse deletion. DS 02:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - the BLP parts are unsourced so this article has to go on policy grounds. There is significant sourcing on the custody battle so an article on that is possible but if one is produced it must be written without the objectionable content. TerriersFan 03:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Look, just because people are doing inappropriate BLP deletions doesn't mean you can start contesting all of them. And this is clearly appropriate. An article on a living person must be about the person. It's certainly a BLP violation to define a person through one negative incident, like this article did. -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion This article is full of crap and non-notable.--Certified.Gangsta 04:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Changing my mind after thoroughly reviewing the article at home and not hurriedly in an airport. The article is rubbish and the biographical sections do violate WP:BLP. --Coredesat 04:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per BLP, and per doing the right thing. That's right. Per BLP. Some say that the article doesn't fit the letter of the policy as written, but in my view, BLP's spirit applies here just the same. Those that say that it does not, based on the precise wording of BLP, miss the point. Those that insist on an AfD are process wonking, in my view. Those that don't see why this is the right thing to do perhaps should seek another project. This long drawn out discussion is itself doing harm though and we would be better served by less knock down drag out fighting about this stuff. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per DGG. Alternately, delete this version without prejudice and create a better sourced version that focuses more on the timeline and cross-national implications. Calwatch 04:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AFD Then interested editors can argue why it should be kept or deleted. Instead, there was a speedy which did not meet any criteria for same, followed by an acrimonious and rambling pseudo AFD here. If new grounds for Speedy need to be established, then go to WP:CSD or even WP:BLP and add a criterion allowing admins the latitude to remove what they feel is distasteful. Edison 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I can only speak for myself, but I am going to support overturning every single speedy delete that uses WP:BLP as a rationale. I don't care how poorly worded they are, how unbalanced they may be, how sad the circumstances, but this has to stop. Instead of deleting them, stub them, note why they were stubbed in the talk page for the article and list them for AfD, if they are not notable. This deletion spree has spun so far out of control that Monica Lewinsky is in range of the BLP cabal, and it's only a matter of time before Jeffrey Dahmer becomes eligible for this bizarre form of parole. (Oh, by the way, he's dead, so ordinarily BLP wouldn't apply, but that was under the rational rules that applied in the past. Death is no longer a disqualifier for BLP.) Horologium t-c 00:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comments will be ignored. Check the recent changes to the deletion policy made by Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Tony, please check those recent changes - claims of BLP with no basis in reality will be ignored. Meanwhile, since he has adequately shown why the deletion was improper, his will have more weight. Thanks for noticing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  We'll soon find out whether we're dealing with reality or jeffipedia. In reality, protest votes made to express dislike of a policy aren't arguments to overturn deletion of seriously damaging content. --Tony Sidaway 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  When in doubt, go with the cliche, right? In reality, comments that display why an activity was improper are better arguments than attempts to justify improper activity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called hyperbole, Tony. A quick check will show that this is the only BLP CRV I've participated in this week. You know, unless you have actually read the BLP policy (something which you emphatically asserted you had not read last week), I have trouble accepting your references to it. Additionally, there is a little thing called "Courtesy Blanking" that can be used if there are concerns about content; a courtesy blank and an AfD are a much better combination than deleting and then having a review. Vaporizing the pages means that the unwashed masses who are not admins are not able to view the article to make an informed comment, which really goes to the heart of the matter. What's the point of editing if your contributions are vaporized and only the admins can see what gets speedied? Why not just cut regular editors out of the process and have the admins do all of the writing? FWIW, I am fairly deletionist (as a review of my AfD positions would reveal), but I have an issue with the current incineration-fest due to alleged BLP violations. Under ordinary circumstances, Jeff and I would probably be opposing each other, but he and I share a common disdain for out-of-sequence deletions. Horologium t-c 01:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Tony, I can't speak for anybody else but myself here - I voted to overturn not so much because I felt the article was in a good enough state, but because I would have appreciated suggestions to improve or rename the article, or even an AfD. A lot of people felt that the article was not biographical - that's a problem that's easily solved by renaming the article and refocusing its topic. Also, I am not involved in this apparent ongoing war concerning WP:BLP and how to apply it, and I have no opinion on the matter at all, but I really feel like this article became a careless casualty of this war. I started the article, but it was other editors that edited it to turn it into the state it was in before it was deleted. It needed improvement, but it was still the result of good faith editing. It wasn't an attack page and it wasn't a hoax. It would have been great to be given