Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 22

PearsonWidrig DanceTheater (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Copyright violation. Jonwiener (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC) my article posted 12/20 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PearsonWidrig_DanceTheater -- was deleted for copyright violation. Yesterday morning 12/21 I obtained copyright permission and submitted it to permission-en@wikimedia.org. I emailed this info to the administrator who nominated the page for deletion, Travis TX; he responded "I am not familiar with the process of obtaining approval of copyrighted materials, so I'd like to direct you to the help desk for more assistance. Thanks. —Travistalk 14:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)" Do I need to do anything else to get the article posted? I'm willing to rewrite if necessary. Many thanks --Jonwiener (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article, you can always rewrite it in your own words, giving references to the reviews, which are clearly sufficient to demonstrate notability. DGG (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse with no discrimination against recreation. It looks as though the nominator has already been notified that he/she should be able to recreate the article without the copyvio and with assistance. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse and allow recreation. The help desk was the correct venue WP:OTRS to file a copyright waiver. But you should not need to plagiarize the source to use it... reword it for understanding and context. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

صفحهٔ اصلی (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Used redirect. The deletion was based on the rationale that the redirect would not be used. It turns out it is our most visited 691'th page for whatever the reason: (see #691). So the odds are more than what anyone would have thought. -- Cat ^chi? 10:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is it possible that this is a problem with the tool? The redirect was deleted in early October, and the tool hadn't been collecting statistics for several months before this month. Also, from the top of the tool's page: "This tool is still being tested. Some of the results may be false or misleading!" --Coredesat 11:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  It is possible that this is a problem with the tool, yes but it is also probable that this is in use. I think there is benefit in undeleteing it and no harm keeping it. -- Cat ^chi? 16:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Is it possible that there were links to صفحهٔ اصلی from external sites, so a lot of people were being sent there and redirected? I attempted to do a Google search but the font issues confounded me. --Stormie (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  The tool tells me it is in constant use. Having such a redirect brings no harm. As you suggest صفحهٔ اصلی could be linked from external sites which is a very good reason to have the redirect where it is. In other words a benefit. -- Cat ^chi? 16:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn The potential wonkiness of the tool aside, it is some evidence the redirect is being used in some way (though if it were nuked way back in October, if it were so popular, I think someone would have made it an issue before now). In any event, redirects are cheap. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no reader of the english language wikipedia would expect to be able to enter a keyword in a non-latin alphabet for an english language article, who would not be able to come up with the english keyword on their own. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  That isn't true. English keyboard can generate Arabic/Japanese scripts with ease provided you have them installed. We have plenty of Japanese and Arabic redirects. This is common practice if there is a good possibility of such a use (such as the names of Japanese people in Kanji). -- Cat ^chi? 16:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Cristian Fleming (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

