Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2007 August 18
2007 August 20 >

19 August 2007

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Julia Earl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A discussion was under way on the talk page of the Julia Earl article, when someone named Phil Sandifer just outright deleted it. Can he do that?-Notfromhereeither 04:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the above from yesterday's log.--Chaser - T 21:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was a straightforward BLP case. However well-sourced this article was, it was still a it piece created to pursue a small-town scandal. The subject had no notability beyond a local scandal, and the article existed purely to document that scandal. Deletion was absolutely the right call. Phil Sandifer 21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In this case she is far from being a public figure which is itself a BLP concern, and what makes it, IMO, an obvious speedy candidate, SqueakBox 21:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not being a public figure is not a speedy deletion criterion. Anything that doesn't meet the CSD is far from "an obvious speedy candidate." This notion that anything vaguely associated with the "BLP" power-word is speediable is a deleterious innovation that needs to be quashed. The legal justification for this is likewise non-existent. There's nothing in U.S. law that prevents writing about people who are not public figures. If the servers were under Japanese jurisdiction, this might be different. deranged bulbasaur 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted -- My conflicts with Sandifer over the wholesale & permanent deletion of relevant, sourced content from Justin Berry have stretched over the past few months. He and I differ radically on the question of his using admin tools to enforce his view in what boils down to a content dispute and on his refusal to enter into any consensus-building process, on or off-wiki regarding his permanent deletions. It's clear that aside from our common interest in writing the best encyclopedia we can, our views couldn't be more divergent.
    All that being true, he was right to delete Julia Earl. Earl is a minor local figure whose apparent misfeasance or malfeasance in office to not rise to the level of encyclopedic content, especially in light of the increased deference given to the subjects of biographies of living people.Bottom line: regardless of our significant disagreements, I agree 100% with his action in this matter. Was this article the subject of an OTRS request? --Ssbohio 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I make a general habit of not answering that question, simply because answering in some cases makes it so that any time I don't answer due to privacy concerns, my declining to answer is itself an answer. Phil Sandifer 22:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly understandable. It's just that when the article still existed, the PROD tag referenced an OTRS #, if I recall correctly. If I'm right, then the information was already published. Even still, your position makes sense except for its lack of case-by-case judgment. For example, the existence of Justin Berry's OTRS contacts with the Wikimedia Foundation have been disclosed on his user page. --Ssbohio 00:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's evidently a case of someone wanting to confirm his real-life identity to prevent a Stephen Colbert-like block on his account for impersonating a real-life person. In the case of articles, real life people are trying to stop the dissemination of information about them. The situations are opposite.--Chaser - T 02:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ssbohio, I did that with that person's full and prior knowledge and consent in order to stop the allegations that he was an impersonator and the suggestion that his account ought to be blocked as a WP:USERNAME violation. As Chaser points out, there is a big difference between doing this and answering questions about BLPs. Basically, I agree with Phil's position regarding OTRS questions. And I think he should be commended for having the integrity and courage to deal with these articles the way he believes is right and not allow others (usually people with vested interests, from what I have seen) to pressure him or sway him from doing this. Sarah 14:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Overturn This speedy was blatantly out of process. The given justification is nowhere to be found in WP:CSD. Allow me to quote from the relevant portion of CSD g10: "This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced"(emphasis added). The deleting admin admits in his first reply in this very review that the article in question was sourced. If there is an issue with the article that does not fall within the "enumerated powers" of speedy deletion, let it be addressed through Afd. The admins personal opinion (which may well be entirely reasonable for all I know) of the article's suitability as an encyclopedic topic has no bearing, because speedy deletion on those grounds is impermissible. deranged bulbasaur 02:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A fair point, but I think this is still covered by policy at WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. ArbCom endorsed summary deletion in BLP cases.