Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Frist medical school experiments controversy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant 05:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Frist medical school experiments controversy

An entire article written from one newspaper source. An excellent example of why article forks like this should not be allowed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 01:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This article was created because the issue was overwhelming the main Frist article. I served as an informal mediator during its creation, and the article, at least at that time, was a satisfactory compromise between about five editors with strong views. Daughter articles are a very standard way of keeping relatively minor, but still notable, issues from swamping a main article. This technique has been used extensively, to generally good effect, in many articles. Arbcom itself suggested such a remedy for the John Kerry article, which resulted in several new article covering details of notable controversies (which then allowed the main article to keep focused). Clinton alone has got a good half-dozen such. As to the stated complaint .... this stuff was widely covered. Broaden the sourcing if you like, but it's plenty notable and easily sourced. Also note that the main source was Dr. Frist's own book. Derex 01:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound flippant, but it is irrelevant why the article was created. This "controversy" is based off of a bunch of weblogs and one article in the Boston Globe. No other major source picked it up, or even bothered to look deeper into it. The nature of this manufactured non-event is apparent with the void of reporting on it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not irrelevant. The question is not whether this material should be included in Wikipedia or not. The question is where. It should be presented in a manner that is most convenient for the reader. Usually, that place is in a subarticle if a controversy takes more than a paragraph to describe. Frankly, leaving it in the main article violates the undue weight provision of NPOV. Omitting it entirely is censorship of an issue that is widely known -- google it and see. Thus, a subarticle to allow a neutral presentation, at greater length, for the interested reader. Derex 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and should not be used as such. Run a Nexis search on it, and see how many other newspapers picked this up. Answer: very few. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It was carried by United Press International, one of the largest wire services, under the name "Frist asked to atone for killing cats". Conveniently, someone lopped off that reference which was in one of the earliest versions. Here's a link to an archive service.[1] 03:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A handfull of newspaper articles from four years ago does not an encyclopedia article make. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ceteris paribus, the age of a topic or its references is wholly independant of verifiability or appropriateness for the encyclopedia. Serpent's Choice 07:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep As per Derex. Pursey 02:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As per Derex. --Hemlock Martinis 03:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As per Derex. --150.203.177.218 03:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I could only find two relevant articles on google news, and they both only contain small references to the experiments to illustrate larger points. Also, Frist's own book isn't exactly a third-party source. Ultra-Loser Talk / Contributions 04:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Google news only covers news articles posted within a couple weeks. This event and story is from quite a long time ago; it's not news. Derex 08:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the approrpiately weighted part of this article with Bill Frist. By my estimate that's about two sentences of material. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-Sourced information properly moved from the Bill Frist article as per longstanding precedent. Whether the sources are from four years ago is truly irrelevent. This is not Wikinews. —Nate Scheffey 06:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Dhartung; it deserves a mention, but, seriously, attempting an entire article on this is just overkill. GassyGuy 06:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep under the precedent set by ArbCom re: John Kerry, the longstanding system of upgrading sections to articles as necessary, and also in order to respect the process of the original talk page's discussion in which subpage genesis was at least marginally prefered as the means of dealing with this material. Serpent's Choice 07:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, needs some clean up--Seadog.M.S 11:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Three major newspapers, a lesser newspaper, a press service, and his own book are pretty good sources. Hardly "one article" as claimed. The key fact is that he improperly used shelter cats for medical experiments, not that he did experiments outside the norm. Some would applaud him for advancing medical research. Others condemn any experimentation on anmals wherever they were obtained. Seems enough well documented controversy for a subarticle, perhaps too complex for the main article. Certainly too complex an issue for "two sentences" in the main article.Edison 13:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems like a reasonable place for the information. And the information is encyclopedia, IMHO, similar to many other subarticles for other people. Rbraunwa 15:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is wiki material -- Librarianofages 21:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Article is a notable event about a very public figure. JGardner 23:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per commentary above, notable article, notable figure, public controversy with obvious interest to reader. Smeelgova 01:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC).
• Keep, notable event and has appeared in major newspapers. Article needs to be cleaned up. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 06:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Derex and Edison. Essential info for those researching Frist. NBGPWS 09:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Derex and Edison. Good info that just needs a little clean up. --DixiePixie 11:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Use of daughter articles to streamline politicians' bios should be encouraged. JamesMLane t c 10:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is a spinoff... if it wasnt an independent article than it would just be cluttering up the primary.  ALKIVAR™ 17:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above, no valid reason for deletion here. Silensor 19:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per comments written above, it is a valid subarticle. Yamaguchi先生 01:37, 22 October 2006

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.