"The artist met WP:BAND (through international tours) and that the correct course of action on this one might be source or ref templates? By pure vote count, the AfD passed - but the vote count was simply wrong," as quoted by a Wikipedia Administrator whom had previously affirmed the artist's notability. Further, the artist's notability was previously asserted on a separate occasion by a different administrator. In all, two administrators asserted the artist's notability and only one most recently asserted the opposite, which also suggests to me that AfD was passed in error.Omotorwayo (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, nearly unanimous consensus. --Coredesat 08:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Unanimous by random non-administrative users who are uninformed of Wikipedia policy. The opinions of a small sample of people are never sufficient to reflect overall truth. Omotorwayo (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Becoming an admin is not a big deal. The AfD was open long enough to allow any other users who had wanted to make themselves heard to do so. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Notability is entirely subjective - that admins take a different view from an afd is neither here nor there. WP:MUSIC etc. arr merely guidelines based on previous experience, they are not rules, and they do not, in any way, count over consensus in any given case. Wikipedia is not consistent, sorry.--Doc^g 09:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither one of you has addressed the issue that the sources are valid. I don't think when you say "Wikipedia is not consistent, sorry," that you're truly sorry. This shines a negative light on your character and the rationality of your arguments. Omotorwayo (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ with your assertion; WP:BAND requires multiple non-trivial secondary reliable sources. None of your sources meet this criterion, as all are either non-secondary (your blog is not a reliable source) or trivial (the various lists). There are no other sources available that account for notability. If you continue to be hostile and assume bad faith upon administrators or regular users (who are just as qualified to participate in deletion debates), it's only going to result in this deletion review being speedily closed as a bad faith nomination (in fact, I recommend as much - DRV is not AFD part 2). --Coredesat 09:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse per Coredesat. Completely unanimous consensus. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - in a developing genre, this particular artist is notable. He has engaged in international tours. I truly believe that people's viewpoints are clouded by the fact that it's not a popular genre at the moment. The standards at WP:BAND are clear, and frankly, I believe he met them. - Philippe | Talk 16:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Proper reading of consensus. The article was a promotional piece for an underground artist, there were no references to back up any of the assertions made about his supposed notoriety or influence. For instance, the assertion that this artist engaged in international tours is backed up by a link to a blog entry containing a dark handheld cam video of one performance. Note also that following deletion a portion of this article was recreated at Unit (musician), using the same links, by the new account Resident6music. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There were references. They were correct. The arist is undeniably on said labels for music distribution and if you had actually listened to the artist's music you would hear his songs in that video recording, wherein the video is irrelevant to the audio being played. Again, this has proven to be a pissing contest where nobody knows what they're talking about when it comes to the genre. I'm sick of seeing the illogical, flawed arguments of everyone on this site. If you're so paranoid about the sources, you should e-mail the labels directly, but you'll never do that because you're just trying to win an argument as opposed to trying to find the true answer. This is why Wikipedia is a complete waste of time and if you want to do something meaningful with your life, it certainly won't happen on this website. :-( Omotorwayo (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse my deletion failed WP:BIO and WP:BAND as recognized during the AFD discussion by everyone except the DRV initiator and Philippe above who still lack verified facts to back up their positions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Consensus was clear. The judgment of the users and the closer were proper. Singularity 08:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion concensus was very clear. Previous admin opinion on the article has no bearing on the deletion debate. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Carolyn Doran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I think it is only appropriate that this page be brought up for discussion again after several days of protection. Since Register's story on December 13 the story has snowballed, and was just today picked up by the AP, which independently verified The Register's revelations and added some more background information. This article was recently picked up in The Washington Post. As for the inclusion of this article, it obviously satisfies the need of reliable and substantial third party references, and there are many living people with far less notability that have survived AfD. I understand the sensitivity of this subject, but I think that just as protecting the FA page is seen as harmful to Wikipedia's image of openess, a blanket protection of this article's creation without further discussion would be counterproductive in the least. Joshdboz (talk) 03:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as per WP:BLP1E. If she wasn't notable before the Register started their anti-Wikipedia campaign, she isn't notable now. Corvus cornix_talk 03:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (place protected redirect to WMF), WP:BLP1E sums it up. She's still not notable for anything else. --Coredesat 04:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion (but redirect to WMF and protect) - she is only of interest because of that the WMF did (or rather spectacularly did not do) so we should record this incident in the article on the Wikimedia Foundation (and on wikinews). Unfortunately, this will erroneously be described as "censorship" (it isn't, the information remains), and I'm tempted to argue for this bio in order to head of the "OMG, censorship!!!!" crap. However, in the end she's a living person and we must treat her as we would with any other living person in similar circumstances - a single incident of being (mis)hired by a company does not merit a biography.--Doc^g 09:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The Wikinews article is important here as it was already covering this more in-depth with better sources when this was deleted. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. She's notable for holding a C-level position in the WMF (which owns & runs one of the top 10 web sites) and for, well... the obvious scandalous reasons. And the reasons behind Talk:Carolyn Doran being deleted elude me, but that's something else entirely. Dookama (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I will not comment any further on this but as an involved party I urge any additional participants to review the deleted talk page as it contains an explanation of what happened. There are OTRS tickets and instructions from ArbCom involved here. This isn't a normal BLP DRV - the last admin who undeleted this was desysopped. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That admin was quickly reinstated because someone misinterpreted the situation, and the desysopping is irrelevant to this DRV. I don't see an OTRS ticket number mentioned on the deleted talk page or in the discussion on WT:RFAR. The only "instructions" there are here would be that, since this was deleted under BLP, the page can only be restored if there is consensus to do so (based on the Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom case); lack of consensus to restore would result in the article remaining deleted. I'm not even sure if that applies here, though. --Coredesat 11:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Right, sorry for not providing links. According to this OTRS was involved. There was an e-mail on the OTRS mailing list instructing that this should be deleted (that's what I was told anyway. See the deleted talk page where Zscout370 explains this to Jossi). See Zscout370's talk page for the ArbCom bit. EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I suppose the Badlydrawnjeff case would apply, then. --Coredesat 12:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. The terms of WP:BLP1E indicate "associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime". The person we are discussing here has a fascinating, notable personal history. Her father was an officer at the CIA. She shot her boyfriend / father of her child in the chest, but was not prosecuted. She wore a recording wire in an effort to incriminate a roommate in a plot to lethally poison someone, all while she was accused of financial fraud. Then, there was the time where she was DUI and someone was killed in an accident and she left the scene. Then her husband -- also a CIA agent of some importance -- drowned while on their Caribbean honeymoon, and the coroner never determined the specific cause of death in the drowning. Then she very quickly worked her way up from a temp assignment to a Chief Operating Officer position at the planet Earth's eighth-most popular website. Then she had another DUI come up and she was arrested in violation of her probation by leaving the country on Foundation business. Any attempt to "hide" the need to have an article about this person is CLEARLY not paying attention to WP:BLP1E which, at worst, indicates that "a separate biography may be unwarranted". Given the above fascinating history, it is most certainly warranted here. Why don't we let the Wikipedia process flow here with an article, and if, over time, the Carolyn Doran story subsides significantly, the article might then be merged into a chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation article? I recall a large number of people back in the early Spring saying that the "Essjay affair" was not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and it was suggested that nobody would remember it in a few weeks. Well, guess what -- just in this month of December (many months after the Essjay affair), the Essjay phenomenon has still been mentioned in three different news outlets. Society still cares about Essjay, and I have a feeling that months and years from now, society will still care about Carolyn Doran. We have not even begun to see the effect of this story reaching hundreds of thousands of previously unaware readers this weekend, via the Associated Press release and reprints. Other journalists and people of influence are bound to analyze the story and draw their own important and meaningful conclusions about the subject individual. To "hide" the article here on Wikipedia will, I'm afraid, only draw even more criticism to this project that it shows little ability to demonstrate accountability when it errs. Restore the article before it looks worse than it is. --Lord on Canary (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Single-purpose account, posting only on this issue in an apparent attempt to fake consensus - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not have a firm opinion on whether this issue should have its own article or be incorporated elsewhere, other than that it should be discussed instead of simply deleted and protected. As an amendment to Lord on Canary's arguments, I would add that the issue of whether or not a subject is remembered in x amount of time, which was brought up as a counterargument in the en.wikipedia mailing list, is entirely irrelevant. Notability is determined based on secondary source coverage; whether or not an article's subject is remembered in one day or a hundred years is inconsequential. Joshdboz (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Would it be possible for an admin to undelete the original commentary on Talk:Carolyn Doran to assist editors in understanding the rationales for previous decisions made relating to this article? I am not completely convinced yet that the article should be reinstated, but there is much useful information in the talk page that may be used to make arguments on various ways to present relevant information, whether in an independent article, as an additional statement in the Wikimedia Foundation article or simply as a redirect. Risker (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, the useful material here can go to WikiMedia Foundation. Doran doesn't really seem notable at the moment in her own right, and an unbiased article would be nigh on impossible. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion or redirect to WMF - "officer of organization hides a number of past problems with the law, loses job, organization criticized in media for not checking" is a fairly classic WP:BLP1E. The problem is that even as a person with a criminal past, it's fairly non notable low grade stuff. We wouldn't usually create an article for people on the basis of petty larceny, unlawful wounding, DUI, and losing their job when this came out, otherwise we'd have thousands like this, and COO of WMF is not that huge a job to make it notable by itself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion or redirect to WMF - BLP1E. Fired COOs from far larger companies go un-articled. No-one would even think to write this in Wikipedia except that every media puff and fart about Wikipedia gets written up in it. If it's a notable incident, it'll be in WMF or criticism thereof - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • How many fired COOs from far larger-traffic websites (there are 7 in the world) have shot their boyfriend, worn a wire to turn evidence on a roommate who poisoned someone, left the scene of a DUI manslaughter, witnessed her CIA agent husband drown on their honeymoon, kite checks, execute credit card fraud, get another DUI, then violate probation by leaving the country? Oh, and how many got to be COO of those websites after only a 4-month job temp assignment? Maybe we can make a Wikipedia list: "List of people who have been COO's of Top 10 websites with a multitudinous criminal record after only 4 months with the organization". This ridiculous interpretation of BLP1E is going to blow up in our faces as the media takes the "next step" and scrutinizes how we address this person's biography in our own encyclopedia. So far, it is not looking good. In fact, it's looking downright foolishly hypocritical. Sure would be nice to work on this incident in the Wikimedia Foundation article, but that's locked down thanks to a dispute over who the founder/co-founder of the Foundation is. Foolish. --72.94.148.87 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Is there a single source that covers her outside the context of the Wikipedia resignation? There appear to be no stories about her prior to this year, and no stories since this single event fail to mention it. In other words, her biographical note is entirely tied up in one event. BLP1E. Cool Hand Luke 11:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• (ec) Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. Even if this is a classic WP:BLP1E, the principle of least astonishment should argue against presenting someone looking for information on Ms. Doran with a redlink. —CComMack (t–c) 16:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A bio based on an incident does not meet the threshold for Notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion and do not redirect, She has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For people saying she is notable for one event, which event is that? --Pixelface (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse as article creator because the the AP story has not been widely picked up, and as it is (and where its published) its basically trivial coverage that should not qualify the subject for an article. I don't agree that this is a 1BE, since there is no 'event' at play. If the coverage expands to other outlets with a wider readership, this should be evaluated again. Avruchtalk 17:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I am interested in how the above editor defines "not been widely picked up". --Lord on Canary (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps if you did a proper Google search, you'd find that there are only eight hits. Corvus cornix_talk 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I am finding 117 based on this quite restricted search[1], including major news networks and tech/management websites, from the US, Canada, India, Australia, the UK, France, Ireland and Austria. I'd say the story is well and truly out there. Risker (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
        • And I find three. Corvus cornix_talk 05:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn as the subject is notable for multiple things. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 17:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, the press coverage makes her easily notable enough. Everyking (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion redirect Not very notable for a criminal, not very notable for a businessperson. The coverage she has received lately has more to do with the Wikimedia Foundation than the objective significance of her accomplishments and misdeeds. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation; the story is about what the foundation did and what it failed to do. Protected Titles should be used sparingly and a redirect would be more appropriate. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 19:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn WP:BLP1E does not apply, for she is notable apparently for two things the 1E everyone is so touchy about and her position of COO of a notable organization. Since COO's of most notable organizations are considered notable at WP, she's no different. If she also has some negative information in her life, she should expect that it will come out if she seeks and obtains positions of high office and trust in notable organizations. If she wanted anonymity she went about it in an odd way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Valid redirect if nothing else since she's mentioned in a Wikipedia article. Standard procedure to have a redirect in such a case. Also the story seems to have been picked up by the Tampa Tribune and apparently the Miami Herald since the initial deletion.[2] --W.marsh 22:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn W.marsh is right... redirect is necessary at bare minimum.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment We have some confusing here. Both "overturn" and "endorse" opines are calling for a redirect. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there is a consensus that at minimum we should have a redirect. However, those voting to overturn might like to make clear whether they are supporting an article or are satisfied with a redirect.--Doc^g 22:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 2 of the 4 deletions were deletions of the redirect... so something needs to be overturned here. I'd be fine with a redirect. --W.marsh 22:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Given that a redirect looks like the consensus, there's the beginnings of an attempt to hammer out the details at Talk:Carolyn Doran if anyone wishes to chip in.--Doc^g 23:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and make protected redirect. We can't self-censor, but I'm not sure we have enough to write a good article on this. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you perhaps provide a rationale for protection? After reviewing Full Protection policy, I cannot find how indefinite or temporary full protection would be supported in this situation. There is no edit war, and if a redirect is the consensus of this deletion review, this will not be a page "deleted by consensus that is repeatedly recreated." No other listed rationales are even possibly applicable. Joshdboz (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. The story is all about the Foundation: the recent AP article (which has been picked up by Fox News so far at least) focuses on the Foundation's apparent failure to do background checks, the possible risk to Foundation donor money, etc. The controversy in the tech sphere and on blogs has also been all about what the Foundation did wrong/failed to do. That's been the focus of the story all along. --bainer (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Thebainer above. JavaTenor (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect: Per all above. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• make the page a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. No need for Wikipedia to have a biographical article about such a non-notable person. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If Carolyn Doran is "non-notable", I'm not so sure Asil Nadir, Tom Coughlin (Wal-Mart), or Donal Collins are notable for anything but the scandals they generated. Should we expect similar BLP1E reviews for these three articles? --Lord on Canary (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The mention of Asil Nadir at Polly Peck seems adequate. The mention of Tom Coughlin at Wal-Mart seems adequate. Donal Collins does not get mention at pages such as Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, so it is not clear to me that he is notable enough to have a biographical Wikipedia article. --JWSchmidt (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation (clear BLP1E case). Leave notice and links to discussions on the talk page, and link that talk page from the talk page of the WMF article. Make sure the WMF article has enough there to satisfy people looking for information - a few sentences and refs, but no more. Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse speedy-deletion under both BLP concerns and because there was no assertion of notability. There are lots of criminals in the world. They don't become encyclopedia-worthy just because the story gets picked up by a news service. Rossami (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete or Overturn: The desperation of Wikipedians trying to protect their reputation from casual readers is palpable. Why not COI? --Fandyllic (talk) 12:36 AM PST 23 Dec 2007
• Protect my reputation? Is this padding on my resume? Am I getting compensated for working on this project, and could this compensation suffer by the existence of this article? No COI for me, at least. Perhaps for those who hired her though. Redirect per above. Powerful BLP1E argument here. Cool Hand Luke 09:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Lord of Canary. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:BLP1E, without prejudice to recreation as a redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. --Tony Sidaway 11:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect and write up in summarized form within some other article. BLP1E does indeed seem to cover this person. It also seems to cover a lot of other people who have articles. She hardly seems notable to me; on the other hand, tens of thousands of people (let alone Pokemons, etc.) who have articles in en:WP don't seem notable to me. If she's merely a news story, then at least she's a real news story in a real newspaper, unlike a lot of stuff on WP that's neither of more than the most ephemeral interest nor demonstrably news. Anyway, her history does appear to say something noteworthy about the degree of vigilance within a charity running a well-known website. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Consider: replace "Wikimedia Foundation" with any comparably sized non-profit. Suddenly it's a non-issue. The Doran business is being used by Wikipedia's opponents as a coatrack on which to hang their grievances. We should no more have an article on her than on Daniel Brandt: the fact that activists can rake up a small amount of dirt is an atrocious reason to have an article on someone. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The Doran business is being used by Wikipedia's opponents as a coatrack on which to hang their grievances. There's really no need to make blanket bad faith assumptions here. Joshdboz (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Rossami, JzG, and because being a news story is so not relevant. As has been said several times already, we even have alphabet soup to cover this case: WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS. No opinion on redirecting to Wikimedia Foundation . Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Who do people keep saying BLP1E? Did you not see she got mainstream media coverage for 2 unrelated events? --W.marsh 23:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please do surprise me: what's number two? I'll be disappointed rather than surprised if it's 1990 vintage Washington Post stuff. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• If a 1990 WP story was somehow about 2007 events concerning the WMF, I'd be surprised too. It was a totally separate story. --W.marsh 01:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and redirect to Wikimedia Foundation. She is no more notable than billions of people alive right now who led colourful lives. The only aspect that makes her interesting is the appointment as COO of a non-profit that has a large online presence - that appointment is clearly a result of insufficient due diligence by the WMF rather than anything she did. Even if it turns out that she did embezzle or some other action that is interesting in its own right while appointed, the Wikipedia coverage of the topic should start on the WMF article and expand to a sub-article only when that is required. Daniel Brandt redirects to Public Information Research, so a redirect to the WMF is a reasonable way to handle this. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you suppose was the initial motivation for creating the article about Michael M. Sears or about Darleen Druyun? Especially looking at the latter, could this person possibly be worthy of inclusion into our encyclopedia, were it not for "one event" in her life? Another thought, for those who think that the article about the woman should be salted and permanently directed to the Wikimedia Foundation article, we're only shooting ourselves in the foot. Three months from now, which article is going to be read by more people -- Carolyn Doran or Wikimedia Foundation. By dumping this woman's event history in the much more popular article, we're unwittingly and probably unnecessarily sullying the reputation of our project, when (at the end of the day) the entity whose reputation is most in question is truly Doran. --Lord on Canary (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The initial motivation for creating each of those was the person was guilty of doing something of notable: corruption to do with military equipment procurement, related to US $ 23 billion of tax payers money. However in this case, Carolyn Doran hasnt been found to have done anything worth noting yet, except having a minor criminal record and ending up as a COO at WMF. No embezzlement has been uncovered, and it is probably not possible to "lose" a significant amount of WMF money due to its meager budget and its operating costs. As a result this event can not possibly be on the same scale.