a chance to improve it instead of having it speedily deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It should be deleted because because the article is very similar to the deleted page Terminator 4.both are possible continuations on a film trilogy, both films are well sourced on places such as IMDB, both have been talked about being produced since the release of the previous film by both actors and producers, and both have been given an approximate release date by officialls.For fairness Jurassic Park 4 should be deleted, because Terminator 4 has had several deletion discussions and so it should be the result to use to the Jurassic Park 4 article. Rodrigue 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletion review is for articles that have been deleted and you think were deleted outside of the normal deletion process. This article has been to AfD and survived only a few months ago. Anyway, you are in the wrong place. Leebo ^T/C 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually that isn't so, If an editor thinks that an AfD with a "keep" result was closed improperly, that also can be reviewed here, and in rare cases, such a review results in overturnign the clsoe and deleting the article. DES ^(talk) 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are correct, my statement above is incorrect. As far as I can tell, he's not requesting a review of the previous discussion. The proper way to say what I wanted to say would be "Deletion review is for reviewing deletion discussion decisions, not starting new deletion discussions." Leebo ^T/C 17:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse whether to keep an article about a planned future event, such as this, is a judgement call, the question is whether there is already enough verifiable discussion of the matter to make the subject notable, even if the event never occurs. (for example see The Last Dangerous Visions which is notable primarily for not having been published on schedule). In this case the judgment of the AfD discussion was "yes". I might or might not have aggreed with that view, but it is well within the reasonable range of judgement for an AfD within our policy. DES ^(talk) 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This should be taken to the article's page (or a film series page) with a "proposed merger" discussion set. If your intent is to preserve the information, but in a better place, then AfD is not the place to go, and you should propose a merger.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There isn't a Jurassic Park franchise article though. Alientraveller 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well whaddaya know! Alientraveller 17:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Keep There are plenty of sources for the article, so we're not crystal balling it. The AfD was properly opened, participated in, and closed; not sure what else needs to be said. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Griswold Frelinghuysen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

notable and referenced by current standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

• The only AfD I see is from two years ago and was entirely proper. Unless I'm missing something, why not just create an article? Mackensen (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorce deletion but with no prejudice against creating a new and sourced article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Totally inadequate AfD, only three people, 2 against and one for., argument for nom "and a President of the P. Ballantine & Sons Company, whatever that is," when it was a linked WP article. Argument for 1st delete: even though he had an Arboretum name for him (that was also N enough to have a WP article), argument of 2nd delete: "nn" I dont know what the standards were in 05, but this discussion doesn't meet any reasonable standard today. The existing article is a good stub as it is. DGG 23:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Obviously not available through Google cache after all this time, but, as Mackensen says, why not just create the article? ElinorD (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article was deleted almost two years ago. No one's stopping you from creating a new one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I remember this article (I was the sole "keep" vote) and have sometimes thought of digging it up and bringing it here. Ideally I would have liked to find a little more about the guy. But yeah, I think he meets our notability standards--a current president of one of the largest breweries in the US would surely be kept. Our presentist bias is it work here. If Richard can (and knowing his work I'm sure he can) provide references for the info in the article I think it should absolutely be allowed. Richard, if you want me to copy it to your userspace so you can work on it, let me know. Chick Bowen 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm gonna restore and userfy, I don't think there'd be any objection if it has more sources/claim to notability when it comes back to mainspace. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• userfied to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/George Griswold Frelinghuysen Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category was merged into Category:Songs by songwriter as a result of a discussion on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_7#Category:Songs by composer. Unfortunately, the person who proposed that merge did not have the courtesy to notify me that this was being discussed, as suggested in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Howto#Notes_for_nominators, so I only discovered that this was done after it had already happened. It seems that there are some people who think that, just because there are few people who nowadays write just lyrics or just music, that the distinction between lyricists and composers is useless (see Mike Selinker's comment on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 18#Songs by songwriter), but I think that this decision should not have been made without allowing those of us who are primarily concerned with older music to disagree.

