Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May

Allison Stokke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Holder of multiple national records in the pole vault, subject of dozens of news stories, at least 50 of them having nothing to do with her recent internet fame, speedy deleted as A7 (article about a person with no claim of importance or significance) in the middle of an AfD. Holder of multiple national records is clearly a person of significance. Requesting overturn to let the AfD run. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. As the creator of the article, I am happy to let it undergo AfD, but it should be obvious that A7 of WP:CSD does not apply here. Lampman 23:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for reasons explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke by myself and others. If she becomes notable based on her sports achievements at a later date we can create a new article at that time. Burntsauce 23:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: That was an AfD discussion. The arguments brought forth there do not apply here, as we're discussing the speedy and whether A7 applies. Lampman 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, they apply. Deletion review is not for restoring pages that masquerade as encyclopedia articles but inevitably belong deleted. —Centrx→talk • 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If you believe an article on a holder of multiple national records is "masquerades as an encyclopedia article" that's your opinion. My point is that the subject for discussion here is whether speedy was proper procedure, or if the community should have its say. It is hard for contributers to debate the absolute value of the article, since it doesn't exist. Lampman 23:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • What multiple national records has she held? I haven't found that in the links provided. Corvus cornix 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • She holds the national record in pole vault for high school freshmen and sophomores, at 12-8 and 13-5.75 respectively[1]. "Stokke, from Newport Harbor High School, is a pole vaulter with a PR of 13-5 3/4. As a junior, she took second place at the CIF State Championships with a mark of 12-9, the same mark she hit as a sophomore, when she set the national sophomore indoor record. A member of the USA Today's All-USA Girls Track Team as a sophomore, she set national age-group records of 13-5 3/4 at age 16 and 13-4 at age 15. She set a national freshman record of 12-8 and was a Verizon Junior All-American in 2004." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The non-meme links I can see only say that she was a regional high school champion, which clearly fails notability. If she makes the Olympics or wins the NCAAs, then write an article about her as an athlete, but the concentration on the internet meme is a BLP violation, and speedy deletion was proper. (BTW, I am basing this on the AfD discussion and the links provided, I can't see the article.) Corvus cornix 23:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Return to AfD. A7 does not apply if there is an assertion of importance, even if the assertion should prove unsourced or insufficient. The assertion of even an informal national record is an assertion of importance. Doesn't prove it, and may not be enough, but no single individual gets to decide that, & I thought that this at least was generally understood. Speedy is not elastic. BLP is not a speedy criterion, and this is not obvious BLP even if it were. Arguments to the contrary, unilateral deletions for BLP can only be justified by imminent harm, and if the story is already out in the web, there won't be any additional imminent harm. Short of that, BLP is not decided by what any one admin or editor wants to call it, but by the community. I would have removed her picture immediately if it had been there, biut the rest is arguable & should be argued. DGG 23:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy deletion is proper if the bio is non-notable, and/or if there is a BLP violation, both of which apply in this case. Corvus cornix 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No you're wrong; BLP violation is only cause for speedy if the article is libelous, which it was clearly not. NN is only cause for speedy if it is absolutely uncontroversial, but as this discussion shows it is clearly not. But again, it is hard for contributers to assess these things when the article isn't there. Lampman 23:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Do you actually think this warrants an article in an encyclopedia? Given that you ostensibly reluctantly "Started page that will inevitably come, might as well make it a good, respectful article", why do you think this page belongs on Wikipedia. Why do you think it could ever be made into anything more than a newspaper article? If you want to write a newspaper article, see Wikinews. —Centrx→talk • 23:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I could expain that, but it's not an argument I'm willing to have, because it's a complete sidetrack. The question here is not whether she is notable, that's a question for the AfD. The question is whether her notability was asserted, which it was, and as such the rules clearly state that the article cannot be speedied.
        • The real issue here is whether administrators should be allowed to sidestep rules and ignore community consensus. I for one believe not. Lampman 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Speedy deletion is proper when the article is used solely to comment upon a person's appearance, which is what it was doing (apparently). Corvus cornix 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, it wasn't. It was a neutral summary of her records, her achievements, and the fact that she'd gained a notable amount of unwanted lewdness. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I will take into account that you have not read the article, but I can assure you that that was not the case. There was not a POV word in the article, there was one short line - not about her appearance - but about public reaction to her appearance. The main focus was on her athletic abilities. If you had been able to read it you could have made an informed judgement rather than rely on hearsay, and that's why the AfD should be reopened. Lampman 00:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • • Then it should have been speedy deleted as non-notable. Corvus cornix 00:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Bloody hell no. Horrible nasty thing. Keep deleted and monitor all future creations by the author. Gah.--Doc^g 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Internet memes ARE NOT WORTHY. Sean William @ 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

