Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killercop.com

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.

After review of the arguments, it was noted that consensus was to delete per WP:BLP. This is a change. Bearian 21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC) The result was keep due to the many improvements up to the Heymann standard, including addition of over 20 in-line cites and dozens of links since nominated for deletion. Passes WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, although some unsourced statements about living persons must be removed ASAP Users are cautioned to assume good faith and not to respond angrily to comments of other users. Bearian 16:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killercop.com

Killercop.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

In its current state, this article is a massive slab of one-sided advocacy, rather than an NPOV encyclopedia article. The current state of the article is so bad that I think it's worth considering deletion as an NPOV violation unless the article can be rewritten into an non-advocacy NPOV article before this AfD expires. The Anome 09:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the article seems to have been substantially revised since nomination: however, it's still a terrible mess. -- The Anome 14:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Please give it some time. We have two individuals (myself and Wheresleaelat) who are committed to the article and are actively working on it. Yes, it is a mess, but on the other hand it is an interesting case and is historically interesting. —Noah 17:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Anome, saying "it's still a terrible mess" says little, might I suggest you submit some specific corrections of things that you dispute to clean up the article. Then maybe a list of sections first you believe need editing, then which paragraphs, sentences or words. That sounds fair, right? I agree with Noah, it is an unusual and interesting case, and is also historically interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.164.78 (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Articles need to be based on secondary coverage; what little news reporting I can find of this case focuses on Sutcliffe being convicted of identity theft and use of the internet to threaten people. There's no press coverage suggesting that the website itself was particularly notable, and no reliable coverage suggesting any controversy over its shutdown. The article is being used to make attacks on the prosecutor and judge, again claims which are not reflected in secondary coverage of the case. The article is overwhelmingly original research based on primary sources (the court documents), and gives undue weight to interpretations which are not present in the secondary coverage. A neutral article based on secondary sources would be on Sutcliffe, not his website, and would be rather short, noting the crimes he has been convicted of. This article covers various twists in his court case and is essentially advocacy for him — I can't see how anything less than a complete rewrite from scratch would fix it, and even then it's doubtful whether the coverage would warrant a bio article. Thomjakobsen 16:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• I should add that I made a hasty initial "keep", but I thought that the NY Times, Salon references were covering the controversy and thus it was a resolvable content dispute. I reverted after realising they didn't mention this case, only recent coverage of the prosecutor involved, then went looking for actual sources. Thomjakobsen 16:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The page lists multiple secondary sources, yet that fact is ignored. What defines the site as "particularly notable?" Press coverage only? Must it be particularly? I think personally that the removal of any Internet site, by the government, makes it highly notable, and more so when it is done without charges or explainations. If you believe the articles are "attacks" on the parties, feel free to balance the article out and add something to balance it out. You say, "The article is overwhelmingly original research based on primary sources (the court documents), and gives undue weight to interpretations which are not present in the secondary coverage." Huh? What does that mean, care to break it down for us non-lawyers?

You also say, "This article covers various twists in his court case and is essentially advocacy for him." I disagree, I think the article shows all sides of the case since one can read the entire case and all of the mentions about killercop.com, and make their own conclusions. Just like a jury.

When you say you, "reverted after realising they didn't mention this case," in your last paragraph, which case would that be? Both articles reference killercop.com, so what is the the issue?