The second aspect of your comment is precisely why an biography about Carolyn Doran is not desirable. This event is relevant to WMF now; in 2020, if there is nothing more to this controversy than the news to date has reported, this issue will end up being a short part of Wikimedia Foundation (the first ten years), and Carolyn Doran will be able to live her life in relative obscurity, with only a tiny bit of regret: that she ever accepted the COO position without disclosing her colourful history. John Vandenberg (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are examples of a few crimes that are more than just a “minor criminal record”: (1) Shooting one’s boyfriend in the chest. (2) DUI hit and run that resulted in a fatality. (3) Four DUI’s in ten years, resulting in a third degree felony. Also, budget is not the only way to measure an organization’s notability. For example, consider the internet rankings of the following: Wikipedia #8; US Air Force #11,708; Boeing #15,165; US Department of Defense #36,793. So who is more notable, Carolyn or Darleen? Carolyn Doran did indeed engage in misconduct on the job at WMF: She lied about her background, something Darleen Druyun never did. Trying to draw a difference between the notability of Darleen Druyun and Carolyn Doran is a slippery slope for Wikipedia. The more you dig, the more irrelevant the differences become. Westwind273 (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion without prejudice to recreation as a redirect to WMF. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to WMF. Very few felons are encyclopedically noteworthy, and the press coverage is fleeting. All notability is tied up to criticism of the Wikimedia Foundation so a simple redirect is OK. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. Ask yourself this question: Why is there a Wikipedia article on Darleen Druyun, but not on Carolyn Doran? Both held senior positions within their organizations. Both were later found out to have engaged in criminal behavior. Both have been the subject of numerous media articles. The only explanation for this discrepancy is that Wikipedia is engaging in information censorship to protect its own reputation. This kind of behavior is ultimately self-defeating. If Wikipedia simply becomes Jimmy Wales' version of the truth, then it will be overtaken by Knol, and Wikipedia will fade into oblivion, similar to Netscape. Incidently, a search on Google News brings up 42 hits on Carolyn Doran, and only 10 hits on Darleen Druyun. Westwind273 (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No need to make personal attacks on Wales, especially in a discussion he is not even a part of. Joshdboz (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a personal attack. I am simply stating that by this incident, Wikipedia is losing impartiality and is becoming an opinion blog of Wales and his cohorts, rather than an unbiased reference site. Jimmy Wales certainly has the right to make a site that reflects his opinions, for example allowing articles on senior defense department execs who were caught in scandals, but not on senior execs in Wikimedia caught in similar scandals. However, when he does this, his Wikipedia site then becomes a biased and opinionated site, rather than a neutral reference site. When the general public realizes this, they will flock to Knol, leaving Wikipedia to fade into irrelevancy. Keep in mind that those posting on this deletion review are not representative of the viewers of Wikipedia at large. If they were, you would see many more “undelete” opinions. This is the (perhaps fatal) weakness of Wikipedia. Westwind273 (talk) 05:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion per not news. Indifferent about redirection. Eusebeus (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There needs to be an article. In the short run, we look inconsistent and silly without one. In the longer run, it impacts our credibility. But it need not be the article deleted here. A new article, one that starts out sourced by the AP story and the recent Washington Post article and is improved upon as the 3rd-party, NPOV reporting continues, may be the best answer. David in DC (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Australian Koolie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