IDON'TLIKEIT is an argument for afd not drv.Geni 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse on BLP grounds, but there's no way it was an A7 speedy. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You're right about A7. And BLP does not warrant speedy, only if it's libelous. Lampman 01:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, but on the other hand, if this article stands, is it going to focus on her athletic achievements, or the fact she's been a pervert magnet for half the Internet? While there is the danger of using WP:BLP as a big deletion stick (Another POINTY AfD today) there are plainly some articles that Wikipedia isn't doing itself any favours by including. Fine, relist if really necessary (after all the process was wrong, which is why we're here) but I don't see the advantage. EliminatorJR ^Talk 10:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. A lot of people make and break records in high school. Even living in California, students break all sorts of school records and barely a peep in the local papers. What I am seeing on Google now is just news about her pictures being used in the blogosphere. Even some of the sites that perpetuated the meme are closing up shop and issuing an apology to her. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• go back to afd Not A7.Geni 01:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Get a life, people. This is a real live young woman we're talking about. I'm the person who deleted the article and closed the AfD. I don't particularly care if A7 applies or not. I don't particularly care if the abuse of power by certain admins angers some people. There's no grand principle at stake here which says that every article which can be written must be written. Move on to something important. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist clearly not an A7 - there was assertion of notability. (the grounds it was deleted under) Nor is it a G10 (Attack). Also I would like people to remember DRV is about policy, not content, whether you like it or not is immaterial - the issue is whether the deletion was proper under the deltin policy. Viridae^Talk 02:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse this deletion on the grounds cited in the deletion listing by David.Monniaux, particularly the biographies of living persons policy. The article did not reflect well on Wikipedia. We should be very wary of partarking, or even to appear to partake, of the culture of prurience and cyberstalking that afflicts much of the web. We're different, folks. We don't need this article. --Tony Sidaway 02:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist', improper closure. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I quote from the deleted revision using my magical admin powers: "According to her coach and her parents Alison has been somewhat disturbed by the excessive publicity." This is a clear BLP concern; we shouldn't be subjecting this girl to further unwanted attention and ogling. Krimpet (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When did the Daniel Brandt argument become policy? "I'm my own person, take my article off!" –– Lid^(Talk) 03:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Daniel Brandt has been an activist for decades, constantly grappling for publicity and press on his endless tirades. All this girl is notable for is being lusted over by a bunch of horny old perverts on the internet, and she was unsurprisingly disturbed by this unwanted publicity. There's a huge difference between the two. Krimpet (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Look, I'd never heard of Allison Stokke before I heard it mentioned on IRC just now, but this comment is ridiculous. She's clearly of note for breaking some pole vaulting records at a young age. The article that was deleted contained no image of her, was short and informative. I see no reason why it should be removed. She's concerned about negative attention, not an informative article. Her picture is all over the news, FFS, and if she's gonna be an athlete she'd better get used to it. Would you delete the article of Serena Williams if she requested it be removed?! === Jez === 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. WP:BLP supersedes process, as it should. We all know this. Chick Bowen 02:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What? There still needs to be a process to see if BLP even applies, otherwise it's saying 'safety trumps freedom' to justify throwing people in jail without trial. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The process is administrator conferral and common sense, and this discussion right here. And never compare an article to a person. People have rights; articles don't. Chick Bowen 04:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • DRV is here to certify correctness of process, not make content decisions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Screw process. This is a real person. Do you not get the fact that real live people do not give a damn about our silly processes? They care about what's being splashed all over the Internet about them. Anyone who cares more about process than content does not care about the people our content affects. FCYTravis 18:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • There wasn't anything offensive in the deleted article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
            • If you don't get why the article's existence was offensive to basic human decency, you have no business commenting on issues affecting living people. You're arguing that for the entirety of her life, the next 65+ years, this woman should have to put up with an "encyclopedia article" which reminds everyone that when she was 18, a bunch of basement-bound bloggers passed her photo around like some piece of meat? You have no sense of ethics. This article has no need of existing right now. FCYTravis 18:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
              • for the entirety of her life, no, I'm arguing that an article, four sentences of which are devoted to discussing other achievements and aspects of her life, and three to her internet fame, should be allowed to exist for the seven days it takes to finish the AfD that was already in process. If your concern is about 65 years down the line, why not let us take the seven days to get it right now? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Eventualism applies only in reverse for living people. It does zero harm to anyone to delete the article immediately and then argue about it, and then consider later whether to write an article on her. By leaving the article up, we are continuing to disseminate the harm or potential harm. FCYTravis 18:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • Maybe what's occurring to her is "offensive" to "basic human decency," all subjective terms that have no place in this discussion, but may otherwise. If we were simply plastering the pictures all over the place and renamed the article "pole vaulting vixen," maybe you'd have a point. But none of that is or was happening, nor would anyone let it at this point. But you have to demonstrate how an article that works off of numerous sources does any harm first. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                    • No he doesn't. You have to demonstrate why it should be allowed to stay. Quoting from WP:BLP, The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                      • No, he does if he wants this to stay deleted. The justification for how this does not violate BLP is clear. --19:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • Zero harm? You think it would do zero harm to delete every article in wikipedia that any administrator thinks is possibly harmful to anyone at any time in the future, and then only letting people discuss it without seeing the content? We're not throwing around ED-type allegations here, we're simply reporting what the secondary sources said. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                    • It's quite simple, really, Night Gyr. By keeping an article on this, we will never allow people to ever forget what happened to this woman. We will come up on their Google for the remainder of their natural-born lives. That is something we must take into consideration. Blogs shut down and disappear without a trace. People forget. But Wikipedia is forever - and that's not always a good thing. FCYTravis 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                      • The issue here is not whether the article should exist forever, it's whether it should be allowed a full deletion discussion. You're ignoring that and strawmanning. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                        • There's absolutely no point in giving it "a full deletion discussion" if the article is going to die, period. This one was going to. You keep thinking everything is about process. Let me clue you in - real people do not give a flying fuck about our silly processes. FCYTravis 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                          • Well sourced articles that do not violate policy are not "going to die." That does not happen, sorry. I know you want it to, but it doesn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                            • Oh, but they have, and they will continue to do so. You can ask the whole ArbCom to recuse if you wish, but this is the future of Wikipedia - less tabloid, more encyclopedia. Jeff, please, you and I both have better things to do than argue over this. It's happening whether anyone likes it or not. FCYTravis 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                              • I'm glad you're so confident. Just because you need disruption and abuse to get your position across doesn't mean the rest of us do. You're right, we both have better things to do - so start by stopping with defending disruptive nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                                • This is personal attack. Let's keep it civil. -- Kesh 01:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, clearly out of process with given no time to have a discussion on the issue, A7 obviously not applying dueto numerous notability claims (backed with sources) and the people screaming BLP need to realise BLP is for the deletion of information from articles, not a reason listed under WP:SPEEDY (except in cases of extreme libel). This recent BLP vs Keep period hs been mind boggling. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Yeah, I know it was deleted. I don't see, and have never really understood, why it's worth angering and alienating members of the community over failing to allow even a debate to take place, and trusting that a closing admin will interpret things properly. But anyway, this is a NN high school athlete that would have no coverage at all if she weren't a victim of unwanted publicity. I guess I can see why it made the news once, but that doesn't make it a topic we should really have in the encyclopedia. If she becomes legitimately famous for her accomplishments as an athlete, or if she becomes notable in some other way, the article can be recreated, and the unfortunate incident can be covered. But for now she's not there yet. Mangojuice^talk 05:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "would have no coverage at all if she weren't a victim of unwanted publicity" -- Did you miss the 52 news stories I cited that discuss her before the internet publicity? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I meant, no coverage here. It's quite obvious to me, that her track and field accomplishments (though fairly imprssive) would not have led to her being written up in Wikipedia had it not been for this unfortunate internet meme. The edit history confirms this: the page was first created back at the end of April, with "Hot pole vaulter..." as the main point. Mangojuice^talk 11:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist obviously failed CSD criteria, was already on afd and was headed towards delete, hell the admin even deleted the AFD! Thats just not done. I also feel this subject is notable per her records, All americans are clearly determined notable by consensus as we have over a hundred in Category:McDonald's High School All-Americans.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious overturn; unlike most Internet memes, this actually rated an article in the Washington Post. I'm very disturbed by the new trend of using WP:BLP as a justification to delete articles when the real reason for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Were there unsourced or poorly sourced statements about Ms. Stokes in this article? If so, remove those statements, and start from scratch if needed. If not, then it doesn't fall under BLP. Period. There is no such thing as an article title that inherently violates BLP. *** Crotalus *** 06:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think Unsubstantiated rumors about Crotalus horridus would fly under BLP :P Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There would be no need to invoke BLP because such a page would violate WP:V and WP:RS. On the other hand, if a major national newspaper printed a story about me, then an article would be justified even if the subject of coverage was trivial and/or embarrasing. *** Crotalus *** 06:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • False. That would be Wikinews, which is ----> that way. Having a single article published about you in a major national newspaper or magazine does not make you encyclopedic. If that was the case, I would be encyclopedic, as a 70,000-circulation national road racing magazine published a page-long profile feature on me. That doesn't make me encyclopedic. We do not write "biographies" of every single person who was once in a newspaper. FCYTravis 18:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse outcome, do not endorse means used to get there or rationale. In the end, this is indeed a 15-minutes-of-fame story that belongs on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. But BLP certainly does not apply here. I looked at the deleted article, and I fail to see any unsourced or poorly sourced negative information, nor any non-neutral language used to attack, nor even any undue weight issues. In the end, I would've still argued to delete on notability grounds, and I think that would have been the eventual outcome. But BLP has got to quit being used as the big hammer when someone just doesn't like it. Sometimes, it will be encyclopedic to cover bad things that happen to people. In this case, it's not. But we need to quit overextending BLP. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn notability clearly established. Internet meme or not, she is notable.  Grue  11:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oh for Christ's sake. If the Internets were not circulating pictures and going "PHWOOOOAR!" would we even have the article in the first place? We can either have an article excluding the mention of this ridiculous crap, which is a one-liner but an acceptable stub, and permanently protect it, or we can leave it deleted, or we can redirect to a page on junior US athletics records and leave it at that. Wat is not acceptable is the article in the form as deleted, as should be blindingly obvious to everybody. Internet meme my arse - nice looking girl drooled over by nerds without a girlfriend is the limit of that shit. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, however it is we got there, per JzG in particular. In cases of minor internet celebrities (and she is minor), first do no harm. Process concerns will have to take a number. Mackensen (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, the assertion of notability is more about how a website posted a picture of her and then a big pervert furore took place, which is not good - BLP is expressly for this kind of shit. Neil (►) 12:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Here’s another couple of articles that should be speedied if we are gonna be consistent: Prince William: the poor kid didn’t ask for the attention and I’m sure he would be happier without it. Notability, of course, doesn’t apply when there are BLP concerns. Star Wars kid: this is pretty obvious – unlike Stokke he didn’t deliberately do anything to get notable, unlike her the attention he got was purely negative, and unlike her he was far below the age of majority at the time.