--Chaser - T 03:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy says nothing about speedy deletion. As for the arbcom ruling, they are not a policy making body. Arbitration serves, as one would expect, a judicial function as part of dispute resolution. They do not have, and have never had, authority to legislate from the bench. Their decisions are also not binding, and are thus confined to the circumstances of the matter at hand. It's important that they do not make policy, because arbcom is not a community process. Two entities are entitled to make policy for us: the community and the foundation. Neither has authorized this, else it would be written into the CSD. If arbcom members want to change the CSD, let them propose it on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion like anyone else. That said, I don't think arbcom intends to overstep its authority as I have described, so let's not wield their rulings in a way that would seem to make them do so. deranged bulbasaur 11:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • ArbCom's not a court. There is a happy medium between ArbCom decisions as binding precedent akin to policy and ignorable statements whose applicability is limited only to the case and participants then at hand.--Chaser - T 17:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bulbasaur: no, arbcom decisions are binding - that's the whole point of arbitration. What this means is that their decisions aren't binding on themselves. David Mestel(Talk) 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted The article should have never existed. As non-notable, it should have been speedily deleted. Attempting to undelete it because of a dispute with an admin is rather idiotic. In order to justify undeleting the article, someone should make an argument for notability. -- Kainaw(what?) 12:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Award deleting admin a trout for lack of clarity in the deletion summary; BLP or G10 should have been mentioned. Keep deleted because this fits WP:CSD#G10 (I note that it does not fit WP:BLP because it is sourced; an BLP by its explicit terms only authorizes deletion of "biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to" [emphasis added]. GRBerry 14:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doing that would give the false impression that I am in any way willing to learn which CSD criteria are which. Phil Sandifer 15:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um...surely you've got that the wrong way around: G10 only allows deletion of bios which are unsourced, but BLP and the BDJ arbitration case allows bios which are insufficiently notable and negative in tone to be speedied. David Mestel(Talk) 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I don't have it backwards. WP:CSD#G10 says "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to." The operative sentence is the first any page with no purpose other than attacking can be deleted under G10 regardless of sourcing; the second sentence is merely an example. WP:BLP, on the other hand, only includes the sentence I originally quoted and only authorized deletion of unsourced negative articles. The only articles that can be deleted under BLP that can't be deleted under G10 are those that are unsourced, negative in tone, but also have a purpose other than attacking the subject. GRBerry 04:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted Whether the original deletion was covered by G10 or not, this article about local scandal won't survive AFD. Given BLP concerns, there's no reason to drag out the process.--Chaser - T 17:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted A7 or G10 or BLP could all apply and unlike a court the deleting admin doesn't have to make his case multiple ways to stave off an overturn. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to be picky, but neither A7 nor G10 apply: a description of news coverage is clearly at least an assertion of notability, and G10 only applies to unsourced articles. BLP does indeed apply, though. David Mestel(Talk) 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, but relist if anyone really wants to: the BDJ decision allows BLPs to be speedied pro tem., but doesn't preclude AfDs on them (but leaves the article deleted until there's a consensus to keep). I personally think that another AfD would be a bit pointless, because I'm sure it would result in delete, but there we are. David Mestel(Talk) 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - All actions were intact. Cool Bluetalk to me 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn this anti-content, anti-consensus decision. --W.marsh 21:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Anti-content when it is inappropriate" is at the heart of making wikipedia into a viabl;e 21st Century product while "pro-content whatever the cost" is at the heart of what has the potential to destroy wikipedia, thus content for content sake is one heck of a dangerous argument, SqueakBox 22:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Product? --W.marsh 22:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. We need a good product that doesnt promote POV where it will hurt people and in no way tries to out anybody living. That is my goal, and I am glad to say I am not alone. I am intrigued that its the long term users who are most sympathetic tot he "we must do no harm" approach especially when dealing with non-public figures, SqueakBox 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess long-term users tend to be here to help gather verifiable information without adding our own POV through selective exclusion. --W.marsh 23:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It isn't "selective exclusion". It is "non-notable exclusion". I've had articles written about me in newspapers in Kansas City, 29 Palms, Honolulu, and