I vote to not delete but continue allowing it to be modified. Deleting wold just add to the belief that the government does censor speech and press. Plus that is kind of drastic, unless one has a non NPOV agenda. Just my thoughts. Bill 07:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I meant article 16, the New York Times one: it's about the prosecutor who was involved in this case, but the article doesn't mention the case at all. What I meant by original research is that we have to base articles like this on secondary coverage — e.g. newspaper articles covering the case. We can't just go straight to the primary sources (e.g. court documents) and let the readers "make their own conclusions", because the way in which those primary sources are presented is subject to bias and is essentially "original research". Examples: "The Sentence" compares it to another case and implies that the sentence in this case was unfairly harsh, but that kind of comparison isn't made in any of the secondary press coverage. "The Judge" presents allegations against the trial judge but they have nothing to do with this particular case, and haven't been linked to it in the press coverage. There simply isn't enough neutral press coverage of the case to cover it in this kind of depth, so we can't tell which points are important and which are being brought up because it makes the accused look good. For example, the controversy surrounding the prosecutor — it could be included if the press coverage marked it as significant in relation to this trial, but they didn't. Mentioning it here implies there's a link between that controversy and her actions in this trial. Even if these are all solid facts, the bias is in which facts are being presented — which ones are marked as being somehow significant. We avoid that by giving details roughly equal weight to what they were given in secondary coverage, and in this case there simply isn't enough detailed secondary coverage to be able to do that. If the case really is "historically significant", then it'll get covered as that somewhere, either in newspapers or books or in a law journal, and then we can write a balanced article based on that coverage. Until then, it's just the interpretation of whoever's working on the article, and that's against the no original research policy. Thomjakobsen 13:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I can't speak for Noah but I would have no problem with your removing Article 16 then. As for the sentence section, please rewrite it an make it NPOV. I am going to the court to get more articles/public documents later this week. Thanks for your help, guidance and feedback. 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheresleaelat (talk • contribs)

• Delete Hopeless POV problems. someone else should start over. Though I dont think that usually justifies deleting an article, this is incoherent enough to be an exception. I also wonder about BLP. the article is not titled Stephen Sutcliffe, but that's what it is really about. DGG (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Your opinion that the entire article has "hopeless" problems lends nothing to the discussion other then to reflect a non NPOV. Be specific if you want to contribute. Since "Steven" Sutcliffe is the author of killercop.com they are naturally one in the same and they must be intertwined. Bill 01:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Are you connected to this Sutcliffe guy in any way? Thomjakobsen 01:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• No. But since you are going way off the discussion and adding nothing, are you connected to the government in any way? Bill 00:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• So your User:Wheresleaelat account has nothing to do with User talk:Wheresericat, who was blocked last year for vandalizing (edit: who created the previous) Killercop article and is the same username used by what appears to be Sutcliffe when posting his story to this forum? Thomjakobsen 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Correct, and it appears you are telling half of the story about the "vandalism." Read the bottom of the page, where it says that account was unblocked because the user was not "vandalizing" the page but deleting it. And I noticed you never answered my question, after I was polite enough to answer yours. I will take you non response as a yes. I sense anger and hostility in your attitude, and I resent it. Bill 01:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: Nice find to add to the wiki page by the way, I must have missed that one. I'll add it to the article.