Postings which have been made by Johnbod, both in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 18#Songs by songwriter and directly to me in User talk, seem to imply that he thinks all one needs to do is recreate Category:Songs by composer. It is my understanding that that would be a violation of Wikipedia procedural rules, so I can't see my just going ahead and doing it. And at least one other user, InnocuousPseudonym, agrees with me that what was done was a mistake. So I wish to reopen that discussion. -- BRG 14:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The first debate was a rename, not a merge. The nominator commented: "For the best logical arrangement we maybe ought to have 3 categories (by songwriter, by composer, by lyricist) but in the interests of avoiding over-categorisation I think renaming this category would be the best solution." He pointed out that a great number of the people categorised wrote both words and music. I personally feel that the decision there did not rule out the re-establishment of Category:Songs by composer for pure composers (musicwriters) only. The lyricists already have their category, which is not involved in these debates. Classical music is unaffected by all this btw, that has different categories. It is clear from two later debates on May 18 and the abortive one onMay 17 that the songwriters category has good support, for people who wrote both words and music. I think BRG should be asking here for confirmation that there is no block on creating a new Category:Songs by composer for people who only wrote the music. I would support this. Johnbod 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As BRG says, I strongly support the re(?)-creation of a "Songs by composer" category. The composer-lyricist distinction was the norm for at least the first half of the 20th century (encompassing the bulk of the Great American Songbook) and applies to at least a portion of more recent songwriting teams. InnocuousPseudonym 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn as everyone involved clearly wishes to do.DGG 23:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my case, I don't think the previous decision should be overturned (and there are many editors I'm sure who would agree), but I think the closing here should confirm that a re-creation of the "vacated" Composers category would be ok, so there are 3 categories: by songwriter, by composer, by lyricist. Johnbod 00:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse renaming. Seems like the debate was pretty clearly for renaming. I'm not sure what my comment about composers and lyricists has to do with the validity of the closing decision.--Mike Selinker 00:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about composers and lyricists clearly indicates that you think most people do both and that is why you wanted the rename. As InnocuousPseudonym and I have tried to make clear, there are a great number of people who did one or the other nearly exclusively. -- BRG 13:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and I could be wrong or I could be right. But it doesn't change the validity of the closing, which seems fine, and which I would have supported either way.--Mike Selinker 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, seems a reasonable outcome. We don't always need to split cats into finer detail like that. >Radiant< 08:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We may not always need to split cats into finer detail, but in this case we certainly do. Normally, in fact, Wikipedia uses narrow cats and a hierarchical structure. Why should this not be such a case? -- BRG 13:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also the songwriters cat is enormous & a split would make both easier to use. Johnbod 12:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As a participant in both debates, I would like to say that, in the first debate, I found the nom's suggestion that three cats might be overcategorization to be somewhat persuasive, but on reflection, I'm not so sure. In the second debate, I objected to the use of a horrid neologism, and also to the effective removal of the just-created by-songwriters category, but never really addressed the question of creating three categories, except by reference to the previous debate. So, for the record, I'd like to say that whatever I wrote in those debates should not be read as opposition to the idea of having three cats. In case that helps. :) Xtifr _tälk 16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse renaming but allow for the re-creation of Category:Songs by composer. There were no procedural issues with the original CFD nomination and BRG and Johnbod both have good arguments for the categorization scheme. howcheng {chat} 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse renaming but allow for the re-creation of Category:Songs by composer, per my comments above, since I haven't put it in bold yet. Johnbod 00:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cool Cat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

Improper closure of an MFD discussion. This page was a redirect from an old userpage to a new one, and one that contains over 2,000 incoming links. The page was originally deleted at the request of the user, User:White Cat. The deletion was seem as unnecessary and made things needlessly confusing for edits both editors finding Cool/White Cat, and for users following those links. I recreated the redirect, per Wikipedia:User page. White Cat tried to place the speedy delete tag on the page once again, but it no longer qualified for speedy delete. It was then taken to MFD. Two admins have attempted to close the MFD, both on incorrect grounds. The first admin was reverted by myself, with support from other users including at least two other administrators whom felt taking it to DVR wasn't necessary. It has since been speedy closed again, but now the page has been protected.

