Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dutton Douglas

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 03:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Dutton Douglas

Article repeats content of Laura Bush, duplicative, cannot grow beyond a stub because subject is not notable. Delete Toshiba 00:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: User:Toshiba is a verified sockpuppet of banned user Coqsportif. [1] Shem^(talk) 07:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• The police report image is not in the Laura Bush article. If it is added to that article, I agree that the Michael Dutton Douglas article adds nothing and should be deleted. Krakatoa 00:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

On further reflection, I am persuaded by the commenters below, and change my vote to Keep. I also un-bolded the "delete" in my previous comment; as saxet notes below, I was not the person who put that text in bold. Krakatoa 19:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Note that it was Toshiba and not Krakatoa who (00:53, 22 August) put the 'delete' part of the word 'deleted' in bold. --saxet 08:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. I believe this is a poor VfD nomination. MDD is a minor, but notable person, and the article is well written and (very) well sourced. From looking at Toshiba's multiple edits of the Douglas article this is actually a dispute over content. Also, Toshiba just deleted saxet's comment above; I have restored it. Please let's keep things civil. Sdedeo 01:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There seems to be a lot of bad blood here. May I suggest as a solution that the giant honking "Main article MDD" notice be taken off from the Bush article and this article kept? Another solution is for parties involved to take a break from editing this for awhile and let the rest of the wiki figure out a consensus. Sdedeo 01:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'll retire from this mess now. I never wanted any of it to begin with, felt like I did everything to try to accomodate Toshiba but even the most basic facts were ignored/deleted (e.g. that Laura was in fact driving the car, and not Judy Dyke). Problem is, I believe Toshiba has plenty of usernames and I'm afraid a lot of ‘them’ is going to vote in this Vfd. --saxet 02:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; Getting killed by a pre-notable does not by any standard make you notable yourself. The personal details of this person is irrelevant in relation to encyclopedic content. E.g. biographies of victims of famous serial killers, mass murderers and such are likewise irrelevant. | Celcius 01:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: See Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman; they both have articles, and their killer hasn't even been legally identified. She was just a football star's wife, and he was just the friend of a football star's wife, right? Shem^(talk) 03:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: He is indeed minor and therefore not notable. In what possible respect do you assert that he is notable. He is a motor accident victim who died when 17, hardly notable. A reference to him belongs in the notable person's article Laura Bush, he did nothing notable. There is no dispute over content, the content in Laura Bush article is basically the same. Speedy Delete Toshiba 01:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Note that this is the second time Toshiba votes in this VfD, the first time was at 00:56, 22 August. --saxet 08:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

There is PLENTY of dispute over content from your side. --saxet 01:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Not really, the main issue is about the nature of the article and I refer to Wikipedia policy:

it is unexpandable (it cannot ever be more than a stub, and could never be a perfect article due to its subject matter - it may however belong as part of another article)

Sounds exactly like what this article it is. It can never be more than a stub, it clearly belongs to the Laura Bush article. Toshiba 01:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

From my earlier comment; "Also, you seem to want to delete any information regarding the person Michael Dutton Douglas which might be one reason the article is a stub." --saxet 01:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Accroding to Wikipedia:Stub, "A stub is an article which is clearly too short, but not so short as to be useless. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title. This generally means 3 to 10 short sentences." So the Michael Dutton Douglas IS NOT as stub. --saxet 01:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Toshiba, I would appreciate very much if you would stop deleting large portions of the article. And that the 'multiple users' that sometimes follow you around would cease to do the same. I've urged you plenty times to discuss any specifics (style of language etc) that you might disagree with on the talkpage but with no luck so far. As you are aware of, there's the police report photo (that you can enlarge) on the page, yet you seem to want to delete information that is verifiable to anyone who reads the report. You also insert a lot of information that contradicts the report. Also, you seem to want to delete any information regarding the person Michael Dutton Douglas which might be one reason the article is a stub. One of the reasons the Laura Bush segment on MDD is similar is because you do the same things to that paragraph. Of course the subject matter is notable, Wikipedia is about collecting all human knowledge and so far there's has been at least four LB biographies that discusses the subjectmatter, plenty of newspaper articles and entries on many other web resources, including Snopes. If included in the Laura Bush article the subject would simply become too dominating. --saxet 00:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - why is this article up for a second VFD in 24 hours? It's already listed here from the August 21 session. A Wiki-glitch perhaps? No vote as I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to make an informed opinion. 23skidoo 01:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per Toshiba. The event is noteworthy only as part of the life of Laura Bush. Merge any information (including police report) that is not currently on Laura Bush article. PlainSight 01:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, because this young man was notable, and it prevents material on him from dominating the first section of Laura Bush. Plus, Wikipedia's article on Michael Dutton Douglas is the #2 result on Google for his name now [2], having transcended all the nutjob theories on him circulating the internet. Shem^(talk) 02:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment; What did this young man do which made him notable? Asides from getting killed by a pre-notable how does this man distinguish himself from millions of other youths around the world? Besides, Wiki's placement on google is perhaps the worst conceivable argument for keeping or not keeping articles. Celcius 02:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The incident was notable, and an article with his name is the most appropriate place to put it. Some death victims are notable, despite this new "no killing victim articles on Wikipedia" trend, especially one killed by a future First Lady of the United States. The Google link was just a "plus," clearly labeled as such, not that I consider it "the worse conceivable argument" by any stretch. Much as it bothers you, Celcius, you'll have to deal with this article being around. Shem^(talk) 02:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm well aware of the concept of democracy and I do realize that I "have to deal" with the outcome of the vote. Still, I find it redundant to have the same information in 2 different articles. Celcius
• Keep, this incident was notable, and having it at its own page prevents this form hijacking the Laura Bush article. GregAsche 02:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Dottore So 02:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable. - SimonP 03:55, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Douglas' death is the opener in one biography of Laura Bush, but the story itself in all its detail doesn't sit particularly well in her article. This article has a use in keeping the Laura Bush article relatively uncluttered. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. As per all the arguments above. This is clearly a bad faith VfD nomination due to revert wars at the article itself. It is clear that user Toshiba continually deletes content in a bad faith attempt to keep the article as a stub, thusly rendering it appropriate for VfD. --Nicodemus75 05:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's a good article, deserving it's own space. Alf 09:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability and verifiability OK. --DrTorstenHenning 14:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting article Inge 17:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I would favor deletion if I could be sure that all the information would indeed be merged into the Laura Bush article and would stay there. That almost certainly wouldn't happen, though. I agree with Shem about Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, and I'll add Mary Jo Kopechne as another example of a similar article. JamesMLane 18:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think he is notable since it happened to the first lady. maltmomma 01:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep and add more content. Such content wouldn't be appropriate at Laura Bush, but is notable. icydid 21:34, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.