• OK, I've struck through the part about vandalism. And no, I'm not connected in any way with your government; if you look in the history for this page you'll see I started with a "keep", since this was the first I'd heard of it. So SS posts as "Wheresericat", you work on the same article as "Wheresleaelat" and expect us to believe you're not the same person? Thomjakobsen 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You are free to believe what you want. I thought this was a discussion page about the wiki entry. Who I am and who you are are irrelevant to the page. Now, if you wish to discuss editing it, I am all ears. And I am black. A black man who is all ears. Bill 07:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am all for making the page a NPOV, but one can not be expected to work under such extreme conditions listed above. My sources are my sources. Further false accusations, insinuations, or wild theories will be ignored. Any intelligent discussions on how to make the page keepable is open for further discussion. Sovereign797, Noah and others have spent a lot of time and research on this article. Contribute please to the editing to make it NPOV, your thoughts and points on topic are welcome. False accusations, insinuations, and COINTEL are not helpful. Bill 07:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Since my name was mentioned in that last breath I'll say: I'm interested in the article because I'm interested in the case. However, I am diametrically opposed to the reasoning and arguments that Bill has put forth in this discussion. If anything I see my purpose in editing the article as an effort to help Wheresleaelat move towards a Wikipedia style of writing and away from "the man is out to get me" style of writing. <insert smiley face here> Peace and Love. —Noah 05:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And you are doing a great job, please keep it up. I am new at this but trying to learn and appreciate all the input. I to am interested in the case, not because I am connected to Sutcliffe, but for the issues it represents. And as I have said before and will say again, feel free to edit it to bring it to the style of Wiki. I don't think anyone is out to get me. I was just waiting for the next person to ask me if I am Dumbledore and am I really gay. <insert smiley face here> Bill 08:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem: there's next to no media coverage of "killercop.com". There is coverage of the Global Crossing incident, and that's what would be covered in an article complying with the neutrality policies. The name of the article would have to be changed — probably to "Steven Sutcliffe" since the case itself wasn't given any name in the press — and the introductory paragraph would state that he was convicted for threatening GC executives and posted employees' personal details online, including their social security numbers. That's what got all the media coverage, although you'd hardly guess given how the current article is presenting it as an issue of censorship regarding the killercop site: see [1], [2], [3]. Killercop hardly gets a look-in, and a neutral article would reflect the coverage given in those kind of articles, not the selectively-chosen parts of the court documents you've got there at the minute. Do you really want that kind of article about yourself for everyone to see? I've called for deletion because it's basically a defence of your side of the story. If someone really had it in for you, they'd be saying "keep" and would edit it to show what the media coverage focused on, in line with our policies, and the result would not be very flattering. That wouldn't be in anyone's interests, certainly not yours, and I don't think the case was big enough to justify an article, so having such an article would probably violate our policies on biographies of living people notable only for one event. And please, let's drop the pretence that you're not Sutcliffe. A few searches provided links that explain why you chose "Wheresleaelat" as a username, but I'm not posting them here for privacy reasons and out of courtesy. I've asked politely a few times in a way that avoids the use of these links (apart from the forum post I linked to), so it's best if you just admit it without these accusations that I'm being hostile or paranoid. I've got nothing against you, and I'd be making the same arguments as above if a disgruntled former GC exec or LA cop tried to write an article like I've described above attacking you. Thomjakobsen 15:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete then after you are done (are you?) attacking me. Using your skewed logic, "A few searches provide links that explain you're a government agent." Therefor no matter what I say you have already made up your mind. I might not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but I do know a mind only works when it is open, which by your words you have shown yours is closed. I am done justifying why I am interested in this case. I have asked you to help Wiki it and I am met with more accusations. *Delete and be done with it then government agent Jakobsen. Personally I could care less what you do or think about who I am, or how I chose the moniker and the logic behind it. On that note you have shown anything but courtesy by starting off your first accusation with a half-truth. Now you continue this same pattern of half-truths by saying that I said you are, and I quote, “being hostile or paranoid.” I never used those words, ever. Those are your words not mine. Another half-truth. Congratulations on turning a civil discussion on how to WIKI the page into a personal attack on Sutcliffe and myself. Good distraction technique, government agent Jakobsen. At lot of half-truths hopefully add up to a truth. If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

You “threaten” to “show what the media coverage focused on, in line with the WIKI policies,” and you really do you think I care??? Post the stories from the rooftops all across America. Let the truth ring. No, instead you will cave in and say *Delete this side reported in WIKI because it is easier that way to sweep this whole dirty mess under the carpet of “well, it didn’t meet our WIKI standards, so we had to censor it in its entirety.” Sure thing, government agent Jakobsen, what ever you and your agent friends say. Begin the WIKI censorship. I now vote with you and the others. I will waste no more time justifying your accusations, theories of who I and others who worked on the page are, and your hollow threats to “show what the media coverage focused on, in line with the WIKI policies,” instead of discussing how to WIKI the page to meet the WIKI style.*Delete Burn the page for all I care. I changed my vote to Delete. It is now 3 to 1. Now the majority win. Begin the process of deletion. Bill 03:10, 31 October 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.