• To be honest I couldn’t care less if the article stays or goes. I’ve seen the girl jump and I’m convinced that, come Beijing, there won’t be a power-tripping admin in the world who can keep her from having her own article. What I don’t like is admins playing God. Of those who endorse deletion I’ve seen a lot of arguments about her notability, but I haven’t seen anyone able to explain how this article warrants a speedy. That’s because it doesn’t. Lampman 12:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  WP:BLP. Her only real assertions to notability (to date) was being the subject of a pervertapalooza. Neil (►) 12:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  That's simply not true. High school athletes can be notable if they show enough potential. Kevin Garnett and Lebron James were both on the cover of Sports Illustrated while still in high school. But more importantly: WP:BLP is not grounds for speedy! Lampman 12:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  Was it well sourced? Because if not, you may have been able to delete that portion for the time being. You do realize, however, that she was on the front page of the Washington Post, right? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  Was she on the front of the Post for winning her high school pole vault? Neil (►) 15:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  Is that relevant? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  It was better sourced than 99% of the articles out there, with inline citations from reliable news sources. Again, contributers aren't able to make an informed opinion because some admin circumvented the rules, so they have to rely on hearsay instead. Lampman 14:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Question: how many "high-school champions" are there out there? Just how notable are this girl's athletic achievements? Given that she is so young, it is highly unlikely that she has progressed to the point where she is significant on a global scale, and most of the references to her actual abilities that I have seen were from local news only. If in some years she progresses to senior competition, rather than just fading away into the crowd, maybe we can resurrect this article. —Phil | Talk 14:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • My understanding from the articles I've read is that she's a national record holder for her level, meaning that she holds the record for pole vaulting for high schoolers. It's significant on a national scale, for sure - global, maybe not, but that doesn't really make a difference. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• I restored a temporary copy of the most recent version of the article at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 31/Allison Stokke Temp in case anybody wants to see the contents. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Already deleted for the same reasons this article was. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Got it in one.--Doc^g 15:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Given that the original deletion was inappropriate, however, a histoy undeletion would be useful here. I know you won't do it, but it's worth noting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Of course, instead of Wikilawyering about process and making hysterical accusations, you could address which of the three permissible outcomes you prefer: merge to an article on high school atlhetic records; a one-liner without the perv-o-rama; or deletion until she achieves some more widespread and substantive coverage outside of the athletic achievement. Any of these three would be fine per policy. Do feel free to choose one. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • None of the above. A full article on her and the situation is entirely warranted per all relevant policies. Instead of being rude and accusing people of Wikilawyering, you could admit that maybe, just maybe, there wasn't a violation for anything here. So I pick option four - full restoral. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Apart from this lurid incident and short-lived Internet meme, she is just yet another gifted young athlete. David.Monniaux 14:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, high school athlete plus some news stories is not enough to overrule WP:BLP here. Kusma (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  You have obviously misunderstood the argument: BLP policy is not about speedy. The issue here is whether speedying the article was correct. Lampman 15:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  Keep in mind, also, that no BLP issue has been adequately supported. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, but there was no particular reason to speedy it. It was already listed on AFD, that would have been fine. I don't see how it's an emergency for us to get rid of a sourced article that doesn't say anything not already being said by lots of news sources. In other words, there's no reason to use cries of "BLP! It must go!" in this case. Friday (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • So why are you endorsing? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This is a flash-in-the-pan human interest story, and we're an encyclopedia here. If we didn't have this ridiculous "you can't see it because it was deleted" bug, you'd be able to see where I prodded it for that reason. Friday (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, that's unfortunate that we don't get to discuss those merits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • DRV isn't about if you think it should exist or not, it's about whether you think the process was correctly followed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I disagree. It would be a completely lame waste of time for me to argue to undelete, only to want delete it again by a longer process. No further information would have come out at AFD, it would just have produced the usual keep versus delete arguments, which are already well understood. All that's left would be to interpret the results, and we've already got the right interpretation in this case. Friday (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Not to mention a lot of people don't think this is the correct answer. The endorsement gives the impression that you don't want those voices to be heard. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
            • • Jeff, we hear nothing but your voice. Those who want this crap undeleted are free to speak here.--Doc^g 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Unfortunately, we're at a loss, since we can't see what was there. So this ends up being a worthless discussion on the merits of the article if we can't see what's there. I'd hate to think that the overriding intent is exactly that, but it's becoming harder and harder to assume otherwise. There's no way to have a good discussion on the merits of an article we can't see. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Please keep it civil. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict)The whole point is to figure out with a broader consensus what the right answer actually is. Otherwise it's just saying that the guy everyone knows is guilty doesn't deserve another trial, even though he got railroaded by a corrupt judge in the first one. Respect for the rules is necessary to keep a smoothly functioning system. The time and effort of running an afd is far less than the aggravation caused by disruptions of process. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
            • There's no point in running an afd. We are debating it here. Although why we are debating this horrible, intrusive and two-week-old internet meme, I have no idea.--Doc^g 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
              • You mean WP:CUTEGIRL is not a good reason to keep? Friday (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
                • You mean WP:IFEELBADLYABOUTIT is a good reason to delete? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
              • We were running an afd until RoySmith cut it short, and you cut off any attempt to actually discuss the content by removing his temporary restoration. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist We have an AFD process which works very well, and this article should be judged on its merits. There are a great many newspaper articles which have substantial coverage of her athletic achievements prior to and independent of any internet fame for a photo. If we need a policy provision allowing deletion of articles which some feel might be embarrassing to minors, then by all means add such provisions to WP:BIO , WP:BLP , or WP:CSD. Wikipedia should follow its policies and guidelines, and not the whims of admins who feel their moral compass points truer than those of their peers. Edison 16:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Blind adherence to process should never outweigh common decency and common sense. -- Donald Albury 17:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the original deletion was appropriate in the spirit of WP:BLP. Wikilawyering over this could well have real life ramifications for the subject of the article, so there is no reason not to stop it early. We're an encyclopedia, not a tabliod. If you want to write a decent article on a meme, Wikinews is ----------------> over here. Martinp23 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins, Oliver Wendell Holmes. That's what we're talking about here. Was the deletion in-process? Maybe not, but I don't care. Was everything in the article accurate, verifiable, and backed up by proper citations to good sources? Probably, but again, I don't care. The point is, Wikipedia having this article may cause harm to an innocent person. As far as I'm concerned, that's the only argument that matters. Something can be 100% right and still be wrong. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What harm? --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The discussion that the speedy deletion has generated here is probably an indication that it's a contentious enough decision that it should not have been speedied - certainly it does not seem to qualify per CSD guidelines. Nevertheless I believe that the outcome would have been to delete this anyway, and to force it back through AfD is a bit too much process wonkery for me. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Not a valid speedy deletion. Plenty of neutral reliable sources available to produce article on this subject. Catchpole 18:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - What on Earth has Wikipedia come to when people are defending a "biographical article" the sum total of which consists of the fact that a bunch of bloggers leered at her photo? To quote CBS News, "Meet the Greta Garbo of the Internet: Allison Stokke. She’s 18 years old, athletic, attractive and wants to be left the hell alone." We're going to leave her the hell alone. FCYTravis 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That would be terrible. That wasn't what the article was. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not commenting either way on the article, but if "wanting to be left the hell alone" were a criterion, wouldn't we have deleted this article some time ago? Should we revive discussion of an "opt-out" policy for living people? JavaTenor 18:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The more tabloid trash articles like this we have, the more I start to agree with Mr. Brandt. Perhaps we should issue a policy which says we don't cover living people at all. It's going to come to that point if we keep treating the subjects of our articles as if they don't matter. FCYTravis 18:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is not a tabloid. We aren't Encyclopedia Dramatica, either. --Carnildo 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Marginal notebility plus BLP concerns = delete. (I am happy to agree that A7 doesn't apply, but that doesn;t decide this case.) Eluchil404 18:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • delete != speedy delete debatably deletable material shouldn't be speedied. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've emailed the Washington Post writer responsible for the front page article about her; I'll forward Allison a copy of the deleted article if I can get in touch with her. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a threat which violates policy and common sense and will almost certainly lead to your desysopping. FCYTravis 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Just a note, he appears to be offering to email a copy to the subject of the article, not to the Washington Post, if I read it correctly. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the speedy. Perfectly valid delete on BLP grounds. Anyone who thinks differently really doesn't understand the intent of BLP and needs to rethink their position. There are many voices here saying that now and it will become increasingly clear that articles such as this will not survive in the end. Having protracted wrangling about it for each such incident is divisive and unnecessary, and will become increasingly clear over time that it will not be tolerated, I predict. Some of the people speaking out to try to save it are making rather shocking statements... that the deletion is the right thing but that we have to have a DRV or an AFD anyway, that BLP doesn't say that privacy and doing the right thing aren't important, or even that if things don't go a certain way that they will contact the media with deleted content. That last matter is gravely serious and shocking, and unacceptable of someone the community placed trust in. "endorse delete" and close this DRV early as being out of order. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, the offer was to email it to the subject of the article, not to the media. JavaTenor 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What was valid about it? Was it an unsourced negative page about a living person? Nope. Was it an attack page? Nope. So no, the deletion was not "perfectly valid." Also, anyone thinking of closing this early or in the requisite five days should know that the strength of argument is what's important here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Have you read WP:BLP?: In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems. In the best case, this can simply lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, this can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.,=. Corvus cornix 20:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm very aware of it. There's no doubt here. This did not qualify. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The article condemns itself: "became an overnight internet phenomenon" == Not notable except for being a meme. "Alison has been somewhat disturbed by the excessive publicity" == the publicity is doing her harm. QED. After paring back the tabloid sensationalism, the fact that people drool over her, there's nothing left. Do no harm. This is an OBVIOUS speedy. Unless this is a project I (and many others, including, dare I say it, Jimbo himself) do not care to be associated with, that is. Perhaps you should fork, Jeff. Your views are clearly far, far outside the mainstream. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Wow. I'm civil to you and you make an asshole comment in return. Nice job. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
            • EH? you lost me there. What comment are you referring to? I refuted your statement of "there's no doubt" it did not qualify, by showing that conversely, there's no doubt that this WAS a good deletion, that it DID qualify, as the article itself proves it. And if you don't see that, your views are indeed far outside the mainsteam. And IF your views are far outside the mainstream of this project, forking is the correct thing to do. It's how open source projects grow and prosper, after all. Perhaps you are right, and the rest of us are wrong. The entire project is GFDL or otherwise free content (that's the point after all) so you can start afresh if you so wish, as other forks have done in the past. But I despair of reasoning with you, you seem so devoutly certain that there are absolutely no circumstances under which something might be a BLP issue. Here we have someone non notable who does not WANT notoriety, who has been victimised by having it thrust upon her and you just don't have the common, man-in-the-pub decency to let her be. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Letting the AfD run its course would be less drama and make more sense, as now this DRv is performing as the AfD, which its not intended to do. Then Delete because of the BLP concerns. Regardless of the "vote" total, of course. Unless someone can come up with an argument that trumps that. Who knows? Also: if we cannot get a majority of !voters to support deletion for reasons of BLP or indeed WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY in cases like this, we have a cultural problem that we need to work on. Ham-handed attempts to cut off discussion are not the way to do this. Herostratus 21:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Ignoring lurid and sensational coverage of her status as an "internet phenomenon", there is very little here. A stub containing just the first paragraph of the last deleted version would probably be okay, but it would almost certainly need to be protected. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted until she conquers the world as a vaulter. Passing meme that'll be forgotten about in two weeks. Moreschi ^Talk 21:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist on AfD Setting a national record in a recognized sport is normally considerd notable, in any of itself, regardless of any "internet meme". This is true even for an age-restricted record. Unless we ahve changed our inclusion policy drastically quite recently, there should be an article on her for the sports achievements alone. Whether the intrnet stuiff should be there is an editorial decision, ther is enough for an articel even if it is removed. It is all well cited, and does not appear to me to be "negative or controversial". But even if it is all removed, national sports champions clearly pass WP:BIO and surely do not warrent A7 speedy deletes. This is simply absurd, IMO. DES ^(talk) 23:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:BLP and Jimbo's edit. It may be an out-of-process deletion but it embodies the spirit of those two. As Spike Lee said, "Always do the right thing." howcheng {chat} 00:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn/Relist - The application of BLP has been a farce of late. Why was BLP drafted in the first place? To get rid of uncited and potentially libelous information in light of the Seigenthaler embarrassment. It has been railroaded into a get out of jail free card for speedying any biographical articles that an admin doesn't like. Just give a shout of BLP and you can be sure of editors cowering away. Yet this is never what BLP was about. FCYTravis gives an impassioned cry of "Think of the children" but this is entirely irrelevant. Wikipedia is about notability, whether you're notable for being leered over, or notable for filming yourself looking like a clumsy idiot is irrelevant. Wikipedia is for the reader first, the subject's thoughts contribute very little whether we have an article or not; if you want to edit with a "Sympathetic Point of View", then head over to Wikinfo, a mirror more suitable to your tastes. Wikipedia is about neutrality, if a fat Chinese kid is noted because of his appearance, then that's what the article should concentrate on, not how awful and mean his detractors have been, it is not undue weight. And on a slight tangent, although I agree with the recently added "Subject (person's) name may not be the best place to put the article on incidents", in this case, it clearly would. I'm sure some misguided user thinks High School Pole Vault lechery controversy sidesteps BLP issues by not mentioning names, it's not, and anything like that is a ridiculous name for an article.

