Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Chilean pen incident

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Chilean pen incident

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus at BLP/N [1] is that this falls into the WP:NOTNEWS category. See WP:SENSATION. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator, no different from 2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident, Bush falling of a Segway etc. ukexpat (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely non-encyclopedic, trivia topic. - Darwinek (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sensationalistic portrayal of an apparent non-incident. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial anecdote unworthy of being considered "notable" for Wikipedia in the first place. Collect (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article was created with obvious political bias in the title and content (was called theft originally) by someone claiming to be a new editor, yet very able to cite a multitude of Wikipedia policies. Check the article's talk page. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is fair to accuse the creator of 'political bias', the event was called 'theft' in almost all of the sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which were carefully selected to be left-leaning and pro-Europe opinion. I'm sure plenty of sarcastic similiar commentary was made on other similar occasions. See French news video the New York Times [2] on Sarkozy. Do we have an article for Sarkozy's love of bling bling or President bling bling [3]? What about Sarkozy's love handles airbrushing [4]? or [[Sarkozy ~~drunk~~ tired after rushing up the stairs at G8]] [5]? Or [6], or this etc. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we could create a whole new encyclopedia of embarrassing events regarding famous (or less famous) politicians. What about Mirek Topolánek naked in Silvio Berlusconi's garden? [7] How funny! Why bother to make a critical research of their work and political decisions when it is so easy to make a funny video and show to everybody the 'true state of matters'? Moreover, it is far more interesting to a modern reader and the coverage is rapidly increasing. The question is: Is there any real consequence for Klaus' career? Is there any encyclopedic value in the article? My answer is: No. But I have to admit that the article contains an important hidden message. It tells something about the idiocy of today's world. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite amusing to see how he cites opinion pieces such as [8], which merely use this event as an opportunity to rehash their long-term disapproval of Klaus on other issues, in support of his theft-as-fact theory, and to claim in-depth coverage and analysis of this event. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough coverage, and enough of a time span. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not enough for news events. See WP:109PAPERS, WP:SENSATION and WP:PERSISTENCE. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comment here. An in-depth analysis of this event is impossible, it is an unimportant incident that has been grossly inflated by the media. Food for the masses. Of course, it has helped many people to strengthen their opinion on Klaus: "Take a look at the old thief, finally he has revealed himself in full glory!" (it is the most popular comment under the Youtube videos). It is cheap, unjust and disparaging. Let's forget the worthless tabloid-trash and focus on real problems. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. Has no lasting impact on the legacy of Klaus.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sigh, I don't know who you are FuFoFuEd, but I don't appreciate you hurling statements like "by someone claiming to be a new editor, yet very able to cite a multitude of Wikipedia policies". I have never edited Wikipedia on any other user account. I read up on the policies after this article was lambasted by editors who wanted it gone. I was pretty confused as I researched the subject extensively. It met all the criteria of GNG and the specific NEWS events guidelines. It was notable, covered in reliable sources independent of the subject, etc, etc. I have never even heard of Klaus before I waded into this bloody foray! How can I be politically biased against him? I live in Canada and while I'd love to say that Czech politics interest me, they do not.

I have no political agenda here. It has the word 'theft' in the title, because that's what it was reported as: a theft. You're entitled to your own opinion, but in case you want to know the truth: I created this article as a bit of a laugh. If you read the first draft, you'll see the tongue-in-cheekness. Then, I thought to myself, "what rules is it actually breaking?". I researched the relevant policies (it doesn't take a genius to do that like your comment seems to imply) and realized that this article is more than acceptable. It meets any standard I could throw at it. The bulk of the arguments against this article seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But face it. It is encyclopedic, by your own rules! Let's debate this thing on its merits, not on what your initial impression of the event was.

