- Gene Ray (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
User:JzG (who also deleted their own user page for some reason) deleted it [1], without consensus; the previous AfD was near-unanimous in saying that the article should be kept. Gene Ray is only a blue link above because has since been turned into a redirect to Time Cube. Clinkophonist (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and edit & optionally list at afd. Some of the wording in the lede paragraph is a POV problem, but otherwise it does not fit the speedy category of G10, attack page or negative unsourced BLP under which it was deleted. The admin. involved should have placed a 2nd afd--it's 21 months since the 1st one. I am not sure the keep will be quite as unanimous, but that's where we'll find out. DGG (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A somewhat disingenuous request: it wasn't since turned into a redirect, I created the redirect immediately. The article was a WP:CSD#G10 because there are no sources independent of Time Cube and the mocking thereof, it is basically impossible to have a WP:BLP compliant article on Gene Ray the man, but we do discuss time cube the concept. The redirect currently in place means that the encyclopaedic content is covered without violating policy. Guy (Help!) 08:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Were you aware that this had survived convincingly an AfD, albeit one that didn't address directly BLP concerns, when you speedied it? 68.249.6.0 (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats actually irrelevant, the AFD was held at a time when we did not have a coherent BLP policy and therefore did not touch on the subject. All admins are required to immediately remove any content that is a BLP vio and it may not be restored unless there is a consensus to do so. This is completely outside the CSD process although we often use g1o for a rationale when we do that. Generally, redirecting to the encyclopedic content is the best way to handle cases like this. Spartaz Humbug! 07:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of the context. The idea that this is somehow controversial is somewhat belied by the fact that it was nearly a year ago and nobody has even mentioned it since. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So too do many articles that are ultimately deleted—some speedied, even—sit for a year without anyone's raising an objection; you do not propose, I imagine, that we demand of everyone who nominates for deletion a longstanding article a justification for his/her having failed to act sooner. For that matter, pace Stifle, the version of BLP that prevailed (if only by edict of the Arbitration Committee) at the time of the AfD was one that would have permitted the summary deletion of an article that was fundamentally, irremediably inconsistent with BLP, and yet no one undertook to delete it in July, August, September, October, November, December, January, February, or March. I appreciate your point, to be sure, but I can't say that I understand why one should be more bewildered by the challenging of a deletion that was ostensibly uncontroversial for a year than by the deletion of an article the existence of which was apparently uncontested for nine months (and so suppose that we shouldn't try to draw any inferences from the timing of the request, which is, by any fair measure, immaterial to the substance here). Joe 19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist While it is common for people who are only mentioned in a certain context to be redirected, it's certainly not uncontroversial all the time. Redirecting is perfectly acceptable, but there's no reason to delete the article before doing so. Controversial deletions shouldn't be a one man show. - Mgm|(talk) 13:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Furthermore, this deletion took place nearly a year ago — can you please explain why you have waited until now to list this page at DRV? Stifle (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think the delay matters--we want to correct both old errors and new ones. DGG (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say the delay was necessarily bad, but I'd like to know the reasoning behind it. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's alleged failure is totally irrelevant to whether we keep an article or not. If lapse of time is an issue in one direction, it would be so in the other. Should we use this argument at AfD: "Why wasn't an AfD filed before now?" Nominator might drop off the face of the earth, the nominator has nominated and need not even be aware of continued discussion. Hence Stifle's !vote is based on considerations other than notability or BLP violation or other relevant issues, and will properly be disregarded. I would agree that proper procedure is to request a deleting admin to reverse, before going to DRV, and this would be grounds for speedy closure without prejudice (in my opinion). Except that it wasn't speedy closed, and insisting on that procedure now would not respect the effort and research of those who have commented. It is also clear from JzG's comment above that he would have refused, so it's moot. --Abd (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it really matters, but the nominator has not edited since 8 hours before Stifle asked his question, so we may suspect that the editor never even saw the question.--Abd (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with DGG. While the reason he didn't take it up with the deletion admin is relevant, the time it took for this user to respond is not. Wikipedia is massive and it's quite easy for any editor to not notice something. There are several article I personally care about a lot, but I simply don't have the time to babysit them all 24/7. If it's a particularly obscure topic I could probably take a year to notice too. - Mgm|(talk) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse The Other Controversies section was a complete BLP vio with none of the data sources to independent third party sources. This violates UNDUE, V, RS and OR and does, in my mind justify deletion under BLP/G10. Spartaz Humbug! 07:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore and edit if necessary per DGG. As a non-admin, I cannot see the article, but the closing admin can examine the article immediately and remove any BLP violations found. I would not make relisting at AfD a decided matter here, but would allow relisting as if there had been no speedy deletion. On a notability issue, the community should decide through normal process; this DRV only considers the speedy deletion, which was based on BLP concerns, and should endorse or overturn it, returning us to the status quo prior to the action overturned, excepting only that the closing admin should review for BLP violation immediately. If anyone disagrees on how the admin does this, there is then standard editorial process. --Abd (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- relist/restore per Abd and DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion as perfectly reasonable. Eusebeus (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse if WP:BLP has any meaning it must trump keeps like as happened at the Afd, where he was kept as notable for his "nuttiness". If being a nut in a very public way makes you notable, it better be sourced with exactitude otherwise it becomes a WP:COATRACK with WP:UNDUE weight on the nuttiness. Perhaps the afd predated the application of BLP, but I don't think that BLP violations are grandfathered anyway - I think such grandfathering would go against the basic precept of BLP (old lies are fine, but new ones are to be ripped out with a vengeance? doesn't seem right to me). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP violating material should be immediately removed. But that is not the same as deleting an article. The keep/delete decision is properly made on notability, not "BLP." Any admin closing this, tending to a "restore" decision, would review the article and would quite simply not allow BLP violating material, if there is any there, to stand; if there wasn't enough left, then the admin would make a different decision. Speedying the article itself was improper; if it were true that there was violating material there, the deleting admin should have removed it, not the article. --Abd (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- restore and list if desired not sure speedy was the right way to handle this. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. We already have an article on Time Cube; there's absolutely no reason to have a detailed biography on somebody who is only notable for having created a cranky website, which has (meanwhile) become a bit of an internet meme. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If Ekjon wants this (it could be correct, how can I tell if I can't read the article?), and if the article is undeleted, then the editor can blank the page and put in a redirect to Time Cube. There is no need to delete articles on arguments like this, deletion prevents decisions like this from being made by ordinary, less-disruptive editorial process. --Abd (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