Charleston. So, should I have a Wikipedia article about me? Absolutely not. I'm not notable. The woman in the article being discussed here is not notable either - even with 20+ articles in her hometown paper. There must be a cutoff for notability or Wikipedia will slide down the slippery slope and become another MySpace/Facebook where every person on the web has their own Wikipedia article. -- Kainaw(what?) 01:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, Wikipedia is not paper... there's no real need for a cutoff to just save space, contrary to popular belief. The problem is the cutoff seems to kick in when our editors (who have no training in this kind of thing, and may or may not be people who even have experience in writing articles) deem the article is too negative (usually taking their own political POV into account)... if it's just an article about someone whose accomplishments we deem positive then we keep it, even if there's no more actual information to cite. Inclusion is pretty biased right now. Shortcircuiting consensus is like pouring salt on the wound, and some people seem to love doing that. --W.marsh 02:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Quoting from WP:Notability: "Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events8. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest." The topic here only contained a short burst of local news coverage. It is not notable. It has nothing to do with being negative or positive. It has nothing to do with editors wanting to pour salt on wounds. It is clearly not notable and therefore should have been speedily deleted. The only reason it was reinstated is because someone wanted a negative article about the person to be put back up - which it was - and then deleted again due to non-notable status. There is no way to rationalize that Julia Earl was anything more than a short burst of local media attention. Therefore, any argument against the speedy deletion is actually an argument against the guidelines of Wikipedia - which does not belong here. -- Kainaw(what?) 18:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G10. "Julia Earl was the superintendent of public schools and here is why everyone should hold her in contempt" is not really a biography. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; WP:BLP, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mangojuicetalk 05:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid G10 and serious BLP concerns abound. --Coredesat 10:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and endorse Phil's rationale. Sarah 14:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with the method but concur with the conclusion. No, I don't think this gets into scandal, libel, or slander -- especially not in a way that could not be handled with simple edits (that anyone could make). However, it's just a localism. There is a school board member being recalled in every school district in America, a superintendent being questioned in every state, an allegation of impropriety everywhere. What's special here? In addition to the charges being merely charges, this is one of those things where there is nothing notable, nothing encyclopedic, nothing that wouldn't be a quarter page column in a local paper and then go away. An AfD would clobber the article, and it's borderline on A7. Since it's not a biography, but rather a news account, it is, quite simply, not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Therefore, keep deleted, but no, Phil's deep love of IAR method was not appropriate. Geogre 14:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse following Georgre's logic. But in addition I would have speedied as Attack, since that was clearly the purpose , and the encyclopedic value was trivial. BLP, as GBerry says, does not apply. I agree with his interpretation of the provisions. DGG (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the article should remain deleted (per CSD G10), but do not endorse BLP/IAR deletion, per GRBerry. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bellypunching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

While this fetish is not found in any academic journals that study human sexuality, nevertheless I believe a preponderance of evidence, manifested by even a cursory internet search, demonstrates that there is a phenomenon such as this, among hundreds of people all over the world (one of many examples is the entry on the Dutch Wikipedia -- and these are just the people who bother to post to forums, erect websites, and some commercial sellers who sell products catering to this clientèle. I know that sometimes topics relating to alternate practices in human sexuality can evoke an emotional response of bewilderment or repulsion, but in the context of an encyclopedia I assert that one must remain balanced and rational, descriptive, not proscriptive. Previously, this article has been deleted due to moral objections, masquerading as technical violations. One must be anthropological about the gathering of knowledge relating to human practices.
It's ludicrous to ignore a fact because it offends one's taste. The purpose of WP:VERIFY is to resolve disputes between parties who disagree on the nature of some piece of info, and sometimes whether or not some piece of info actually exists. But we don't need a citation for whether the sun exists; therefore the only rationale for not having this particular article is if people really believe this sexual fetish doesn't exist, or is a hoax; this despite the hundreds of entities mentioned above. If you really believe this fetish doesn't exist, I can only chalk it up to willful ignorance.