Here are my arguments against deletion: one and two. Let's debate them, not throw weak ad hominem attacks against the article's creator. DubiousIrony ^yell 20:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, Dubious Irony. I don't think this article is particularly incorrect or badly written. You did a good work and there's no need to be upset or quit your editing on Wikipedia. You know, I edit here for years and I know well that conflict and disagreement is a part of everyday life on this project. Let's debate this article on its own merits. I'm not a censor, not long ago I participated in a discussion regarding the alleged inspiration and ideological motivation of Breivik's murderous attacks in Norway. I was one of the handful of people who supported open presentation of facts. I did it because I consider the information, the response and defense of some people labelled in his manifesto of being his ideological 'heroes', as very important for their own biographies. Wikipedia prevented including the information despite the fact that it was verifiable by multiple reliable sources. I respect that, even though I strongly disagree. However, it was a different case and different circumstances. What is this article? It is a YouTube/media joke that has no purpose other than ridiculing the subject. The subject is a highly visible living person, a president of a country. That's the only reason why has the video attracted the attention of the media. I strongly oppose the existence of a stand alone article on this topic in an encyclopedia, no matter how many news articles we have. It is a matter of ethics and common sense, and it has nothing to do with censorship. You can interpret my opinion as WP:POV or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I feel it is the right and duty of an responsible editor to do so, to warn against the malevolence and superficiality of the mass media. I'm asking again: Is there any real consequence for Klaus' career? Is there any encyclopedic value in the article? Or is it a cowardly attempt to make a clown of a living person unable to defend himself against the omnipresence of the mass media? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You can find my relevant comments also here and here. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just a quick one. I really was (IMHO) a productive editor until this whole fiasco. Look at my contributions. Do I look like a single-purpose-account designed to stir up trouble? I am a real believer in Wikipedia. What left me with a shitty taste in my mouth was not the fact that other editors disagreed that this article should be removed, it's how they went about it. Most of the comments were "it's unencyclopedic!" or "I don't think it applies here!" or "I don't like this article's tone!", or my favourite, "the whole event was silly, therefore we should not cover it". Are you bloody serious? We have articles like Honeypots_in_espionage_fiction but an incident which has 500 separate articles on Google News is somehow unencyclopedic? The reason I left Wikipedia is because editors pay lip service to living by the policies, but actually embrace WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a mantra. To editors like FuFoFuEd I'll just say one thing: even at my most frustrated, I tried to keep the debate centered on the issues. Never did I once think "maybe my argument won't work, so let me try an ad hominem attack instead". I disagreed with many of the responses I read, but I never assumed that the people behind them were some sort of malicious creatures out to do Wikipedia harm. I knew that they were trying to look out for the best interests of the project. So I ask you this: please continue to debate the merits of this article, but stop your attempts to analyze my motivations, political leanings or try to present me spending a few hours familiarizing myself with Wikipedia guidelines as some sort of mortal sin. Do you see me calling you a right-wing nutjob who sucks the cock of censorship because you want this article deleted? No, you don't, because that would be a ridiculous position to take. So kindly stop making inferences about myself from one article that I created on WP. DubiousIrony ^yell 20:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You still haven't explained how this event has any long term impact on anything, like Klaus' political life, or the Chilean-Czech relations, or anything of substance for that matter. Mere assertions that it meets WP:EVENT and long diatribes on civility don't suffice. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes if you can show all of that, I'll change my !v. --Cerejota (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of all the things WP is, it isn't a tabloid. Trivial stuff like this may form part of the Vaclav Klaus article, but a full blown article strikes me as being undue, more of the sort of things that attack pages are made of. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quantity of coverage at the time of the event is not the same as notability - this has zero encyclopedic value. WP:SENSATION/WP:NOTNEWS. This is like Bush's many gaffes, a political joke and a non-event, that perhaps, perhaps warrants a one or two line mention on the BLP of the Czech president.--Cerejota (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge (just the lead and maybe a sentence about the Facebook campaign and kleptomania prank) to Václav Klaus#Chilean pen incident. My reasoning is based on two points:

An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope.
— Wikipedia:Notability (events)

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. ... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
— Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight

Coverage of this event has been sufficiently significant (in quantity and, to a lesser extent, depth – e.g., CSM), but I found indication that interest in the episode by reliable sources persisted for more than a few days. It appears that there was a flurry of coverage (much of it repeating the same information) in April and subsequent coverage – e.g., ABC News, Ceskapozice – has consisted of passing mentions in articles about Klaus. More important than the issue of notability, however, is that of due weight. The event certainly seems to be noteworthy enough to mention in Klaus' article, but the existence of a separate article about the event gives undue weight to this aspect of Klaus' two-decade-long political career.

On a side-note, I think that the criticism that has been directed toward the article's creator (instead of the article) is unjustified and unnecessary, and I would not be unhappy to see it redacted or removed. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A merger is not necessary as the article on Klaus already has a section on this incident, in to which any editor can add any information (and of course be reverted). This article is an aberration and a clear lack of understanding that we are not a news source, and hence should be deleted, and any information on the incident added on its own merits into the BLP. Merger would mean having to accept that the edits warranted inclusion in the encyclopedia, which they didn't.--Cerejota (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the necessity of the expanding the section in Klaus' article, YMMV. However, I do not think that the information should be condemned solely on the basis of which edits introduced it into the encyclopedia and where; as you say, information on the episode should be considered "on its own merits". Any merged content that is deemed to be unnecessary or inappropriate in the context of Klaus' biography can and should, of course, be removed. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And before making demands that I retract what I wrote, please check how the article looked when it was created [9]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've misread a request and an expression of a preference as a demand. My aim merely was to urge a more moderate tone – and fewer assumptions about intentions – in this discussion. In any case, I am aware of how the article looked when it was created but I also recognize that the creator attempted to take steps ([10][11]) to improve the inappropriate tone and focus of the article. The NPOV and BLP problem will, in my opinion, remain as long as this article exists, but I think it is safer to assume that the initial version of the article was a misplaced attempt at humor – i.e., "silliness" – rather than a politically motivated attack on Klaus. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.