Speedy closed as "user request" (WP:CSD#U1), however U1 states that if U1 is contested it should be taken to MFD: " If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page. "

Improper close, plain and simple. Even if you don't feel such things are necessary, they are supported by policy and guidelines, and by several people from the MFD. Something to note is that even if the MFD got speedy closed that still won't prevent the user page from being recreated. Recreating pages is not a 3RR violation, as some people have suggested, especially since there is no consensus or policy that requires the page to have been deleted. This is normally not even an issue we face, because long before that we take such situations to XfD. If you feel this redirect should be deleted, then all the more reason to continue the MFD, which would create a consensus to keep deleted.

This isn't even a big deal, but it's somewhat bizarre that both White Cat and the deleting admins feel so strongly about deleting the page. No reason has been cited for deletion, and there would be nothing to gain from it, and it would only inconvenience and make things confusing for others. Keeping a redirect hurts no one, and shouldn't be a controversial issue. But, for whatever reason, it is controversial, and that's what we have the MFD for.

Also, no one is saying anyone has to have a userpage, that is not the function the page is having at this time. Rather, this page is now pointing users to the new user name that Cat has chosen. White Cat has made it very clear that he did not change usernames to vanish or start fresh, and has been completely open about who he is and was (complete with links on his current user page). Of course users can have their own pages deleted, but that's not the issue here. It's a redirect, for the sake of a great amount of past discussion and many incoming links. It actually benefits White Cat (which makes the situation even more bizarre).

I'd like to quote something David Levy said it to Newyorkbrad (the final admin to close the MFD):

"No offense, but I don't perceive you as a neutral party (to any greater extent than I'm a neutral party). You didn't weigh the arguments and arrive at a consensus-based decision. You threw them out and substituted your own judgement for that of the community (instead of simply expressing your opinion in the discussion). —David Levy 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)"

And having said all that, relist MFD -- Ned Scott 05:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - the old talk page is still there. Anyone looking for the user can easily find him. I don't know or care why he wants his old page deleted, but as someone who has been harassed before, I can certainly understand that there might be a good reason. At any rate, unless there is evidence of bad behavior or some such thing, we delete user pages on demand. Five admins have deleted this page. One person has recreated it four times and reverted an admin's close of the MFD twice. Something is wrong somewhere along the line. --BigDT 05:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not the MFD discussion itself. The closing was improper, regardless of how you feel about the situation. Also, even if I was the one who recreated the page and reverted the closure, others (including two administrators) supported that. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other people have not re-created it in order to allow the discussion to proceed and be well-considered, but that was truncated. The fact that more people were edit-warring to achieve a certain outcome does not mean that outcome is right or better. No reason whatsoever has been provided by User:Cool Cat for deleting the page, and if the reason were harassment, the effective way to end harassment is to actually create a new account completely severed from the old one. If there were harassment, migrating all his contribs and making 10,000 edits to change his signature advertising the change to everyone with a watchlist would be the least effective way to end it. —Centrx→talk • 05:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Ned, you and everyone else would be much better off if you would let Cool Cat (or whatever he wants to call himself) be and move on to other things. Seriously. Chick Bowen 05:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love to move on, but others have insisted that a DVR is required instead of letting a simple MFD continue. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted This is grossly unnecessary. --MichaelLinnear 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you personally feel is unnecessary is not a reason to keep this deleted. An improper closure is an improper closure. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing the MfD was unnecessary, and the people who closed it unnecessarily insisted that the issue be brought here. —Centrx→talk • 05:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. While I agree that this closure was improper, our ultimate goal is to build consensus (not drama). I've been discussing this matter with White Cat, and he has expressed a willingness to work toward some sort of compromise with the community (beginning with the creation of a temporary page at User:Cool Cat pending a long-term solution). Therefore, I urge you to withdraw this listing (at least for the time being). —David Levy 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - Users can have their own user pages deleted for any reason - end of story - thats why they are user pages. There shouldn't have even been an MFD. The amount of time/text wasted on this already is pretty ridiculous/hilarious/sad. Wickethewok 05:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know how many times I have to quote this: " If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page." Your reason for keeping it deleted is not supported by the deletion policy, which directed us to an MFD. You can disagree with that all you want, but that's the way it is (for now). -- Ned Scott 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, that presumes that the account's contribs remain at the same username. In this case, they were all moved elsewhere, which without a redirect would be mysterious. —Centrx→talk • 05:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Reminding everyone that this is not a vote. It's been shown that this has been an improper closure, and unless you can show otherwise then how you feel about the deletion itself really isn't relevant to the MFD being relisted or not. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any admin can speedy any page that falls into the criteria for speedy deletion. The fact that there was an MFD going on changes nothing. This was not an out of process deletion - it was a legitimate speedy deletion. --BigDT 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is disputed that it actually qualifies for speedy deletion. I suppose that could be discussed on User talk:Cool Cat, but otherwise the best place is an MfD. —Centrx→talk • 05:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion. I've looked at WP:CSD#U1, and the history back through April, and cannot find what Ned Scott quotes above. U1 reads: Personal subpages, upon request by their user. In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page. Also, sometimes, main user pages may be deleted as well. See Wikipedia:User page for full instructions and guidelines. Also, relative to the Right to Vanish, I know of nothing that would require White Cat to have a redirect from his old name. The original deletion seems proper, and I don't see any need for it to have been at MfD in the first place. I'm more concerned about Ned's actions in this, the extremes to which he is forcing this issue. --InkSplotch 06:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's on the linked page with full instructions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "See Wikipedia:User page for full instructions and guidelines." As for my actions, I would not call what I am doing an "extreme"... I do get worked up when I see people side step discussions and force an issue, though, but who wouldn't? You're basically asking why I care. For one, he's using this deletion to justify changing his old sig in talk archives, which he was forced to stop, and was reverted on. Second, and probably the bigger motivation, regardless of what the MFD is about the forced closure was totally unacceptable. It's alright if other people don't care, and if they think it's silly, but that's no reason to throw other people's valid concerns out the window. No one is asking that anyone cares about this, we're just asking for a simple discussion on the matter. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I see it now. Thanks for pointing it out. Well, it's a stronger argument now, but I'm still looking into things...particularly this bit about Cat updating his old signatures. If anyone has a link to the discussion on AN, I'd appreciate it. At this time, I'm letting my vote stand. CSD is a policy, the supporting User Page is only a guideline. Ned, I called your actions extreme because you seem to be the only one carrying this torch, and it seems more disruptive to me than just letting Cat fix his old signature links. I referenced Right to Vanish, and I still feel it applies here...'Vanish' isn't just leaving Wikipedia, it's also a right to a fresh start. You're causing a lot more drama for Cat trying to do just this than is at all necessary. I'll keep reading up on this, but for now my comment stands. --InkSplotch 13:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm bringing this to DRV because I think the actions of the closing admins was completely inappropriate. I'm more concerned about this affecting future MFDs than I am about the redirect itself. Keep in mind, from my point of view, I was simply making a redirect. Undoing the admins incorrect actions was easy, justified, and allowed a consensus building discussion to continue. The early closure of the MFD is what escalated the situation. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Revert waring is never right and is never justified and is to be discouraged. If you disagree with a deletion you take it to deletion review assuming its worth spending time on it. Pointlessness of your policy-lawyering is simply jaw dropping... -- Cat ^chi? 06:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Do you even know what the hell you are talking about? Nothing I've said is even close to policy-lawyering. If the closing admins disagreed with the MFD they should have brought it up in the MFD. Blatantly incorrect actions are ones we should simply fix. A revert is not always a bad thing, and was only done because... policy and guidelines backed me up, others involved (including other admins) felt speedy re-opening was ok and DRV was needless, the speedy close was a disruption, taking it to DRV would only cause more disruption, and the rationale thing to do was simply continue with the existing discussion, and I could go on and on. I have done nothing wrong with those reverts, and rather, it was those who speedy closed who are in the wrong. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Do I know what I am talking (typing) about? I am pretty certain I am or else I wouldn't be putting anything here. You seem to be unfamiliar with WP:CIVIL. Have a read of it, then reread it.
