- Gail Trimble (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The consensus at the AFD was to not retain the article. A close of Keep therefore is incorrect. Given the conservative nature of BLPs and the fact the Keep arguments did not address the WP:BLP1E issue, this should be closed as either Merge/Redirect to University Challenge or given the subject's opposition to publicity, deleted under the default assumption of deleting BLPs when there is No Consensus on how to act and the subject is marginally notable. MBisanz talk 05:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Hoping that Stifle'll not mind my appropriating his question.) 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 you didn't? 68.249.4.183 (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hersfold plainly explained his reasoning at AFD so there was no confusion with his close. And if he had changed it per my request, someone else would have brought it here saying he was wishy-washy on the close. MBisanz talk 05:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite reasonable, and rather what I imagined. Thanks for the reply. 68.248.225.198 (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I believe that the closing admin erred in not giving enough weight to the WP:BLP1E arguments, and that asserting that time would possibly help the BLP1E argument is false logic. Looking back in 6 months to say "Oh yes, she was not notable after all" would imply that notability can fade away. Kevin (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Disclosure - my AfD opinion was Delete. Kevin (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Nominator seemed to suggest that the delete vote were correct that the subject was only notable for one event. Hersford said that the article could be nominated again in a few months if the subject is (still) only notable for one event. Keeping the article at this stage therefore implies a prediction that subject will be notable over time, but this prediction should be given no weight according to WP:CRYSTAL. A better solution—one more compliant with WP:BLP—is deleting the article now, and re-creating it in a few months if and only if the subject demonstrates lasting notability. Wikipedia is not news, and we can and should wait until we have proper perspective on marginal BLP subjects. Cool Hand Luke 06:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. Agree with those above. BLPs should not default to keep in no consensus results. In the case of this particular AFD, based on the validity of arguments, a delete and merge or redirect would have been the more appropriate close. Waiting for a subject to continue to not meet standards for inclusion is a poor reason to keep. Adam Zel (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin comments Admittedly, this was a very close debate. Both sides (keep and delete) were making valid points, and I feel as though this could just as easily have been closed as "no consensus" with the same result. What decided it for me was that (by my count, and I could have easily miscounted) over two-thirds of those commenting were in favor of keeping the content in some form, either by keeping the article or merging the content to the game show's article. I know, that's counting votes, and a Bad Thing. However, the fact still remains that a good number of people wanted to keep this content in some way; if it is merged elsewhere, then BLP1E is still upheld. Content cannot be merged if it is deleted; this breaks the attribution path. This is a controversial debate; that's a given, and nobody's going to be entirely happy either way. However, I do not believe my closure prevented BLP1E from being upheld as it was intended, nor do I believe it was discounting the weight of those arguments. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What your close prevented is easy enforcement of BLP1E. Now, instead of the article being merged or deleted and redirected, we've got this. Basically, the whole debate has been restarted on the talk page because it wasn't addressed in the close of the AFD. Adam Zel (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no consensus at the AfD to either delete or merge the article. I don't see why more discussion is such a bad thing; that's what we do here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "There was no consensus" == Default to delete. It's about time people started consistently applying that principle for BLPs. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure
Maintain keep What on earth is going on here? The nominator's argument has three flaws (at least). "The consensus at the AFD was to not retain the article." - not true. There was a split in opinion - by my count, 27 voted for keep, 18 for delete, and 9 for redirect or merge. Certainly not a "consensus" either way. "..the fact the Keep arguments did not address the WP:BLP1E issue" - again not true, and I suggest the arguments should be read. There is clear evidence of her notability and media coverage which is independent of the single (serial) event of her UC appearances - it derived from her appearances (in the same way, as perhaps, Joe the Plumber's notability derived from a single event), but then developed a life of its own, and demonstrable, referenced, notability, as a figure who was subject to very widespread serious media discussion. Thirdly, the reference to "the subject's opposition to publicity" is (to some extent) untrue - she appeared on national TV to discuss her performances, gave media interviews, etc. etc. Editors new to this discussion should not be swayed by the highly misleading and partial statements made here by nominator User:MBisanz, and should read the article, related articles (such as University Challenge 2009), and come to a properly informed view. There is the prospectus of consensus at Talk:Gail Trimble that, in due course, perhaps a few months, the position should be reviewed to assess whether her current, referenced, international notability has been maintained. For the meantime there is clear and unequivocal evidence for keeping the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete per WP:BLP1E, with the option to merge into a controversies section of University Challenge or an article about this year's series. Of course there is going to be a lot of news coverage about her, because it's newsworthy. But Wikipedia is not the Evening Standard. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The closing admin just said that deleting the article would prevent any material from being merged. How do you still think it's possible to put delete and merge as equal possibilities when the one you bolded prevents the other from taking place. =- Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I should have said merging was my second choice. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure (perhaps I would have closed it as "no consensus", but the decision to not delete is correct). Like all policies, BLP1E is a policy which needs to be interpreted by whoever takes part in the discussion, and in while several reasonable participants said the article was a violation, there were also several reasonable people who argued that the article was fine. BLP1E has never been interpreted to mean that all cases of an individual reaching fame or notoriety due to one event must be unencyclopedic, in several cases that one event does give a person lasting fame (or notoriety), pushing it beyond a news story. Is the participation in the game show enough to give Ms. Trimble that? I'm skeptical, but debate should have given a clear deletion consensus before the closer deleted it. There are a few, exceptional, cases where it's right to delete even with a lack of consensus, or against consensus (e.g. copyvio cases, or if none of the keep voters addressing the concern that an article is a hoax), but with a well sourced article, I cannot see that this is a good case for such an exception. BLP in general was made to ensure that our living person bios are held to high standards in ensuring that they are factual and neutral, and with the article well-sourced and referenced, that policy is met. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure Even several people who recommended deletion said this was material that should be covered in the relevant University Challenge article. And again it is said here. Keeping or redirecting would facilitate such a merge while deletion wouldn't. As a compromise I suggest redirecting. - Mgm|(talk) 09:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep Some delete voters tried to stretch BLP1E to mean that we should not have an individual article when the persons fame can all be connected to one event. That is not what BLP1E means. The actual meaning was addressed by the keep voters. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep, clearly notable due to press coverage. Everyking (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Why? 1) The closer has described it as "close" or "no consensus". No consensus == Default to Delete. The article should have been deleted unless there was an overwhelming consensus to keep. 2) Subject does not wish publicity. With marginally notable subjects, we need to defer to subjects wishes. 3) This is a clear BLP1E and oneshots do not notability make. Those of you arguing to "Keep" are forgetting that doing the right thing by BLP victims is more important than freedom of information. ++Lar: t/c 12:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was closed as "keep", and not a no-consensus "default to keep". I agree it is probably a BLP1E, and the policy for that suggests a merge or redirect which is still a possibility if the AFD is endorsed. —Snigbrook 12:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer called it "very close debate". That == "no consensus" in my book, regardless of whether the close is formally "keep" or not. ++Lar: t/c 12:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Subject does not wish publicity." Please provide some evidence which outweighs the fact that she appeared on national TV interviews and gave press interviews. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure although the result is unclear, it could be seen as either no consensus or keep, with more in favour of "keep" towards the end of the discussion (it was closed as "keep"). The discussion is continuing on the article's talk page about a possible merge, and if it isn't merged it is probably better to nominate again in a few weeks, when it can be determined whether this is a case of WP:BLP1E (which should be merged) or whether the notability is likely to continue. —Snigbrook 12:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and close as merge/redirect. This can be seen in two ways. There is clear consensus to keep at least some of the content, particularly as some users who supported deletion also recommended that the content should be merged (a process that would be made more difficult if the article was deleted). However, if the decision was purely based on whether Wikipedia should have an article about the subject, the AFD would have been closed as "no consensus" and default to delete. Redirecting the article would allow a merge, and also appears to be the most appropriate result according to BLP policy. —Snigbrook 23:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist as a non deferrable 1E nomination The closer was in error, notability is not temporary, so you cannot on the one hand say the article does not fail 1E at this time (by saying consensus is to keep), and then in the same breath suggest a later Afd might be successful due to lack of lasting notability. No way is she a 'victim' as others constantly trot out, but if people actually debate the issue correctly as assessing the article against 1E in the here and now, then maybe the right decision will emerge. Otherwise, we might as well make wait and see an official Afd closure, perhaps with automatic renomination after 6 months. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete - The closing statement of the admin was correct when they indirectly said that it might turn out later that this individual is of no historical significance. The thing is, if she isn't notable later on, then how can she be notable now, since notability isn't temporary? The closing statement was right, but the incorrect conclusion was clearly drawn. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse There was no consensus to delete and the close was fully compliant with WP:DGFA. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE There is a debate about a merge going on here I would strongly urge people to debate there too. --DFS454 (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- There was absolutely no consensus to delete in the AFD. While it might have been reasonably closed as a non-consensus (I disagree, but I can see how it could have been), the defaults is to keep the article, and therefore the outcome would remain unchanged. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse only possible closure Consensus to keep the article content in some form or another is indeed clear, so a delete outcome for that AFD should have been brought here and overturned. The strongest arguments by those who prefixed them with a bolded "delete" were the WP:BLP1E arguments, but those are not delete arguments, those are merge and rewrite arguments. With those properly evaluated, delete is simply not on the radar screen for that discussion or this subject. Several of the discussers here assert that our policy is or should be to delete biographies of living people in the lack of consensus. As to whether that is our policy they are clearly wrong; the furthest our policy on this goes is WP:DGFA#Biographies of living people which says only that when notability is ambiguous, the closer may take into account whether the subject has asked for deletion, and assign whatever weight they want (none to overriding) to the presence or absence of such a request. What WP:BLP#DELETION says is "Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. If the dispute centers around suitability of the page for inclusion – for example, if there are doubts as to notability or the subject has requested deletion – then this should be addressed at xFD rather than by summary deletion." WP:BLP gives no guidance as to how to close such an XFD. So it is clearly false to claim that our policy is to delete when there is a lack of consensus. I believe that we should delete BLPs if there is a lack of consensus, but even if that were the policy this XFD clearly had a consensus to keep. GRBerry 15:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure as Keep, I can not see how this article should be deleted. Please note that WP:BLP1E arguments are not justified in this case (perhaps the policy should be clairfied). Gail Trimble has received endorsements and considerable coverage since the win including turning down an endorsement from Hyundai and has been featured in the The Independent and Daily Mail. Since notability is the question of this AfD a keep is most certainly appropriate. Valoem talk 16:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: has anyone noticed a problem with WP:BLP1E? Most people who just recently gained notability are notable for just one event. See Jerry Yang (poker player), Jamie Gold, and many "non professional" poker players. I'm sure we all feel that these articles are notable. Also see Seung-Hui Cho this is an extreme examples. Gail Trimble is no different. Valoem talk 16:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The intent of the policy is to shift the location of the encyclopedia content not remove it. The reason that BLP1E exists is to put information about the person in an article about the event because of lack of quality information about the person now and later. The flurry of media coverage after the event in newspapers, magazine, and interviews do not provide us with information to write a balanced biography about the person. Most likely the article will grow stale as the original information gets dated since the media will not cover the rest of their life events. If people want to read about the person now, a newspaper or magazine is the appropriate place to do it. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure as keep I think the consensus is to apply one event to only those cases where the event itself is intrinsically of borderline importance, (or one in which the person was merely a bystander or accidental victim, in, say, a notable crime). In the first type of instances, there is obviously some degree of importance for single events that does not prevent the person from having an article, and the question is how low or high to set it, The place where i would set it is where the material is of more than tabloid interest. This is over it, because , from the references, it is clearly being used as a social indicator. DGG (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Grouping the "merge" arguements with the "keep" arguements and closing as "keep" is not appropriate logic with BLP1E. The "merge" + "delete" form a consensus that this article should not exist as stand alone. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your starter for ten: 18 "delete" + 9 "merge" = ?? 27! - precisely the same number as supported "keep". Odd idea of "consensus", that... Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge is a keep so far as AFD is concerned, as the process is just about whether to delete an article or not. The discussion had 2:1 against deletion and so the article was not deleted. We now have a separate process underway to discuss possible merger, per WP:MERGE. This DRV is quite redundant as the result was clear and there is no way that we are not keeping the Gail Trimble as this is clearly needed for navigation. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mild endorsement of closure. I think it would have been better closed as "no consensus," but the end result is the same. While Wikipedia is NOT#CRYSTAL, it's quite plain that Ms. Trimble is going to be the subject of continuing press coverage for years to come, which will moot the BLP1E issues, if they haven't been already by the press coverage of Ms. Trimble's engagement. THF (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Overturn and delete. WP:BLP1E is quite clear on this matter. Having seen the information on the page it is clear that all information relating to notability just relates to one context. In the unlikely event she becomes more notable the article can be recreated. There is no need to merge as the University Challenge 2009 page conatins the relavent information .--DFS454 (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought a redirect to University_Challenge_2009#Notable_events_and_press_coverage Would suffice also.--DFS454 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you need to read WP:BLP1E as it says the opposite of your interpretation. It says that the content is to be merged, and deletion is not compatible with merging and the GFDL. GRBerry 21:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. There was no consensus in that debate. I mean, technically we could say "overturn to no consensus" but it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. I do see all the fine-grained arguments here about how much weight to give which bit of alphabet soup, but it would far exceed the closer's latitude to disregard so high a proportion of reasoned "keep" arguments.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete per WP:BLP. No consensus to keep or otherwise, and this is, per deletion policy, a BLP about a relatively unknown, likely non-public figure. Hence, this needs to default to delete to protect the image and reputation of this person. MuZemike 03:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- this has been answered. The article does not harm either her image or her reputation. Among the sources is her own interviews. DGG (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and merge/redirect - I know this has been done to death, but she is notable only for one event and is therefore not notable enough for her own article. A redirect to University Challenge or University Challenge 2009 is useful since there are always going to be people who will search for specific names whenever looking for events, but any information on her can be comfortably incorporated into the articles relating to University Challenge. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry for any confusion but my previous note against WP:BLP1E is simply an inconsistency I noticed and has nothing to do with this debate. Regardless, many people on wikipedia are notable for one event such as Jerry Yang (poker player) and Seung-Hui Cho. Futher converage seemed to be an issue that needs to be address in WP:BLP1E. Nonetheless Gail Trimble passes WP:BLP1E because she received futher coverage well beyond winning (see discussion above). Keep in mind wikipedia is not a vote WP:BLP1E should not a valid argument in this case. Valoem talk 14:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- endorse close The exact limits of when BLP1E applies are subject to community consensus (see for example John Hinkley as an extreme example). Moreover, there's no serious BLP concern here since the coverage in question is generally positive and she is willingly taking part in the publicity. Thus, if the logic of BLP and BLP1E is first do no harm then that's not a concern here. The close is a reasonable interpretation of the discussion in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs)
- Endorse Closure. There was no consensus to delete, correct route would be to merge, IMHO, if WP:BLP1E is indeed violated -- M2Ys4U (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close. There were no procedural irregularities, and the arguments on both sides of the debate were made in terms of established policy. The closing admin having correctly determined the consensus of the debate, his decision should be upheld. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Closure - Many keep "voters" actually did address BLP1E concerns. Not every user is going to use the same argument to keep/delete. Just because not every one spoke about BLP1E doesn't invalidate their opinions. --Oakshade (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Said article has made Main Page feature via Did You Know?. No opinon on whether this swings for or against having a seperate article for the subject. - Mailer Diablo 01:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure: There was no consensus to keep in the debate. We count not based on pure keep and delete tallies, but on comments and efforts. seicer | talk | contribs 02:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure; see no evidence that the closer didn't take everything into account and close based on all appropriate policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, my side was to go along with the mergists and redirectionists, but I consider now - given considerable media coverage of Gail Trimble - I would be happy to go along with those who wish to retain this article. As I have mentioned on the talk page on the article Gail Trimble, she has been interviewed on the Radio 4 programme Today, and has also been mentioned on Radio 4's
"A Point of View". She was even the subject of a song on The Now Show.
It seems to me that those who are campaigning for a deletion after largely falling back on the "Famous (or currently famous for only one event" argument, but there are other entries in Wikipedia where one could argue a similar case. Take, for example, Henry Allingham or Harry Patch - yes, there is a place in Wikipedia for these names, but would they really be here had it not been for their exceptional longevity? If one argues that these two figures are also distinguished for military service,what of other "oldest people" to whom this would not apply, such as Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper or Maria Capovilla?
