- Conrad Murray (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Yes, I consulted with the closing administrator already. Also, I voted to merge & redirect the article during the AfD.
I felt that overall during this AfD, a good portion of the "Keeps" completely missed the point of BLP1E and failed to adequately argue against it. For example:
- "Keep I wonder which wiki 'super' editor came up with this AFD. I suppose you are considering AFD because he this guy is 'not-notable' right? ;-) He who dies with the most deletes wins! This is exactly the kind of case that demonstrates the lunacy of the wikipedia AFD patrol. If you guys cant agree what makes a living person notable and create a written policy, then every single article in wikipedia about a living person can be considered for AFD. Clearly in this case daily top billing on google news and almost every other daily news outlet for more than a month is still not notable?" – I don't really consider that a valid Keep, as the majority of it is railing on Wikipedia policy and the last sentence just mentions hitting Google News daily, which does not address BLP.
- " Strong Keep Dr. Murray has emerged as a central figure in the Michael Jackson investigation. There are thousands upon thousands of news articles about him, and that has increased dramatically in the past few days as he becomes the main suspect in Michael Jackson's death. KEEP! Michaelh2001 (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" – Same issue as the above vote; thousands of news articles means nothing if they are all about one event.
- "Keep - Keep it until the toxicology results are revealed, The investigators suspect some Elvis-Quality drug abuse relating to the death of Michael Jackson Darbacour (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)" – We don't keep BLPs because they might become notable in the future.
- "Comment I would have to agree and wait until the whole thing unfolds. Once his culpability is revealed one way or another, we could always simply merge. To delete it now would definitely be premature.--Hourick (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" – Again, we don't keep BLPs because they might become notable in the future.
- "Keep: Notability established. Evan1975 (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)" – Exactly the opposite of WP:JNN.
On the other hand, all the deletes/redirects had solid, reasonable arguments about enforcing BLP by not having an article solely because he is under investigation. To me, those arguments are more solid and should have been given more weight when closing. NW (Talk) 17:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Crotalus horridus and Pyrrhus16 are currently in conflict over whether this should be a redirect. You clearly want it to be a redirect. I am of the opinion that it should be a redirect (since that's what I created here in the first place). The proper place for discussion of whether this should be a redirect is Talk:Conrad Murray. This is not a matter for deletion review. No deletion has occurred. What we have here are editors that are forum shopping (to Deletion Review) and edit warring (see recent edit history) rather than using the article's talk page. If you want to make a case for an ordinary editorial action that has already been enacted and reverted several times, then use the talk page. It's what it's there for. Bold, revert, discuss. Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion review is for challenging the outcome of deletion decisions. In other words, if the article is deleted and you want it kept, DRV is the right place; or if the article is kept and you want it deleted, DRV is the right place.
The important thing to understand is that in terms of DRV, "merge", "redirect", and "keep" are all effectively the same outcome. They're just different "flavours" of keep. ("Userfy" and "delete" are also effectively the same outcome: two "flavours" of delete.) Whether to turn an article into a merge, a redirect, a disambiguation page, etc. is an editorial decision rather than an administrative one, in the sense that any ordinary editor can do it. That means that the proper venue for discussing such a change is the article's talk page, not a deletion review. In short, I totally agree with Uncle G and recommend this is speedily closed as wrong venue.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just checked back here. The reason why I brought it to DRV in the first place was because one editor claimed there was consensus to keep the article in its entirety because of the AfD, and I figured that sort of thing should be challenged, because to me, a redirect outcome is more on the flavor of a delete outcome than a keep. I see both your points, however, and I will go bring this issue up on the talk page of the article. Could someone else please close this per my request? Thank you, NW (Talk) 15:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I interpreted the outcome of the discussion as keep, by consensus, and not to merge or redirect it. If I was wrong, please tell me, and allow another editor to redirect it. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the most proper discussion location was the article's Talk page. Any urgent BLP issue could be handled by simple blanking. However, I think that once the AfD was closed keep with a clear implication of as a separate article, DRV became the proper forum for appealing the correctness of the close. There is relevant discussion at WT:Deletion review#Wikipedia:Merges and Redirects after Deletion Discussions with some support for my position. While this DRV may overturn to redirect, that outcome is unlikely, and NuclearWarfare's effort is best spent at Talk:Conrad Murray#Redirect. Briefly: I agree with withdrawal, but not an involuntary procedural close. Flatscan (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ick. I think that redirecting an article which was just kept was probably a poor idea. Personally I'd have undone the redirect and discussed on the talk page. But I do think Uncle G is pushing the bounds a bit here and a DRV might be the best way to handle it. In any case, I'd move to leave this as a real article and not a redirect due to the AfD result (though I'd have !voted to redirect in the AfD myself). Hobit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
