- Edward E. Kramer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
This BLP article, created in 2004, was deleted without community discussion on 12 September 2011 by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs),[1] after a strongly worded request on her talkpage.[2] Other editors have disagreed with the decision,[3][4][5] so the matter is being brought here to DRV for a wider discussion. It is my opinion that there are sufficient sources to justify the article's existence. However, it is worth noting that there have been a series of SPAs which have swept through the article over the years, periodically removing citations,[6][7][8][9] so it may be necessary to dig into the history to see the full situation. Elonka 21:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it possible ot have access to the deleted content? If not is the article to be undeleted or recreated from scratch? Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've undeleted the article for the duration of the DRV. This is the last version before the deletion and redirect.
- I deleted the article on September 12 under BLPDELETE because it is inherently problematic, the subject is borderline notable, and he has requested deletion. I informed OTRS after the deletion.
- Kramer is a science fiction editor known for having founded Dragon Con in the 1980s. Except for Dragon Con, he doesn't appear to be notable in Wikipedia's terms. In 2000, he was charged with molesting three teenage boys. Since then, his trial has been postponed numerous times because he says he is too ill to defend himself; see these articles for more details. [10] [11]
- The Wikipedia article has been troubled by people extending the criminal allegations section, and by single-purpose accounts—possibly Kramer—removing them, or adding BLP violations about one of the judges. I became briefly involved as an admin in February this year after a request for page protection at RfPP, and after protecting it I tried to tidy the article to make it BLP compliant. I also asked one of the SPAs, User:NYlegal1, to stop editing the article. [12] [13]
- Last week, on September 12, NYlegal1 requested deletion, [14] which I did under BLPDELETE. On September 16, newspapers reported that Kramer had recently been arrested after being found in a motel room with a teenage boy. [15] This last episode seems to underline how problematic this article is, and that the problems may continue to get worse. Given that he seems to be notable only for Dragon Con and the criminal allegations, I believe the most appropriate action per BLP is to delete the article, and either have no redirect from the name, or a redirect to Dragon Con. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)I'm neutral about whether or not we allow re-creation of this material but it's not appropriate to have a trial by Wikipedia. My position is that we must omit the child abuse allegations unless he's convicted, and we should enforce that. Fully protect if recreated. If he's convicted in the future, then we can report that.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm less sure on this. He's not been convicted, but we aren't saying he has been and this is a major part of his life now (and has been for 11 years). We normally _do_ have pending charges in an article (or even dropped charges) when they have seen coverage in reliable sources (extreme example: Dominique Strauss-Kahn#New York v. Strauss-Kahn which has a whole article on the now dropped charges). I'm not sure what makes this different than most articles unless it's borderline notability issues. Hobit (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad example; Strauss-Kahn was splashed across the front of newspapers for a number of weeks (at least on two occasions), and is now dragging it back up again. So it's claim to standalone notability is at least legitimate. In actual fact; for the vast majority of articles we tend to omit pending charges or investigations - or at least leave them to a single line. Especially if it is not the primary aspect of notability. --Errant (chat!) 09:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see the difference in scale: I took an extreme example showing that we'd be crazy to have a blanket statement against not covering pending charges. Given that these charges in this case have resulted in non-trivial coverage (entire articles on the subject, perhaps enough to meet WP:N for the charges themselves), I think that not covering it at all would be akin to fibbing or whitewashing on our part. The amount of space we should spend on this without violating UNDUE is unclear. I'd say a single short paragraph is reasonable in the context, but I can see arguments for making it smaller. Hobit (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion (as nominator). The deleting admin cited WP:BLPDELETE as a rationale, but this was not in accordance with policy. WP:BLPDELETE very clearly states, "If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion." This was a longstanding article which had been in existence since 2004, it should not have been deleted without a discussion. --Elonka 01:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list not a speedy case per Elonka. It's been there since 2004, there's not even a need for IAR--the normal week or so this would take seems reasonable. In any case, I generally oppose cutting topics and material out of Wikipedia to protect people when a simple web search on their name will turn up the same thing. I do think there is a potential case for deletion as the subject's notability may be borderline and they have apparently requested deletion. Hobit (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and list Yes, the article should not have been deleted without community discussion for which we are now getting a belated opportunity. I do not think reporting of the arrest and allegations is appropriate in this case unless there is evidence the subject is willing for such publicity: I realise this may not be wiki-policy. I am nervous of reporting criminal allegations (but I have a British bias) but even I can see that after DSK had been filmed being marched around by the police that this was reportable here. There is at least an arguable case that the subject is notable other than for the allegations (I think he is). If the subject has requested deletion (has he?) this is a request worthy of proper consideration. The article, less the "allegations" section, could well be acceptable (fully-protected if necessary). These matters are appropriate for AfD (which is where the discussion should have been in the first place), rather than DRV. Thincat (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion; marginally notable individual, but with extant and serious BLP concerns relating to the content - deletion was a sensible (if slightly out of process) move. Going through the rigmarole of deletion is process wankery and largely pointless. (disclaimer: SV asked for a BLP person to take a look, prior to the DRV, and check on her actions - which I did, and at the time agreed they were the sensible approach). --Errant (chat!) 09:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In general speedy criteria are pretty strict. Could you explain why a typical AfD wouldn't be a good idea here? The page has been here for more than 6 years, I'm not seeing the sudden need for a rush. IAR is great, but it should only be used where there is clear need or clear consensus. I'm not seeing either. And the "slightly out of process" feels a lot like "slightly pregnant" to me. Hobit (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because an AfD would be a tired mess of "I saw his name in a reliable source, so KEEP KEEP KEEP!" gadflies. Avoid the drama and deal with a marginal BLP via speedy if subj requests. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I hate it when people use WP:N to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not as much as I hate thoughtless, knee-jerk "I saw it in the newspaper, and fuck all other considerations" votes. Tarc (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit; I do take your point. On the other hand the article looks to be a mess of COI and POV editing and serious undue weight issues relating to the legal matters. Recently I've come to think that often the best way is to scrap what we have for a bit, and come back in time. There is no rush. At the end of the day, if an article subject is really upset about the content, and their notability for inclusion isn't strong (I did some source searching, it's nothing deep and spectacular) then there is no harm putting it to one side for the moment. As you say; it has been there 6 years - and appears to have been causing issues for that time. We clearly are doing something wrong, lets try again :) I've never been a fan of the whole "ye must follow the letter of the deletion process" in cases where common sense and good judgement (which SV has in oooooodles :)) suffice. --Errant (chat!) 23:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ErrantX, I appreciate the comments. I'll simply remind you that we have policies in place for dealing with this type of thing (WP:BLPDELETE). There should be a good reason supplied when we ignore them. As far as I can tell no one has provided such a reason. There was no rush or exceptional reason to speedy this rather then send to AfD. At least not one I've seen so far. Do you think WP:BLPDELETE is wrong? Do you think there is something special about this case? Something else? I'm just not seeing anyone really try to justify this out-of-process action. Hobit (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - sometimes a speedy out of process deletion is the way to go. - Less drama. Low notable person , BLP with long term content issues regarding allegations and charges. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - For marginal/fringe notability subjects who request deletion, this is the way to go. This is why we empower admins to make decisions. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Per ErrantX, since he is a "marginally notable individual...with extant and serious BLP concerns" we might be better off without this page. We could still include mention of his convention activities (which he's most notable for) on related pages. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask how you know he's "marginally notable"? Is this simply your opinion or do you have evidence? The reason I ask is that if this deletion is allowed to stand, we're going to be turning DrV into AfD as without a discussion you're leaving it to a single admin to determine "marginally notable" and anyone objecting will have to come here. Speedy deletion is, after all, only for non-controversial decisions. It seems more reasonable to let the community figure it out in AfD. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I described him as "marginally notable" because he seemed to be a case of WP:BLP1E in my mind (I guess this is simply my opinion, though). I basically agree that sending it to AfD instead of speedying it might have been the better idea, but given the potential BLP issues I'm thinking maybe we'd be better of letting this one rest and spending our time elsewhere. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I think a full-fledged AfD makes more sense still at this point. I am curious what you feel the one event of the BLP1E would be however. Hobit (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am also neutral about whether or not we allow re-creation of this material. However, there should be no forced redirects to any group formerly associated with the subject. Either let the material stand alone or remove it without redirects. Sirfracas (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Recreate without the allegations and optionally AfD There is notability , and if questioned it can be dealt with at an AfD on a proper article. I am not in favor of an expansive use of BLP, but when it does apply, we should use it firmly: I think it wrong to include allegations of this sort in articles about people with relatively minor notability without an actual conviction or public admission. The principle of DO NO HARM is am excellent basis for decision, and this is a good example of why we need it. The speedy, leading to this DRV has been counterproductive in that regard--the matter is now much more public than if it had simply been removed from the article, or even if we had had an ordinary AfD . I said, optionally AfD, because those who support deletion ought to consider whether going through this discussion again would now have more harm than benefit. DO NO HARM is not a matter of following technical procedures, but of doing whatever is best to minimize the damage our prominence can do to individuals when there is no countervailing encyclopedic benefit. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse out of respect of the person who requested deletion; if this is to be recreated, then I strongly recommend indefinite semi- or even long-term full-protection. Given marginal notability at best, such information about any criminal allegations should not be added here. We are not "transcription monkeys"; we do have a moral obligation to not far and feather individuals via Wikipedia. –MuZemike 15:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a fine argument for deletion. But isn't that what WP:BLPDELETE is for? Is there a reason in this case not to follow it? Or is it that it needs to be changed? I think you need to be claiming that either the policy is wrong (and should ideally be changed) or there is a reason to ignore the policy in this case. Or is there some third case I'm missing? Hobit (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn/restore and list There's a strong argument here for notability. Send it to AfD and decide it that way. Deletion does not follow current policy. Note that if BLP is about trying not to do harm then the deletion doesn't make sense since the top google hits for this individual are highly negative. Nor is there any libel or similar issue since the matter in question has been widely reported in a variety of reliable sources including mainstream news sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
