- Steven Dale Green (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The closing administrator's closing argument was based on BLP1E. Well, Green died in prison in February, so BLP1E no longer applies. The closing administrator closed the AFD as merge to Mahmudiyah killings. But Green has been described as the very first former GI to be charged, as a civilian, under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 -- so equally strong arguments could be made that the coverage of Green belonged in Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000. Bill Cain, a widely admired playwright, wrote a play 9 Circles, where the protagonist's case very closely paralleled Green's. So, equally strong arguments could be made that the wikipedia's coverage of Green should be merged with 9 Circles. In my opinion, we should avoid duplicating coverage of topics in other articles, as much as possible, for various reasons, including duplicating coverage of a topic in multiple articles is a maintenance nightmare, as the different articles could diverge, and contradict one another. In my opinion, when a topic relates to multiple other articles, none of those multiple articles should contain the details on that topic. Shoehorning the details of a topic, into one of those articles short-changes readers interested in the other aspects of the topic. Elements of the coverage of that topic will always be off-topic in the other articles. Rather, when a topic is related to multiple other articles, I think this is a very strong argument that the topic merits its own standalone article, with only enough coverage in the related articles to put wikilinks to that article in context. FWIW, Green continued to be sought out for interviews by journalists and documentary filmmakers, after his conviction -- further arguments for notability. Google Scholar search and Google Book search show that reliable sources regard Green as an icon, a symbol, of various flaws in the US military. For the record I did discuss this with the closing administrator, prior to initiating this discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, once someone dies, BLP concerns no longer apply and it's reasonable to re-think any decisions in which BLP1E was a factor. I also note that the original decision was in 2009, and DRV would normally consider it to have expired. This is no longer a news item, it's a historical event. I also see that Green has attracted additional coverage since his suicide, so there are fresh sources to consider (e.g. The Independent, Huffington Post, CNN). I do not believe that DRV should enforce the 2009 decision now.—S Marshall T/C 10:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ridiculous. If the "walked into a mall pool while texting" woman suddenly keeled over tomorrow of a heart attack, that doesn't vacate the BLP1E-deletion finding. Tarc (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For Christ's sake, I'm not talking about the "walked into a mall pool while texting" woman, am I? I said that when someone dies they're no longer a freaking living person! But okay, for the sake of argument let's pretend that BLP applies to people who're dead. What about the other three limbs to what I said?—S Marshall T/C 00:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and keep as a redirect, dying doesn't magically obliterate the original finding of BLP1E. There will be a brief uptick of sources reporting that the subject died over the next few days, sure, but after that it's back to normal. Tarc (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but could you leave a response that addresses the other factors I raised -- like that the man has had a well received play written about him, and that scholars have chosen to write about him as a symbol of flaws in the US military system?
- I asked the closing admin a question, that I would appreciate you attempting to answer -- how different do you think an updated article would have to be from the version that was AFDed in 2009, before it did not qualify for WP:CSD#G4, which authorizes speedy deletion of simple recreations of deleted pages but specifically: "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies..."
- I've already pointed out areas where a recreated page would differ from the version that was AFDed in 2009: (1) coverage of press interviews and commentary with Green, post-trial; (2) coverage of scholarly commentary which described Green as a symbol; (3) coverage of the well-received play based on Green's military career and post-military civilian trial; (4) his death, and commentary on that. If you don't agree an updated article that addressed these additional matters would no longer qualify for WP:CSD#G4, what kind of update do you think would no longer qualify? Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your continued obsession with bios of prisoners...the manpower to clean up your GITMO mess a ways back was extraordinary...hasn't changed much, it seems. Nothing has really changed wit the subject at hand here, it all stems from the same, single event. Unless one believes in the supernatural, the likelihood of there being a 2nd event initiated by this person is pretty small, so 1event still rules the day. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please confine your comments to editorial issues.
- Shouldn't your comments here be solely about the pros and cons of having a standalone article on Steven Dale Green, whose case has nothing to do with the war on terror?