• Incidentally, I would vote to delete the article. This 15 seconds of fame crap just doesn't cut mustard, I had never even heard of her until now, and the articles are human interest fluff. Unless this interest persists, it just isn't notable enough (but more so that the web crap which we have), but then again I think the Essjay article is a pointless piece of Wiki-navel gazing. I'm still arguing to overturn and relist this deletion because I can see BLP speedies getting more and more contrived and gregarious. We'll be deleting well-sourced neutral information because an editor thinks sections carry undue weight when they're just biased, we'll be deleting well-sourced biographies because we think the articles existence may possibly remotely harm the subject, rather than how its harming the readers for not being there. As an example of this stupidity, I'll cite the recent Crystal Gail Mangum deletion logs in which the protected redirect is deleted for some really moot Wikipedia essay which seem to be clogging up the project space. - hahnchen 00:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion on the article itself. It looks like a non-notable athlete but we have lots and lots and lots and lots of articles about athletes I would consider non-notable. The 'human dignity' etc. argument is reasonable (though I note that Star Wars kid is still a blue link, surely a far worse problem in that regard). I rather dislike admins refusing to allow non-admins to see the contents of an article for the duration of a deletion discussion. I also dislike admins making ridiculous accusations such as saying other people 'have no ethics'. If you're going to put yourselves up as the super-reasonable defenders of the encyclopedia then you have to actually be reasonable and able to have a civil argument. Haukur 00:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion. But let parties take this to ArbCom or policy process determine if there are times and places where egregious WP:BLP warrants a speedy. and:
  • Smack closing Admin with a trout for using an A7 justification when the AfD as listed doesn't justify that criteria at all, doubly so because even a speedy doesn't have to be done within three hours of opening an AfD. Even a WP:SNOW justification would have been better.
  • Smack all editors involved with a trout for thinking a) "This must be deleted [or kept] or WP will fall!", and b) for thinking something that's highly covered in news sources and teh internets will remain [or go away] whether or not it's at WP.
  • Smack all with trouts who think that the family itself can't find and use the libel removal process outlined in WP:BLP on their own if they feel it necessary - we don't need to defend them, they obviously can defend themselves.
  • Smack those with a trout who think temp undeletion is a problem in this case while DRV proceeds - again, if it's a properly verified article with no OR, then the information is elsewhere on the Internet, so what's the problem? This is clearly an individual case basis, where viewing the article itself at this time would help understand if a relist is necessary or not.
  • Smack Jimbo Wales with a minnow for bringing to life such a beautiful system where policies collide on such a grand scale that case-by-case determination is necessary.
  • Smack me with a trout for thinking any of this is important.

- LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh w/ Me or Logical Entries} 01:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist - not eligible for speedy, requires a full debate. BoojiBoy 02:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for two reasons. First, not notable. If this student-athlete did not deserve an article two years ago when she broke a record of some kind, she doesn't deserve it now because someone posted her picture on a blog and some hairy-knuckled internet wankers drooled on it. Second, violates BLP and What Wikipedia is Not. It is impossible to write a neutral encyclopedia biography when the only thing documented in the sources is "She holds a pole-vault record and is pretty, and when he picture was posted on a blog some hairy-knuckled internet wankers made disturbing comments." Her mom says she is disturbed by the attention but is handling it well. That is not an endorsement for permanent enshrinement in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of cute girls whose pictures get posted on the internet without their permission (even if a newspaper writes about it). Thatcher131 06:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist Speedy delete not warranted, notability asserted (Not for the pole vaulting, that - while great - is not notable, but for for the discussion about photo privacy and uncontrollable internet memes, evidenced by this story by CBS news). —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. I can see both sides of this and I have sympathy for the new idea that Wikipedia simply should not treat every internet meme as encyclopedic because it got a couple of news stories. I don't, however, think that necessarily applies in this case, and I think the community should be allowed to decide whether it does. To those voting to keep it deleted for (what may be) good reason, the question at hand is not the article's propriety, but whether the deletion of the article was proper. I do not think it was a proper deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 08:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: Clearly non-notable individual. Google does not show notability, nor does being given 15 minutes of unwanted fame.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist (I need to mention that I have not seen the article in question, all the info I have on this article comes from this discussion, and the afd that was closed.) I came across this article's afd while doing my weekly read through of the afd's and found it interesting that it was closed so quickly not once, but twice for the same reasons that seem to be clearly false. First is the subject notable? In my humble opinion the answer is a resounding yes, not just for the current wave of internet fame, but for the fact that she holds National records for a sporting event. This notability precludes use of the CSD A7 Argument. Second, does the article cause damage to the subject or family of the subject? Again I can't speak directly to this, but unless the article showed personal info (Home address, phone numbers, e-mail addresses) I find it hard to think that a short paragraph on a current news topic could be considered harmful to the subject. So that throws out the BLP argument. As for wiki-lawering and the such I find it hard to stomach that so many people are blindly following an admin or two who clearly have stated that process be damned I'll do what I want. I can't help but think that this would be de-syopable but that doesn't seem to be mentioned at all. Also I think it could set a dangerous precedent that its okay for a syop to go and delete then get approval without letting people see it. Finally I am amazed at the MASSSIVE amount of Crystal balling going on here. I gaze into my crystal ball and see this becoming a landmark case in internet law, finding out who really owns the image of a person, and is it legal or an invasion of privacy to pass a picture of a living person around without conscent of that person? Does this argument allow for the article to be kept?? No, but its the same as the endorsers claims that she is an internet phenom that will be forgotten by the end of the month. EnsRedShirt 08:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Now the world is catching on regarding our removal of obviously notable articles. Great job, folks, Wikipedia needs more bad press like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • On the contrary: I predict that the person who wrote that on their web log will be castigated by others in like manner to this, and Wikipedia taking the same high ground, of not hosting a biographical article on a private individual who has explicitly stated her desire not to become known for the things discussed in the second paragraph, as several of the people who have voluntarily shut down their web sites have taken, will prove to be one of our finer hours.

