Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Kach (second nomination)

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 SPEEDY DELETED Because 1) Policy always matters more than process. 2) BLP policy concerns trump DRV votes and opinions. When DRV consensus determines that BLP "concerns were justified" - that's fine, the correct course of action is then clear. Per that non-negotiable policy, the BLP offending material gets immediately removed NOT ever restored. Consensus cannot decide to keep violating material, and what some people 'want' here is wholly irrelevant. This relisting violates policy, and is quite unacceptable. Feel free to create a redirect.-Doc^g 10:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NB - I undeleted to allow a merge/redirect which meets the BLP concerns and seems to be an effective compromise. --Doc^g 01:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tanya Kach

Tanya Kach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This person is a criminal victim, the subject of substantial press coverage, originally speedy deleted under BLP. DRV determined that, while BLP concerns were justified, speedy deletion was inappropriate. Some commenters wish the outright deletion of this content, some would prefer to see a merging and redirection to a new article on the event of the crime, and some believe the biography, as long as it is rigorously-sourced, should remain. My preference is weakly for deletion, pending other opinions. Xoloz 03:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• This nomination makes no sense. If the BLP concerns are justified, the article should not be restored. Please close this nomination and delete immediately. --Tony Sidaway 03:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  BLP concerns can exist validly without insisting that something be deleted, Tony. You can fix BLP concerns with rigorous sourcing, sometimes. Xoloz 04:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete immediately ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• This appears to be an account of a current event of little lasting significance except to the families and the perpetrators. The newspapers themselves do a reasonable job of covering this. The source material could be of use in the article on Kidnapping, but this level of obsessive detail is unlikely to be of much use there. I fear that Wikipedians who worked on this have allowed their decisions to be modelled on those of the newspapers and television news. Unlike them, we're not here to sell newspapers or toothpaste so we don't need this kind of lurid story. Why? Because it isn't what an encyclopedia does, and there is, yes, a real chance that keeping this story could impact the lives of the people involved in it. But that latter concern isn't primary here, really, it more what keeping stories like this is doing to Wikipedia. So on those grounds, delete. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - In its current state, the article reads as a rehash of newspaper reports, not an encyclopedic entry. Further, I don't see any notability for the subject outside of her kidnapping. An article about the kidnapping itself might be warranted, but the current article doesn't even cover that in an encyclopedic manner. This needs a total rewrite, or deletion. -- Kesh 05:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - subject has zero notability outside of the event in question; no objection to writing an article about the event, though. --Haemo 06:35, 7 June 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.