unfair merge 61.8.32.204 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like a review of the deletion of the Australian Koolie page.

A merge was originally proposed, I and Koolie Club of Australia submitted our concerns and objections over this and assumed as nothing was forthcoming that the matter had been resolved. I apologize that I am not a constant visitor to Wikipedia, hence the delay in my reaction to the deletion, but I fully appreciate the impact of Wikipedia, through the school system I am involved with, and it is this involvement and the motivation to supply correct information that has provoked this action today.

The original information first submitted by one of the Koolie Clubs of Australia's members then continued on by several researchers of the same club presented the, then, current view into the initial efforts of the Koolie Club of Australia, the original club formed for the breed, known as the German Koolie, Coolie, German Collie and currently in Australia the place of this breeds origins as the Australian Koolie.

That original, effort demonstrate the many myths and theories held by many Australian owners and breeders of the Koolie, as time progressed the page was update, possibly not as fast as some would like, but the page made steady progress as correct factual information was uncovered by our researchers, it contained all the genetic advancements the club was undertaking as well as the recognition the club was obtaining from the Australian National kennel Council and relevant Canine Control in the sates of Vic, Nsw and Qld as well as documenting the clubs efforts in America through our American members .

We recorded all published articles and results as they became available, as well as sited our sources.

This page is very important to future visitors of Wikipedia seeking true and correct information on this breed.

We will not enter into a fight over the page, this has already occurred, carried out by the same people who now claim their page the "German Coolie" is the only true and correct source.

All we ask is that your panel review all content, the majority of correct information has originated from myself and the Koolie Club of Australia and published on the net at various Koolie friendly sites.

Even known Authors like Iris Coombe and Pat Hutchinson gathered their revised information from our findings(they still need to revise more) and do a bit of research into all groups involved, the German coolie group is in America and run by one women not a member, the Coolie council is run by one women, not a member, the Koolie association is run by one man, not a member, most have no committees, no contact details, no ties with other organizations like the Koolie club has and they do not provide any information to any outside sources like the Koolie club do.

Does this not establish that the Koolie Club of Australia are authentic and legitimate in their dealings when supplying correct and factual information regarding our chosen breed the Australian Koolie.

It is necessary to avoid confusion over the reemergence of this breed and unfortunately this page does exactly that, causes confusion, and with the Koolie breed specifity test nearing completion, it will only cause more work to rectify situations like this that these break away groups have created.

I look to hearing something from your panel soon and do hope you can resolve this situation.

Thank you for your attention Kerrie Challenger, Koolie Rescue, Koolie Club of Australia 61.8.32.204 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What Australian Koolie page? I don't see anything in the history that indicates that there was ever anything there but a redirect. There have only been two edits to the page, once in December of last year to redirect to one page and once in July of this year to change the redirect to another page. Corvus cornix_talk 03:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I see you're talking about Koolie, which has been a redirect since July. Although it may be true that you are "not a constant visitor to Wikipedia", but it would seem to me that if you were interested in the article, you would visit more often than once every six months. Still and all, this is not an appropriate venue for this discussion, as the page has not been deleted, but merged. You need to take this to the articles' Talk pages, and then to dispute resolution. Nothing to see here. Corvus cornix_talk 03:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)