- I would still appreciate any civil views you could offer on the other points I raised, like the scholars who have written about how Green's behavior was symbolic of flaws in the US military. Their authoritative and verifiable views transcend the murders, themselves, as they see them as related to mistakes in the whole Iraq war. I am frankly disappointed that your replies do not address these other issues. Geo Swan (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse redirect. I can't imagine what could possibly be included about the subject (other than pure trivia) that wouldn't fit the Mahmudiyah killings article. While it's true that BLP doesn't apply to the dead, pretending people considered non-notable under BLP1E somehow become notable when they die(???) is some of the most bizarre anti-logic I've seen on Wikipedia. If anything, outside some truly outlandish scenarios confirms the findings of 1E as it makes future notable events impossible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- Nothing wrong with the closer's action. I agree that people not meeting BLP1E don't suddenly become notable by dying. That seems to me to be twisting policy in a way contrary to its intended meaning. Reyk YO! 22:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reyk, I think Steven Green was always notable. He attracted more than enough coverage at the time of his arrest to get over the GNG bar, and he'd attracted even more than that since. BLP1E is a special provision for removing content about living people who're only notable for one thing. Isn't it?—S Marshall T/C 00:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Even under BLP1E, he was sufficiently famous from international coverage that the article should not have been removed. Now that it no longer applies , the argument for deletion is irrelevant. Wee he dead at the time at the AfD, the B<P1E argument would not have been used and the article would not have been deleted. The coverage is way to important for oneevent to have been a succcessful argument, but anyone who thinks it might have been enough should be argument for relist. DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So if the JetBlue guy dies tomorrow, then he can get his article back? Or this well-endowed woman? Tarc (talk) 01:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Moot Nothing was deleted as a result of the original AFD and so the topic is still a blue link and the edit history is all there. As the AFD was 4 years ago and matters have moved on, this is a matter of ordinary editing now per WP:CCC. Such decisions are not binding in perpetuity. Andrew (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation It's a discussion from 2009. New sources exist and the main reason for deletion no longer applies. So basically I agree with Andrew and S Marshall. No objection to a new AfD if someone desires. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong forum AfD is not designed to be a backdoor to bind admins and DRV into administrating content disputes. Participants at AfD are not presumed to be more knowledgeable on article-specific content issues than are the content creators. For non-deletions such as this one, AfD momentarily establishes the consensus version of the article, where such consensus might not extend to the merge target. The restoration of an AfD merge is a content decision of WP:Editorial policy, not WP:Deletion policy. WP:BOLD applies. If someone disagrees, it becomes a WP:BRD. Unscintillating (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Moot. The disputed decision was taken over 4½ years ago and was correct at the time. The redirect is not protected and as Unscintillating says, any decision to change it back into an article is an editorial one and not a matter for DRV. If it is the case that the lister is looking for a consensus to do this, this is not the place to do so. ✄ (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- While I like the world that you, Unscintillating, and Andrew describe, I've certainly seen "it was closed as a redirect at AfD" used as a trump card in the discussion part of BRD. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, absolutely the correct decision was made at the time, and I don't think there's any dispute about that. Given that, and the fact the article text is still accessible in the redirect's history, I'm not sure what else there is to do here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- As noted above, I think the question is if the AfD result should prevent someone from undoing the redirect. It's always been unclear (and hotly debated) if a redirect outcome at AfD is in some way binding and if overcoming it requires another AfD. So while it is agreed the deletion at the time was proper, what's being asked is to find consensous to allow it to be un-redirected (nearly a word). It is unclear if DRV should be involved in that. If the redirect outcome happened a week ago, I'd argue it would be a reasonable thing for DRV to address. At 4.5 years ago, the AfD result should be pretty much ignored and BRD should take over. If folks are redirecting the article back based on the old AfD, at that point DRV might well be appropriate. Hobit (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I argued above to allow re-creation on the basis that his death changes the situation about BLP, but as pointed out above, it could probably be better to allow it as an editorial devision on the basis both of his death changing the situation, and the length of time. It would be absurd to have to come here every time the situation in a merged or redirected article changes. This is different from a decision to delete and then redirect, where it might well be argued that overturning is necessary DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to everyone here who read through my whole request, and recognized that I was suggesting that whether the 2009 decision was correct or incorrect, the further coverage of Green in authoritative reliable sources has made that a stale decision.
- Some people have suggested that changing the article from a redirect to a standalone article, one that has been meaningfully and substantively updated is an ordinary editing decision -- one that did not require a DRV. Other people have suggested that, based on practical experience, an updated version would be likely to have been (1) reverted based on a claim of G8; (2) reverted and protected, based on a claim of G8; (3) deleted and salted, based on a claim of G8.
- I am not going to wait for this discussion to be closed, I will introduce an updated version. And, if anyone calls upon G8 to revert it I will point them here.
- Thanks again to everyone who took the trouble to read and try to understand all the arguments, without regard to what conclusion you reached.
- Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but who cares?. Endorse, in the sense of, "The original AfD close was done correctly". But, also, "Who cares?", in the sense of, "That was 4 years ago, no decision lasts forever". Honestly, I think the fact that the subject has died is meaningless. Reading over the original AfD, the important thread seems to be that it was the event, not the person which was notable. That doesn't change just because the person is no longer alive. But, like I said, 4 years is a long time. On its merits, I don't think the article should be recreated, but I would certainly not go so far as to imply that there's some policy reason why it shouldn't be. If it's recreated, and somebody gets their knickers in a twist about it, they can drag it back to AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow recreation, allow a fresh nomination at AfD. The XfD is old. There is talk of new sources. A major reason in the deletion discussion, BLP1E, no longer applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
