Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy

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 of the debate was overwhelming keep.

John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy

Anon puts false info in article. Seigenthaler complains, false info removed. A lot of people write a lot of articles about this which all say pretty much the same things. Is this really the stuff of an encyclopedia article? Let's avoid intense self-referential navel gazing, please. This deserves nothing more than a paragraph in the Seigenthaler article. Gamaliel 20:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept. It is an event in history that occured and as such has every right to be documented, controversial or not.

Keep. Perhaps this will be no more than a tempest in a teapot; right now, it's a big tempest--which makes it notable. It certainly is verifiable. And it's one more item in the ongoing debate concerning anonymous Internet publishing (Wikipedia, blogs, etc). Had Seigenthaler not gone public (making the incident notable), then yes--I would argue against such an article. But the fact that it has erupted into a somewhat major public controversy makes the topic noteworthy. My main concern about the article is that it's too self-referential or too "meta"--but Wikipedia can write about Wikipedia, and this is one of those instances. --EngineerScotty 20:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- However, rename to remove the incorrect middle initial "R" (Seigenthaler's middle name is "Lawrence". In creating this page, I followed a link from the discussion page of John Seigenthaler Sr. which had the "R", blindly assuming that the initial was correct. It appears that it was not; my apologies. --EngineerScotty 21:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! --EngineerScotty 03:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already mentioned in both Wikipedia and John Seigenthaler Sr.. NatusRoma 20:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- However, the reference in Wikipedia (which I added) points to this article. --EngineerScotty 20:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That can be changed, though. There's really not much additional information worth merging into either article. NatusRoma 00:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentioned in a major media outlet--the USA's largest-circulation daily. Picked up many places elsewhere. Important to history and nature of Wikipedia. Besides, info may not even belong in Seigenthaler's main article. Massysett 20:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe merge to Mr. Seigenthaler's main article - this event has been mentioned in an interview on a major media outlet. Although I can see how you think this is Wikicruft.
Merge to John Seigenthaler Sr.. Although right now that page is, bizarrely, blank. Bikeable 21:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That was due to a technical issue; the article's content has been restored (the article is still protected). --EngineerScotty 21:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Scotty. Bikeable 22:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - if this has lasting consequences for Wikipedia, people will want to know about it. Also, since the op-ed was published in USA Today, it's clearly notable. --Fermatprime 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a significant event on recent issues with the Wiki model of content editing, and as such it would be as shame to lose it. Wikipedia shouldn't be afraid of self-criticism --RayaruB 22:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete, do not embarass the project A picayune matter with its own article--looks bad already. But given the opportunity this article will grow to include village pump posts and more lovely self-references. Not how we want to be see as. Lotsofissues 22:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - embarrassment of the project is not enough reason to delete. a valuable topic. Jsnell 23:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Important to document this sort of thing on Wikipedia. --JW1805 (Talk) 23:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to wikipedia: namespace. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Delete post haste! Neutrality^talk 00:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since this incident appears likely to have lasting implications for Wikipedia (including, hopefully, the elimination of anon vandals). If we delete it, we're playing into the hands of the critics who accuse Wikipedia of censorship. 23skidoo 00:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Though it's worth noting that in this case, the critics are complaining that we don't do enough censorship. (After all, editing is a form of censorship, when you get right to it!) For Wikipedia to be successful at its mission, it must find the correct balance between encouraging authors and editors, while keeping out the garbage). --EngineerScotty 00:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Last night in the discussion page for the original article on John Seigenthaler Sr. I advised the following -- Marcopolo 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC) (...) <moved to [[1]|talk page] -Splash^talk 00:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)>[reply]
Keep or transwiki to WikiNews. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 01:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with something like Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. It is good to be open about the problems we encounter. It builds trust, and makes it more likely that the project learns and grows beyond them. -- Jake 01:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless this controversy is still covered in the major news media for at least the next three days. Ingoolemo ^talk 02:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. How would we ever have a fighting chance at gaining back the trust of the public if we weren't accountable? Someone didn't catch a profound mistake quickly enough, and we have only ourselves to blame for this unfortunate incident, so we should just let people criticize us, and let us cooperate with those people in a civilized manner to get the criticism resolved. Denelson 83 04:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever's worth saying can be put in Seigenthaler's main article. Just because it involves Wikipedia doesn't make it any more notable in the broader scope—it's still on the low end of the notability spectrum, worthy of a mention but not an independent article. Everyking 08:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Already covered at Wikipedia, John Seigenthaler Sr. and the Signpost. If it's not there already, transwiki to Wikinews, otherwise delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very notable event now. Assuming it keeps this level of notability, yup. FCYTravis 12:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Landmark event in Wikipedia history. --Peripatetic 14:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WAS 4.250 15:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't want to get accused of covering up our dirty laundry --rogerd 15:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia: space, and perhaps merge some of it into the Seignethaler article. This is largely an internal issue, not of encyclopedic interest in itself. NTK 16:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently notable. Furthermore, being open about such issues may sometimes be unpleasant, but I think will ultimately lead to improvement of Wikipedia. Crust 16:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. or otherwise delete. I don't see any reason why this can't be covered in existing articles.--cj | talk 16:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an important moment in WikiPedia history, and is easily as significant as many other pages. Understanding why WikiPedia made a significant change in its policies requires understanding the incident, and it is going to be used by people writing about Wikipedia more than by people writing about Seigenthaler. Merging with his main bio page would overweight this incident in his career.JimHu 17:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep - The extra 'e' is for Extra Keep. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 17:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's notible. D. Wo. 18:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge with John Seigenthaler Sr. A bunch of major news outlets have covered the story, in addition to an article in USA Today. Definately notable, but you don't want a random page (read: vandal target) out there that doesn't get looked at very often. The main article on Seigenthaler will certainly have enough eyes on it now to keep it clean. --Michael ^(talk) 19:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Everyking. CDC (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (do not merge). Move back to main namespace, where it belongs. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Keimzelle 21:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a media story and must be an article. --DuKot 21:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per everyone's reasoning above, and no merge, since John Seigenthaler Sr. should be about John Seigenthaler, not about a single incident with Wikipedia. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 22:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This time yesterday, I'd have said delete. But Jimbo's decision to prohibit newpage creation by anons has cranked up the media attention sharply. It spent a portion of this afternoon (UTC) in the headlines of the BBC News website. -Splash^talk 22:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy moved to Wikipedia: namespace

Is it appropriate to move an article while an AFD is pending? (Especially since one of the possible results of an AFD is moving the article!) Such a move has been proposed in the above discussion; it seems to me that it's highly inappropriate for it to be moved before the AFD process completes. Could an admin please comment? --EngineerScotty 00:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It happens all the time. Why have you moved the header all the way down here?-Splash^talk 00:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's already covered in the Signpost. I don't see the use in having another copy of the information. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a critical event in Wikipedia's policies and the quality of content on the Internet in general. -- user:zanimum
Keep - huge (and ridiculous) media splash. We are newsworthy. - David Gerard 20:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You talkin' to me? -Splash^talk 22:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had no idea the old logs had been deleted. I don't find it overly self-referential, particularly since it was so widely reported. Czyl 22:01, 6 December 2005 (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.