  The procedure in correcting "blatantly incorrect actions" is clearly laid out with WP:DR. Unless the edits are destructive compromising encyclopedias quality that require urgent action (such as vandalism, blant copyright violations) you have no reason to "revert" much less revert war. I see no evidence of a compromise in encyclopedias quality with the deletion of a non-critical userpage redirect which in your words is a "trivial situation". See WP:3rr#Exceptions for when "revert waring" is fine - even then it is more than discouraged. So, since it isn't critical, you are expected to take it to the person's talk page you are disagreeing with at a minimum. In this spesific case that would be me and each admin that has deleted the page or closed the MfD. Speedy close was well inline with WP:IAR if nothing else quited qualifies such as WP:CSD#U1 or WP:CSD#G7. Further revert waring against multiple admin closures is again disruption. You have border-lined violating WP:3rr by doing so if not crossed it. Waisting the communities time by forcing a trivial matter to the point of a MfD and later a DR is disruption and to be blunt quite dicky.
  -- Cat ^chi? 09:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Ned Scott, thats a combative mentality frowned upon on wikipedia. -- Cat ^chi? 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Improper close, plain and simple. He was trying to short circuit a fight that was getting pretty nasty, but speedy closes only throw gasoline on that fire. Better to give it the full five days to burn out. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse deletion, m:Right to vanish, valid U1 - the page has no apparent need to be retained, and an existing MFD does not disqualify a speedy by any means if the page meets one of the criteria; in this case, the page was {{db-user}}'d, etc. Stop forcing this issue; apparently it's not enough to edit war over whether the redirect should exist. Furthermore, you should not have reverted the MFD closures at all, as you are not an admin; if you had a problem you should have brought it up with the closing admin or came here first. --Coredesat 07:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user does not wish to vanish, it has nothing to do with the right to vanish at all. Second, being an admin or not has no bearing on being able to revert a closure. Being an admin does not give one more authority, it just means they are trusted with admin tools. Reverting the MFD was an attempt to make the issue less of a big deal and to not waste people's time. Reasons for retaining the redirect have been provided. The U1 CSD says specifically to use WP:USER for detailed instructions, where it says that an MFD does disqualify it from being a speedy. Disagree with that all you want, but that's what it says. It is not a valid U1 deletion, and that's a fact. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• endose I closed this MfD as a speedy delete and was reverted for some reason - Brad did the right thing. Now, go do something useful.--Doc^g 09:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Get on with life. Trebor 09:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You not having an interest in this situation is not a valid reason to endorse an improperly closed MFD. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In other words... you revert warred with 5 admins and the user owning the userpage. -- Cat ^chi? 10:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The numbers mean nothing, all five were wrong, and you don't own the page. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: No block)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: Pages protected)

  -- Cat ^chi? 10:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse per some prior DRV discussions where it's better to overrule policy for common sense. – Chacor 10:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering how split the MFD was before it was closed, it's not accurate to call the speedy close common sense. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion The page was deleted in accordance with common sense and policy (I can't believe I said that). CharonX/talk 11:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh. I'd make a fuss about how, once again, "I know best now shut up" has been a fellow admin's response to a discussion he doesn't agree with, but, really, what's the point? Neil (►) 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse - if it isn't U1 it would be G7. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean G8? :D -- Cat ^chi? 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted I am more and more convinced that Wikipedia is (collectively) insane. What possible reason is there to not grant this user the courtesy afforded to any other user who asks it, including a number of notable pests? This should never have been at MfD in the first place. Thatcher131 14:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is the other users' contribs were not moved, thus severing the user account from its history. There are also no personal information or harassment issues, because the user has kept all his contribs connected to his new account. —Centrx→talk • 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted echoing Thatcher's concerns above. White Cat has been extremely cooperative in keeping links to significant elements of his previous identity on his new userpage (including the block log). This seems to me a straightforward CSD U1 request and NYB was correct to delete it. I remain unpersuaded that the deletion of this page is harmfull or that White Cat has to prove it is beneficial. Deletion of userspace is performed on request except in exceptional circumstances - this seems fairly mundane to me. WjBscribe 14:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from the deleting administrator or I should say from one of the five admins who deleted this redirect. I re-deleted the redirect by request of the user involved. Simply put, the idea that this trivial matter warranted a five-day community-wide discussion is inane. I do not understand why this matter is being pressed so vigorously—or indeed, at all—and no one has been willing to tell me, which I find extraordinary. I respect our deletion processes and yet, there comes a limit to the extent in which we should engage in process for its own sake and it is submitted that