    Your attempt to raise the bogeyman of "Look! It's generating bad press." in order to sway the argument here will fail (not least because a web log isn't actually a press). I've read some of the comments outside of Wikipedia on this issue, and there is a definite swell of opinion that the people taking down the web sites have led by example in the correct direction. I also predict that this particular cry from you may well backfire on you, personally, from outside of Wikipedia. If you don't want that to happen, please put more thought into your arguments. Uncle G 16:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Could someone please end this? We have plenty of input, and now we’re being ridiculed on one of the world’s biggest sports sites. Opinion seems to be split down the middle, but there’s really only one question that needs to be answered: was the speedy entirely uncontroversial? This is the only case in which a speedy is permissible, otherwise it must come up for AfD (and no, BLP concerns do not allow speedy). A quick look at the above should give an answer to that question. Lampman 14:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Does anyone here care what some random blogger on "one of the world's biggest sports sites" says about our project? <crickets> Thought not. FCYTravis 17:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. A7 was invalid, AFD closure was invalid and no admin can enforce his/her personal ethics on a project that has millions of users (despite mentioning "BLP" in deletion summary). As for the subject, she is clearly notable as proved by the number of reliable sources. Prolog 15:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist I fail to see how the subject of a front page story in the Washington Post, followed by a CBS story about the Washington Post front page story can be accused of not asserting notability. I also fail to see where BLP says that sourced content can be speedy deleted. If coverage of this turns one into a "tabloid", I guess the Washington Post, Sydney Morning Herald, Los Angeles Times, NPR, San Jose Mercury News, CBS News, USA Today, and AOL Sports are all tabloids too. I can think of worse company. --Maxamegalon2000 17:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist While I can think of many reasons to delete this article, speedy deleting it under BLP is not the way to go. While I understand and agree with many of the BLP speedies, this is very much a gray area (as far as policy is concerned) that needs community discussion. I really don't like the direction these BLP deletion rationales are going in. -- Ned Scott 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - seems to be very controversial, doesn't seem to be obviously unimportant, no BLP Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 01:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Several above have mentioned sources relevant to this discussion, but not all have been linked here. Here are a few: Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register, Washington Post, CBS News, San Jose Mercury News, among others. For what it's worth, I agree that it's odd to have a biography of this young lady, especially given her stated desire to reduce the level of attention paid to her (I believe we may ultimately end up with some variety of "opt-out" policy here), although there may be something encyclopedic to say in some other article about the nature of privacy in the internet era which could use her case as a case study. JavaTenor 02:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and Relist Twelve hours ago, Google showed 447K hits on her name -- now there are 592K. And referring to her as a "girl" is demeaning -- she is a woman. Please see my other comments on Talk:Allison_Stokke. Bete Noir 03:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This deletion review is becoming notable. http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/06/01/allison-stokkes-wikipedia-entry-keeps-getting-deleted/ Paxse 05:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please actually read the discussion that preceded your comment, where this particular "It's generating press!" bogeyman has already been addressed. Uncle G 11:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This woman has been the victim of some disgusting behaviour by a blogger, and just because some equally disgusting men have chosen to turn this into an "internet meme" does not mean Wikipedia should substantially further that harm by covering the incident. I have zero confidence in the judgement of those (virtually all men, surprise of surprises) who have voted to overturn this deletion, and I'm just disgusted that there would be so many. Rebecca 05:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Please desist. Abusing your administrative privileges to reveal personal details about editors will not be tolerated. Bete Noir 07:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Er, where on earth did that come from? I said no such thing. Rebecca 07:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Probably the virtually all men comment. I'm not aware of any wikipedia policy that takes the gender of those commenting into account. In adition you will note that most of the overturns are procedual at this point we have no idea how many actualy support the existance of the article compared to those who think that the way this has been delt with is unacceptable.Geni 10:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It's somewhat foolish, as anyone familiar with the World Wide Web should be aware, to assume the sexes of people that one knows only as pseudonyms on a web site. And it's very bad form for an administrator and ex-arbitration committee member, who should know our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, to take a discussion of the deletion of an article and attempt to turn it into a discussion of the editors that are participating in the discussion. Uncle G 11:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I was simply noting a clearly evident fact; the vast majority of those wanting to keep this disgusting article are men. This isn't about personal attacks; it is about chauvinistic behaviour on Wikipedia, and I'll be damned if I'm not going to criticise it when I see it. Rebecca 04:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • As I said: As anyone familiar with the World Wide Web should be aware, it isn't a clearly evident fact. And an ex-arbitration committee member should know the second sentence of our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Uncle G 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - speedy deletion was clearly out of process. The deleting Administrator may not care about abuse of power by Administrators, but I do. And so should we all. Js farrar 11:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist clearly out of process, no BLP issues or speedy delete criteria as far as I understand, the whole AFD process seems to have been subverted by a single admin. KnightLago 14:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No BLP issues?!?!? This woman has made it very clearly that this mass sexual harrassment is causing her grief. We shouldn't be adding to it; I don't think I've ever seen a clearer case of BLP. Rebecca 04:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • "Sexual harassment" is a strong accusation, and being one of the editors of Stokke's article, your use of this hyperbole does not please me. I can't find anything in Sexual harassment about creating NPOV biographies qualifying one for this unpleasant label. Do you know the fable about "The Man Who Cried Wolf?" Bete Noir 04:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll quote from the article you cited. The first line, indeed. "Sexual harassment is harassment or unwelcome attention of a sexual nature." This entire meme is exactly this. You are adding to that unwelcome attention; you are being complicit in sexual harrassment. Rebecca 04:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I think you're being confused by the multiple meanings of the English word "attention"; please see http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/attention and study the distinction between entries 2 (the kind related to Wikipedia articles) and 3a (the kind related to Sexual harassment). And please read WP:CIVIL and WP:LEGAL before you accuse your fellow editors of involvement in criminal activities like harassment. Bete Noir 07:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • In this context, the difference is a purely semantic one. To quote from Hemlock Martinis below, "The news stories will dissipate, but this article is supposed to be there for the long haul. That's harm." I'm not going to stroke your ego here - while you can attempt to weasel out of it as much as you like, you are being fundamentally complicit in sexual harassment. Rebecca 07:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Calling the Stokke situation Sexual harassment is an insult to the millions of women -- and men -- who have actually been truly harassed. And I, for one, believe that women can be strong, smart, and tough: Allison will continue on her chosen course despite having thousands of men -- and women -- staring at her photos. A polite article (such as mine) on her amazing achievements of both athletic skill and (relucant) Internet celebrity is not just justifiable, but necessary. Bete Noir 07:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. While her achievements in the pole vault might at first glance seem to qualify her for an article under WP:BIO, I doubt that Wikipedia already has articles about the girls' high school record holders in the high jump, long jump, etc., or the boys' high school record holders in the pole vault, the long jump, etc. (This is not an invitation for someone to make a WP:POINT by creating those articles now -- I'm talking about whether such articles already exist.) And if she doesn't qualify for an article under WP:BIO as an athlete, there should be less urgency to demand an article about her as an unwilling Internet semi-celebrity (whom I had never heard of before this deletion review). --Metropolitan90 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, if we're going to be going by her words, let's think about this quote for a moment: "I worked so hard for pole vaulting and all this other stuff, and it's almost like that doesn't matter. Nobody sees that. Nobody really sees me."[2] Now which is going to help more here, presenting a neutral and balanced article about an accomplished pole vaulter who also became an internet phenomenon, or sweeping it under the rug and letting the lewd blogs hold the top google slots? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Neither. What is going to help more is recording the fact that this athlete holds a U.S. record for her class in her sport at United States records in track and field, so that when people put this name into Google Web that is the page that comes up. I reiterate an important principle: Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biographical article. If you want to think about that quotation, think about the part where she says that it is "almost like that doesn't matter" and with that in mind consider how the pole vaulting achievement apparently matters so little to all of the Wikipedia editors employing it as their argument that they haven't actually added it to the article that is there to document such things. Uncle G 16:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • To be fair, that article doesn't cover any women and has zero incoming links. That doesn't mean wikipedia places no value on women athletes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a straw man. What I actually suggested that you think about was the fact that a few Wikipedia editors employ the significance of the pole vaulting achievements as an argument, yet their contributions histories show no edits at all to United States records in track and field, to actually write about these achievements in the article that is there for them to be written about. As the subject's quote above said, it is "almost like that doesn't matter". Uncle G 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• See this [3] relevant story. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• I've created a biographical stub of another notable athlete at Tori Anthony, in case anyone's interested in pointing out what issues apply there. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's called making a wp:point. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you clarify how this is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? That's a very serious charge. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No it isn't. A WP:POINT would be someone creating that article and not believing it belonged on Wikipedia. Night Gyr clearly believes it does. Haukur 19:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• A little perspective from a journalist, Randy Schultz: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2007/06/03/a1e_schultzcol_0603.html --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  Can you explain why you think this article provides perspective but a Wikipedia article giving the same information would partake in a "culture of prurience and cyberstalking"? Haukur 20:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  Yes. There is no need for an article on that person right now and we don't write editorials. --Tony Sidaway 20:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  That didn't answer the question. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  Certainly does. Only reason deletion is regarded as controversial at all is because of prurient interest. --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  No, it really doesn't, and your second statement is wrong - while prurient interest is certainly a factor, that's not why this is controversial. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  Tony, no one's voiced any reason why the article I posted ought to be deleted. you think maybe you're just overreacting the opposite direction? "I don't like her getting this kind of fame, so she must not be notable at all!" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, I think the only reason this article was deleted was the 'prurient interest'. The way, the truth, and the light 22:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  Look at the deleted revisions, and the deletion log. This article was created in late May by Lampman to document the prurience. An earlier version of the article, basically a nonsense article, was apparently deleted in late April at request of the author. --Tony Sidaway 22:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  Created "to document the prurience", perhaps. But I still don't understand why you applaud that when it happens in that article you linked to but decry it when it happens in a Wikipedia article. Mind you, I don't support our article in the state it was when it got deleted - at least the links to that blog and YouTube video should go if it gets resuscitated. Haukur 22:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  Good articles are created for bad reasons all the time. There are numerous articles originally created with utter crap that have led me and other editors to consider it a mission to turn them around into quality stubs. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: If the AfD had been allowed to run its course, it would almost certainly, in my opinion (having read this DRV), have resulted in deletion without any of this spew coming out. I wonder if the Administrator who abused his power by speedy close/deleting out of process is satisfied with his work? Js farrar 01:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting read. I don't think that's the case at all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I say that due to the number of "overturn and relist" !votes. It is my personal belief that (a) the article should be deleted, but (b) the article should not have been speedy deleted out of process. Hence my !vote for "overturn and relist". Js farrar 14:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • You falsely assume the "relist" is because people want it deleted, when it's just as likely people aren't into disenfranchising other Wikipedians the way many administrators are. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Surely the rationale behind "relist" must be "delete this, but delete it the right way"? Js farrar 15:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Not necessarily. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• relist please she is a noted athlete holding many records we can document this at least yuckfoo 02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • She is not a noted athlete. She is one of many thousands of high school record holders around the world, none of the others of which have have an article. The one and only reason she ever had an article on Wikipedia in the first place was because she was a woman who was sexually harrassed by a bunch of bloggers. This does not mean that we should join in said harrassment. Rebecca 04:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We can document it quite satisfactorily in United States records in track and field. Uncle G 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Having finally gotten a chance to see the article while it was shortly undeleted (and being able to use Special:Export to save a complete copy), I can't see anything in this article that is causing her harm. Her short-term fame is the reason she's getting attention, and that's just 'cause she's a hottie. I don't think the article is effecting any of that at all. Deleting under BLP is stupid. Deleting it because she's not notable would be understandable (and I'd even support that). However, that is not a reason to just endorse deletion. As odd as it sounds, we need to show that this stuff needs to be taken to AFD, so we can help calibrate what is an appropriate BLP deletion and what is something to go to AFD, as it's getting out of control. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Seriously, what the hell? "...and that's just 'cause she's a hottie." I'm disgusted, if not surprised, that this is used as an excuse. This entire meme has been a disgusting case of sexual harrassment, and we should not be being complict in that. To that extent, it's an absolute textbook case of a BLP speedy deletion. Find another test case. Rebecca 05:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Rebecca, with all due respect, shut up. Took enough of this crap over irc without you flipping out here too. I'm really getting tired of your over-emotional-reactions, and playing the "she was a victim" card. If the information is encyclopedic, then we shouldn't remove it just because someone is getting unwanted attention for it. That's called being en encyclopedia. However, the article is painfully not notable, which is a reason to delete it. It's just not a speedy deletion, no matter how emotionally enraged you are. -- Ned Scott 05:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I apologies for getting heated there. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is disgusting. Get rid of the damn thing. If we made a page for every Internet meme, we'd just be another Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Hemlock Martinis 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's fine, and a lot of us agree with that, but it shouldn't be speedy deleted as BLP. -- Ned Scott 05:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding? BLP is the best god-damned reason that this article shouldn't exist. There's a whole lot of people here who seem content on whining to keep this High Schooler's article up, when you could be doing something useful, like writing on topics we know are notable. Like Economic warfare. Considering how "notable" that topic is, the article sucks. Instead of wasting our time about high schoolers whose claim to fame is a pretty face, let's write an encyclopedia. Sean William @ 05:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • • Not being notable and just being a stupid meme is the best reason this article shouldn't exist. Why? Lets say she liked the attention, and thought it was all great. We still should delete the article. BLP is being stretched to be some kind of moral code, which is not what it was supposed to be. It's too subjective, and too weak of a reason to speedy delete an article. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • It is that kind of article that the Biographies of living persons is for. Do no harm. All the rest is wikilawyering [4]. --Tony Sidaway 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Tony pretty much summed up what I meant, just with better form and prose. --Hemlock Martinis 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • The "harm" is too subjective for a speedy delete. BLP should be a reason in a deletion debate, but it's not something to speedy delete for. I do think there are some that are clear to be BLP speedies, but this isn't one of them. We're not talking about derogatory information, or something like that. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • And this isn't harm? This is Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. What we do is meant to be chronicled in perpetuity, and having a small article about a bunch of jocks lusting over an unsuspecting high school girl at their sports fansite is NOT encyclopedic. The news stories will dissipate, but this article is supposed to be there for the long haul. That's harm. --Hemlock Martinis 06:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
              • The fact that it might do harm can and should be a factor, but how much harm and in what way should play a factor in it being a speedy or an AFD. And even then "harm" might not be enough of a deletion reason (alone, that is). I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but it's something that should have gone to AFD. There is no reason that this deletion couldn't have waited for seven days for such a discussion to be completed, even if we decided to blank the article during that time. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Nothing like a blanket accusation of bad faith to cap things off, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, we should respect feelings of young woman victimized by a wanking blogger. MaxSem 07:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion A article about a young woman abused by unwanted publicity does not belong on Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 12:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Articles that meet our guidelines for notability and verifiability do belong on Wikipedia. This includes content you may find objectionable.Prolog 14:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted High school athletes are non-public figures; they are children participating in school activities. The horrible way that she has been treated on the internet will not continue on Wikipedia if I have any say about it. --FloNight 13:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • High school athletes with coverage on CBS, LA Times, Sydney Morning Herald, the front page of Washington Post, et cetera, are not non-public figures. By this "horrible way" you mean a neutral and verified encyclopedia article about her? Wikipedia contains content you may find objectionable. Prolog 14:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps FloNight means exactly that focus on writing an "article about her" — the concentration upon the person, by constructing a biography, rather than upon the athletics records, which can be written about in United States records in track and field. Uncle G 15:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - A lot of eDrama could've been saved by the simple recognition that a speedy delete was improper, given the sourcing and notibility of the subject. Tarc 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Looking at the history for Allison Stokke, my edits to that page no longer appear. My own User Contributions do not show them either. I do not believe this censorship/blanking is normal procedure. This has been reported in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Bete Noir 17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and list on AfD Did not meet speedy criterion since a claim of notability was made. The individual in question would likely have met WP:BIO even without the recent internet meme, so at minimum this needs to be relisted if it isn't an outright overturn and keep as is. JoshuaZ 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and list or keep Ye gads, 50 indepedent sources, national record holder? Why is this even an issue? If the meme is a BLP issue, keep it out of the article or severely redact it. Applying the BLP deletion sledgehammer to an actually notable person is taking it way too far. -N 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist This is the type of deletionism that makes Wikipedia a laughingstock. We are aggressively pushing a particular point of view when we consider that our judgment of notability is superior to that of news organizations like the Washington Post and the New York Times. -The Cunctator 20:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Any evidence that people are laughing at us for deleting this? Or was that just a rhetorical flourish?--Doc^g 20:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"Regarding the article talk page" Note, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Allison Stokke was opened and closed as Keep due to this DRV being in progress. If this DRV decides to remove the article, that closure is without prejudice for a deletion of the talk page decided during THIS debate. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Why would it even effect the talk page? We don't delete talk pages of deleted articles that contain deletion discussion. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh wait, the name, nevermind, I can see why. *smacks forehead* -- Ned Scott 18:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Wikipedia feature, deleted without ample discussion; has widespread audience, deleted on account of "not following GDFL" due to lack of attribution, but no work at all goes into remedying this attribution problem. I feel BJAODN can be restored and rehabilitated. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted unless we have a group of editors willing to go through and make sure that everything under those 60+ subpages are all attributed appropriatly, which I am in favor of if you actually want to keep it. But I'm sure the majority of editors of this encyclopedia have better things to do than waste our time with this page. — Moe ε 22:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Even a minority of editors is still plenty - this is a large-editorship encyclopedia. Besides, why should we be like all the other encyclopedias? This is Wikipedia. This is a new kind of encyclopedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Good God, this is a project to build a free-content encyclopedia, not manage the rejects! Focusing efforts on a group of pages that ran directly counter to that end (violation of the license so not properly 'free' content, not encyclopedic) is asinine. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Then permit Uncyclopedia to have the pages in question so that they can unravel the pages and credits in question, AT THE VERY LEAST. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    Um, who are you talking to? Last I checked Mackensen was not the author of the BJAODN content. Picaroon (Talk) 22:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    • I am talking to the Wikipedia editorate in general. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

