Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wack Pack (2nd 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 keep (but cleanup/rewrite). Cbrown1023 talk 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Wack Pack

The Wack Pack (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article has been inadequately sourced for several months. It concerns living individuals, and some of the content is highly negative. Since nobody seems to be interested in properly sourcing it and thereby resolving potential WP:BLP issues, it should be deleted. These issues were not properly discussed in the recent AfD. In terms of living individuals, the rule is: source it or lose it. This is not a case for indefinitely keeping crap content, because living individuals get better treatment than that. Yes, I know the show is popular, that does not give you a bye on sourcing. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The nomination withdrawal statement last time was "Withdrawn with the assumption that references like the above will be added to this article" This has not happened. This also may be a BLP issue. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 11:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This article irritates me to no end (which isn't a reason for deletion, but it should be!). I have some comments that probably relate to content more than a deletion debate--This article in its current state seems to have arisen from the practice of deleting articles on individual Wack Packers, redirecting them to Wack Pack, and placing a blurb about the person. It sort of reminds me of the "in popular culture" articles. When I see the "in popular culture" articles deleted, they usually end up, eventually, being pushed into some other article where they shouldn't be. For that reason, I do not mind the "in pop culture" articles. This article is different because it involves BLPs, it is not your normal fancruft stuff. If someone can source the sections on living people in this article then I would !vote keep, even if only a few are sourced. As it is, I think all non-sourced information dealing with a living person should be removed; what will remain is a short blurb describing what a Wack Packer is and sourced entries on living people that reliable sources consider wack packers (good luck on that!). In summary, I think we should remove all unsourced BLP stuff and revert every BLP edit that is added without a source. That said, I certainly would not miss this article if it was deleted, and as it stands now it deserves to be deleted because of the way it violates BLP. Here is one example (there are many more):

  Offen absconded with his young daughter in the midst of a custody battle with his first wife. For seven years, Offen and his daughter drifted from apartment to apartment as he worked various scams, never remaining in one place for more than a few months at a time. During this period, he did not allow his daughter to have any schooling or friends, and trained her in the art of deception in the event he was apprehended.

  This article is in really, really bad shape. daveh4h 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It's likely few of these could be adequately sourced other than to tapes of Stern shows (which do exist, but in nothing like the accessibility and indexing level of even a small town library). There is an aspect in which (many? some? of) these are very likely personas rather than real people, but sorting that out will be all but impossible without reliable sources, and they are certainly portrayed as the latter. If we can't properly source, this should be stubbed back to a list of the ones we already have sources for like Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf. --Dhartung | Talk 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep on the grounds that the article survived AFD less than 3 weeks ago with a combination of WP:SNOW speedy keep and the nominator withdrawing. Articles shouldn't be renominated repeatedly until a desired outcome occurs. The nominator of the first AFD made the statement that the withdrawal was based on the assumption the article would be suitably improved. But more than 3 weeks needs to be allowed for this to occur. This, of course, does not apply to any content that may be considered legally dangerous, etc. under WP:BLP. 23skidoo (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm the nominitor of the last AFD and I withdrew that nomination based on the fever with which editors were coming up with sources. I'm wondering why that didn't translate into improvements in the article. The focus has instead been on a edit war over inclusion of a particular person in this group. Actually adding the sources that were discussed will make this all go away.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Rewrite to de-emphasize the name of the individuals: among the guests were X who did Y, " and so on. I am particularly concerned by the inclusion of details about events following the show in the lives of people no longer associated with it. This article is a real test for my adherence to the principle of NOT CENSORED. DGG (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep recently underwent AFD and is better, IMHO than creating individual pages for each Wack Packer. Let's just work on rewriting it a little. Valley2city 19:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. A collection of unreferenced claims about numerous people, appears to breach WP:BLP. WWGB (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Nomination is pretty weak. The "souce it or lose it" is a nice thought but if that were the case, 90% of the material on this project would go "poof". Articles that need improvement are not just deleted. Is there some other issue here? Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC) ps, delete any negative, unsourced, BLP issue material and clean it up. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Give it a rest already Woodchucks! James1906 (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2008 (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.