A common argument for deletion has been that extensive media coverage does not, ipso facto,justify inclusion in Wikipedia,but what about the article on Madeleine McCann? Another argument has been that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but it does seem likely that in view of Trimble's academic credentials,she will go on to be a distinguished academic.Perceptive viewers of University Challenge may have heard her mention how she was in one on the ancient Greek dramas - she might become famous for acting in classical drama. Wikipedia can make reference to the future - if a new film is going to be out at a certain date, or a television or radio series will start broadcasts on a certain date, references to the future can go in the articles on these yet-to-be-accessed media.
My own views would fall in between the mergists/ redirectionists and the inclusionists on this one. However, the mergists have not been a totally homogeneous group. I would much prefer the article to be redirected to University_Challenge_2009 than to the general article on University Challenge, as I do think this popular programme deserves more than one entry in Wikipedia. One idea I read with a shudder is that the article should be redirected to one on "popular culture" - please, no, anything but that! Gail Trimble has been challenged on her ignorance of popular media subjects, and I am at a loss to see what the article has to do with "popular media" culture. You can find, if you do a Google search, a story about how Trimble did not know any answers to questions which a tabloid newspaper presented her with (not surpringly, given they were on popular and media culture) and was also interviewed about whether she knew about popular and media culture when she was doing her interview on "Today".I am at a loss to understand what the article has to do with "popular and media culture" - if it does get redirected, University_Challenge_2009 would seem a more sensible object of the redirection. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Post script - there was a suggestion that this article be redirected to Celebrity culture on March 2, but that is certainly a redirect which I would quickly oppose. I am not sure the Wikipedian who suggested this took this idea seriously - I noticed that s/he did add that the article Celebrity culture is in "a pretty dire state". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Closing statement could use some love, and a merger isn't unreasonable (though I oppose it) but close was proper, though the "waiting to see" part could have been removed. Hobit (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides reading the actual discussions, a quick scan of the AfD is enough to see that keep occurs far more than delete; in fact it does seem to occur as a clear consensus. Since the dispute here is only over what the consensus itself might have been, I can't see any reason for the conclusion of 'keep' to be discounted. Therefore I have to endorse the closure. Clinkophonist (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Besides reading the actual discussions, a quick scan of the AfD is enough to see that "keep" occurs far more often than 'delete'." Check out WP:CONSENSUS. Regardless of what the vote count is, it's the weight of arguments that matter. ₳dam Zel 15:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn because the attack on the individual will continue to growth . There is nothing encyclopedic about bashing a person. Any useful information can be merge. --J.Mundo (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record the "attack" linked to is a note that a joke was made about her on a radio show. The joke in question if anything seems to be fairly positive or neutral, with a stand in impersonator of her running in to deliver punch lines. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep, with a stronger leaning to keep almost every day, as per coverage in Reliable Sources. One of the leading British bookmakers is even offering a number of bets on whether she does certain things over the next few years. Easily passes WP:BIO, and the procedures appear to have been correctly followed in the AfD. - fchd (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep. There was a keep consensus, and the BLP1E argument is becoming more and more of a stretch as the coverage of her continues. BLP1E doesn't apply to anyone who happens to be mainly notable for one event, see Rosa Parks or John Wilkes Booth; it's about people who are just fleetingly notable for one small thing. Just in the last day, she's been covered by media from Ireland to Taiwan. See [1] and [2]. Cool3 (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse keep per Cool just above and others. With the "merge" discussion on the talk page, this is the third go at removing this article. See also Gavrilo Princip. The "attack" line of argument is nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure, there's no way you can really wring a delete consensus out of this debate. BLP1E concerns, while somewhat valid, clearly do not represent the opinion of the majority of contributors or the overall weight of the arguments - I fear that a "delete" close would really have involved the admin imposing his/her opinion on the article and on BLP1E rather than following the overall opinions of the debate. I'm really not seeing much evidence of this page being negative in tone or otherwise attacking the subject so as to cause BLP concerns beyond the normal for any high-profile article. I suspect that the next few months will result in a stronger consensus forming on exactly how much information really is necessary and how notable she really is once the media storm has died down, and a merge may well be decided upon on the talk page. Certainly I see no egregious BLP concerns with keeping the article as normal editorial processes continue about merging. ~ mazca t|c 09:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse correct closure based on the debate. There was certainly no consensus to delete in that AFD which is what is (and should be) required by policy for deletion (in almost all cases). Davewild (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure per Joe the Plumber argument above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