The (mis)use of WP:VERIFY here manifests systemic bias (as regards sexual morality), and violates the spirit of gathering human knowledge and experience, the cornerstones of Wikipedia. Brokethebank 17:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dismiss request, otherwise endorse previous deletions. The AfD was a year ago, and the last speedy deletion (a correct G4) dates from June. The AfD is too old to reconsider here, but if we are considering it here, it was correctly closed as a delete. The article had no reliable sources, and AfD consensus as well as the closing admin recognised that. WP:V is not negotiable. The correct approach to restore this article is writing a well-sourced version of it in user space and then bringing it to deletion review. Sandstein 17:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I usually support articles on this general subject, and I well know the difficulty in sourcing them. But some conventional source will be necessary, and the problem would be the same regardless of the nature of the article Has nobody ever written about it in alternative newspapers? Some of them would be considered Reliable sources, & with such sources an article could stand. The prior sources were essentially YouTube videos. V is not negotiable, but the interpretation of what counts as V is a matter for consensus, which can change. Personally I am perfectly open to accepting widespread YouTube and MySpace use of a theme as V for N, but this would be a major policy change from the present--and my guess is that such a suggestion is unlikely to succeed in getting consensus.DGG (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedies for previously afd'd subjects where the subject notability remains constant should remain deleted, SqueakBox 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I couldn't find any sources and you would need at least one to get this article off the ground. If people get off from Moe punching Curly in the gut, Wikipedia would be proud to host such an article if there were reliable sources to support such an article. If you think Wikipedia is deficent in hosting material that offends one's taste, you're not looking hard enought. Follow the images and you'll find plenty. -- Jreferee (Talk) 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - materials appears to have been deleted in accordance to policies. Deletion review is not a second chance to make an argument. --Haemo 05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Junkyard Jane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was tagged for deletion on the basis of notability, and deleted when the prompt expired. The original tagging was frivolous as the notability is well established in the article. This article covers a musical group which has achieved national notability for their creative work, and influence on other musicians.Michael J Swassing 17:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
George Griswold Frelinghuysen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

deleted with just three votes, two to delete, and one to keep Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist, given that there was no substantial discussion, only assertions that the subject is or is not notable. See WP:JNN. Sandstein 17:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist there was inadequate discussion--and the subject was President of a major company. it was 80 years ago, but notability is not lost with time. DGG (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist While he is not as notable as other Frelinghuysen relatives (quite the prolific family), he still attained sufficient notability in his day to retain it in ours. If he were just a patent or corporate attorney for the brewer (as he started out) I wouldn't object, but he was its president, an achievement no doubt assisted by his marriage but not solely a product of it. --Dhartung | Talk 05:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore without relisting. The deletion did not reflect a consensus, and he is notable. Mowsbury 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Page was restored and userfied to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/George Griswold Frelinghuysen. Something is wrong with the bit added since then; how can he have gotten divorced two years after his death? Clean it up, then hold a new AFD. Standards may well have changed in the 2 years since that AFD. Actually, sourcing the rest of the article might be enough in and of itself to escape G4; the article at the time of AFD was not sourced, and we normally consider sourcing a significant difference in an article. GRBerry 15:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your confusing him with his cousin, his cousin got divorced two years after his death. The article in the NYT is about the cousin's divorce but discusses the whole family. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, if afd is not a vote, why is everyone (mis-)citing the "outcome". Counting the nominator the vote was 3-1 to delete if we care about numbers which is more than the 2/3 that some editors have advocated for deletion. There are over 100 articles each day on afd, if we need some # of people to chime in on each to have a consensus there will be no deletions, which I suspect may make some people happy. Carlossuarez46 19:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    the validity of the original nomination for Afd is also in question, since the nom said "President of the P. Ballantine & Sons Company, whatever that is",including the link! I think that shows bad faith or recklessness. Deletion Review exists to remedy things like that. I'll join AfDs where there arent enough votes, and I think there's a clear position, delete or keep. -- DGG (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Using that logic if one person votes delete, then there is 100% consensus. There should be a minimal number of votes to determine consensus. Also, there is the problem of people reading the deletion comments and not reading the article itself to make determinatons. Saying the process is not a vote is an Orwellian oxymoron. It is always used when the admin person wants to over ride consensus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore/relist Insufficient consensus. The late argument for notability was not rebutted in any way (and appears to be correct). Discussion should have been extended. Dominictimms 14:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AFD there was no consensus to do anything. It needs to be relisted so clearer consensus may be established. Sasha Callahan 17:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per substantial new information. Let's see, there is the George G. Frelinghuysen Arboretum using old George's 1891 stately green-and-white mansion built by Rotch & Tilden. That Arboretum now is the headquarters of the Morris County Park Commission. George was the son of Frederick T. Frelinghuysen, who served as secretary of state under President Chester A. Arthur. George Frelinghuysen became a successful patent lawyer, banker and insurance company board member. Following his marriage to Sarah P. Ballantine of the Newark-based brewery firm family, he became president of P. Ballantine and Co. This substantial new information establishes that enough reliable source material exists to develop this article so that the topic meets WP:N. -- Jreferee (Talk) 01:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_19&oldid=1136460742"