with all respect we have reached it. Editors interested in debating policy issues have several hundred more productive discussions in which they could participate to choose from. Newyorkbrad 15:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply, if someone wishes to find the contribs that used to be associated with User:Cool Cat, or to contact that user, they are going to spend time finding the new account, and then rather than making everyone waste that time create a simple redirect which there is no reason to delete. This is not process for its own sake; the discussion is supposed to get understanding on the issue, which apparently none of the five admins who deleted it have. —Centrx→talk • 17:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a trivial situation, but it was required if Cat wanted to get his userpage deleted. He was the one who wished to press the issue in the first place, and he could have easily just let it go. I haven't let it go because of how inappropriate it was for you to just throw out the active discussion, incorrectly citing policy, when in fact you were just applying your own rationale. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Overturn - as this redirect is useful and valid and the closure was out of processes. Week because... who cares? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Technically Ned Scott is correct: WP:USER#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? does contain the text he quotes. it also says "Where there is no significant abuse and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page and user subpages be deleted" and the clear implication is that such pages are normally deleted on request unless ther is a good reason to retain them, and the primary reson cited is "evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept. which i gather does not apply in this case. The early close was IMO unwise, given that at least one editor was so striongly pushing for retention of this page -- as so often, a speedy clsoe made things worse, not better. But in this case i can't see any likelyhood that a resumption of the MfD would result in the page being kept, so unsually for me endorse, despite improper process. DES ^(talk) 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of people on the MfD said it should be kept; in terms of numbers it is evenly split and the people saying it should be kept have good reasons to do so, so where are you getting your evaluation of "likelihood"? —Centrx→talk • 17:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On rereadign the MfD it seems that soem users on both sides of the matter were being rather WP:POINTy about the issue, but it was not as clear as my earlier hasty scan indicated how this would come out. I'll change my view to weak overturn, to let consensus form. I express no final opnion on whether deelting this page is or is not a good thing, i donm't see it as a vital issue either way, and not of the reasons cited at the MfD strike me as showing why it is so important. DES ^(talk) 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorsing this as a matter of course. If there is much more of this disgusting hounding of Cool Cat, as his mentor I'll raise the matter with the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Telling Cat that he can't just throw a fit and get his way is 'not "disgusting hounding". I don't know why he over-reacts like he does to such minor situations, but that doesn't give him a free pass to fuck consensus. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Endorse and I seriously question the motivation of the nominator, who has a history of tensions with the individual in question. bastique 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Thatcher131. Why not afford the user the ordinary courtesy granted to other users? Also, why make an issue of something that really doesn't matter? ElinorD (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • U1 is there because it's almost always non-controversial, for normal situations there will be no issue and no one will care. It is not a right, and I suspect the people who think it's a right is nothing more than a misconception developed because we lacked situations such as this one. It's not a right, it's just something that is ok for 99 percent of the time. And the ones making an issue over this are the closing admins, who've been far more disruptive than the MFD itself. When I'm acting with our guidelines and policy backing me up, I don't see that as me acting alone. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Bah! Ned Scott should have let this slide; but, when he didn't, admins should have followed the rules carefully. This conflict would have been over by now if either party had behaved well. —SlamDiego_←T 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, right now we would be in the second day of a pointless 5-day MfD, quite possibly followed by a trip here to DRV anyway, all in the service of nothing in particular. And in the meantime the user in good standing who, for whatever idiosyncratic reason, didn't want the redirect there would be annoyed by having content on his own (ex-)userpage against his will. Newyorkbrad 01:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what? The correct thing, regardless of how you feel about the situation, would have been to let the MFD run. It was no longer a speedy deletion criteria, plain and simple. It doesn't matter how stupid it was, the closure was wrong. This is not a vote, and the issue is very clear here. We relist XfDs that are both improperly closed and controversial (at the time it was split right down the middle). You will not be allowed to ignore our deletion policy twice. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Your fervent insistence that we must continue to discuss a dispute of this nature, no matter how trivial the dispute may be or how misbegotten the nature of your concern with it, simply because there exists a rule that arguably authorizes the discussion, is without merit. Frankly, at this point my only regret at having speedy-closed the MfD is that it disqualifies me from being the one to speedy-close the DRV. Newyorkbrad 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • MFDs shouldn't always have to be a life or death situation, and many of us felt it was still worth discussing. At this point, it's not worth the effort, but that is because of your doing (and Doc's technically speaking). You forced it closed, demanding that anyone who have a problem with it to take it to DRV. When I did.. you complained about that. What gives? You are to blame just as much as I am for making this a big deal. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it is so trivial then there should be no problem with leaving the redirect in place. —Centrx→talk • 04:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. I've always seen deletion of pages in userspace as a right (in fact if not in name), unless deleting the page would serve to obscure a history of disruption. Even if Cat has done some bad things, deleting his (her?) old userpage doesn't obscure that very much, so I see no reason not to allow it. -Amarkov moo! 03:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please understand that this is the DRV. You are expressing that you feel the deletion is correct, which would be an appropriate comment for the MFD. The DRV is discussing if the closure was correct or not. Regardless of how you feel about this being a right or not, the instructions on the matter says that other users have a right to put this up on MFD. While I do think there is a history of disruption, that's not the only reason for which one can contest a userpage deletion. For one, Cat is using this deletion as leverage to continue his sig changes, an attempt at validating the action, which he was forced to stop doing. -- Ned Scott 03:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But your contesting of the deletion is based on CSD U1 not applying. I'm saying that I believe it does, and if a speedy criterion applies, the closure was perfectly correct. -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page." Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not in plain english? -- Ned Scott 04:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: That's about the userpage content itself, not a redirect page created and insisted upon by someone else. This is ridiculous already. Newyorkbrad 04:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It doesn't say that at all, brad. It makes no distinction between the function of the page, and only says that if others feel there is a reason it should exist then it should be taken to MFD. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ned, you left out the previous sentence. "If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information." That passage you keep quoting is talking about a need to retain the page because of disruptive behavior. There is no evidence of disruptive behavior in a simple redirect, thus an MFD is out of order and it is a valid U1 deletion. --BigDT 04:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The page content can be speedy deleted if there is no evidence of disruptive behavior, but that is not the only reason such a deletion can be contested. It's Wikilawiering to suggest that the paragraph is encompassing any and all situations that could possibly apply. "if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page" doesn't say "if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page for evidence of disruptive behavior" -- Ned Scott 04:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • And keep in mind that U1 is assuming it's a normal user page, and not something like a redirect to a new user name. You are over-extending the rationale of U1 to a gray area, where it no longer becomes a clear criteria being met. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is no gray area. Cool Cat is still his user name. It's still his user page. I'm not required to have a user page. You're not required to have a user page. That paragraph you keep quoting from talks about disruptive behavior before the sentence you quote and it talks about policy violations after the sentence you quote. The logical assumption in my mind is that your sentence is talking about a need to retain the page because of policy violations. Any time that a deletion is contested, deletion review is always the proper course of action. When someone keeps recreating an article that is speedied, we salt the thing and tell them to take it to DRV. DRV, not MFD, is the correct process for contesting deletion and I have seen before and see no readon now to override his right to delete his own user page. --BigDT 04:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Straw-man, I'm not saying Cool Cat has to have a userpage, I'm saying the benefit of having a redirect to his new account outweighs his desire to have a redlink (for no reason, whatsoever) on his old account. Deleting user pages has never been a right, it's just been something that is normally uncontroversial. Do not confuse the two. Deleting the redirect was a WP:POINTy move by Cat to justify his sig changes, and only causes confusion and negative side effects to those trying to follow past discussions. And if the only reason for retaining the connection between the two accounts is disruptive behavior, Cool Cat has fulfilled that requirement, and I've said so since the start of this whole thing. It's a very gray area, because none of the policy was set up for this kind of situation, and it's anything but a clear speedy deletion criteria. You might feel strongly about this, but your feelings are not backed up by policy, and you should have brought your thoughts to the MFD. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • How does it cause any more confusion than for anyone else with no user page? His old talk page is still there and is a redirect, so if you click on the redlinked user page, you would see a blue linked "discussion" that will then redirect you to his new talk page. That's exactly the same number of clicks that it takes to get to anyone else that doesn't have a user page. --BigDT 05:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • We're not talking about people who don't have a user page for the current account they are using. Regardless of how many clicks it takes to get to his userpage, speedy closing the MFD as U1 was improper. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving all the contribs elsewhere changes the situation. Normally, if someone deletes their user page, all the contribs would still be in the same place, and the user would still contactable on their talk page. —Centrx→talk • 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]