      Comments from this user indicate a distinct lack of understanding of the GFDL... for instance, Uncyclopedia cannot have it because, of course, they are CC, not GFDL. Among other things. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

      • Wrong. Uncyclopedia can practice GDFL if necessary. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

        • I don't think it's that easy to just halt a project and let it lead another route like that. — Moe ε 23:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • So? Difficult things have been done before. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of idiocy which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Especially not a copyright-violating collection of idiocy which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Picaroon (Talk) 22:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Valid under CSD G12, never mind the BLP problems given some of the unnaceptable personal attacks on living people those subpages included. The content of those pages was not attributed to the contributors who made the posts and therefore not compatible with GFDL. Pooring time and efforts into sourcing those edits would be a momental waste of time and energy - I thought we were trying to build an encyclopedia not a collection of bad "jokes". WjBscribe 22:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It would NOT be a waste of time, especially if outsourced to Uncyclopedia. For years BJAODN was an outlet for people who didn't want to contend with just making boring edits. Some of us are trying to build an encyclopedia and a collection of bad jokes. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Wrong, we are here to create a encyclopedia first and foremost and nothing goes above that priority, especially if you're here just for BJAODN. If you're here just to create jokes and not be serious at all you deserve to be blocked. — Moe ε 23:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I am NOT just here for BJAODN, OK? I like creating an encyclopedia as much as the next guy. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I never said you were, I was targeting a more broad audience. And it's not called censorship, it's called "enforcing copyright law". BTW, Don't panic, nothing is irreversible. — Moe ε 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Even copyright law allows one to keep copies for oneself for educational use under fair use, I think. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It boggles the mind why people are arguing in favor of breaking the GFDL for material which has no place in an encyclopedia in the first place. If you want to write nonsense, or archive nonsense, Uncyclopedia is thataway. Burntsauce 23:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The merit of archiving nonsense is debatable, but what's not is that it's a GFDL violation minefield. Krimpet (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn on the basis that there was no attempt to obtain consensus *BUT* I can see some of these pages getting heavily, heavily redacted and/or deleted once that consensus is established, and I would not at all oppose that. Alternative option - set up a committee to mine the clear non-violators from the pile (while keeping deleted), put those up in an Archive, and set up a new-gen BJAODN with clear rules and guidelines, and reversion of any additions that don't meet them. Minimum standard should be - does not fail BLP, diff included (of course this is difficult for genuinely deleted articles but a link to them should be acceptable with name of user(s)). I would be happy to volunteer for such a task if required, and I'm happy for those who disagree with me to scrutinise anything I think worth redeeming - many of which are *not* GFDL violations as they clearly and unambiguously linked to the diff and username, or version, which contained the information. Orderinchaos 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted this is one time I do endorse IAR on grounds of common sense. The main page is more than sufficient.DGG 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The closing sysop failed to point out that many of the violations of GDFL involved are reversible. I believe that WP:BJAODN is NOT a violation of GDFL in and of itself; the mere fact that a tradition started of violating GDFL was an innocent mishap and it grew into a custom. I will continue commenting, as I believe and consider it my right to do so. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I intend to re-open this debate as soon as possible, or start a new one along the same lines as before. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:The deleted pages were kosher under the transformative-works provision of fair use, and one's right to access the deleted pages is also kosher under fair use. The bad jokes and other deleted nonsense constitute humor and satire, not an attempt to tell the truth; moreover, the works were transformative in many areas, not merely derivative. They transformed the original works. 204.52.215.107 01:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

A7_Speedy Delete Captain cannibas75 21:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I still disagree. This is from the Wikipedia Notability Argument page:

• [edit] Valid content is deleted

The recent fundraising page says, "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that, indeed we are actively preventing that, if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance). Further, currently obscure, or seemingly obscure, subjects may garner more popular interest at a later date. In such a case, deleted articles will constitute a loss of valuable (and perhaps, in the transitory world of the internet, irreproducible) information.

• [edit] Obscure content isn't harmful

Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such.

I understand that you may find Stephen Durnan obscure, but I am arguing that there is some interest in him. There is an article on "Durnan" on Wikipedia and Stephen as well as many other Durnans are mentioned in it. Since I have a great amount of information on Stephen Durnan, being his relative, I wrote this article telling his story using verifiable information that I have such as Census reports, Marriage Certificate, and Death records, as well as the Oral History that I have great knowledge of being his distant relative. I make clear distinctions between what is verifiable, those things that can be assured due to evididence, and the oral history. This man would be only a minor footnote if he had only one or two children, but this man had at least thirteen children and his grandson had 19 children and the Durnan family is large enough that a circus tent is involved in family reunions. A search of Genealogy sites shows tremendous interest in Stephen Durnan as there are a great many decendants. I could have wrote about one of his sons, but there isn't as much interest in his son as much more history of the son is known as opposed to Stephen. Stephen appears out of nowhere in the family lineage and for that reason, there has been a great deal of interest in his life by his numerous decendants. Therefore, I am asking you to reconsider as the information contained here is verifiable, as I am his direct decendant, and while his notability may be limited, it is by no means a worthless subject. I also affirm that there is no conflict of interest as I was careful to write the article in a neutral manner and with the hopes that those who search the Durnan surname, can link to Stephen and read more of the story since so many Durnans are direct decendants. If there is enough notability in the Surname, I argue that there is enough notability in the man that is responsible for much of that surname in the United States as well as Canada today. One of Stephen's decendants is Bill Durnan, famous hockey Goal Tender but that is already listed on the Durnan surname page. Thank you. -Eric E. Durnan

• I provide the verifability in that I am a direct decendant. You cannot say that Wikipedia does not contain ancestry information. While Stephen Durnan is no General Lee, this is found at General Lee's page:

Ancestry

Robert was the son of Maj. Gen. Henry Lee III "Light Horse Harry" (1756-1818), Governor of Virginia, and second wife, Anne Hill Carter (1773-1829). Henry married first, Matilda Lee (1766-1790), daughter of Hon. Philip Ludwell Lee, Sr., Esq. (1727-1775) and Elizabeth Steptoe (1743-1789), who married secondly, Philip Richard Fendall I, Esq. (1734-1805).

Anne was the daughter of Hon. Charles Carter, Sr. (1737-1802) of "Shirley", and his second wife, Anne Butler Moore (1756).

Henry III, was the son of Maj. Gen. Henry Lee II (1730-1787) of “Leesylvania” and, Lucy Grymes (1734-1792) the "Lowland Beauty".

Lucy was the daughter of Hon. Charles Grymes (1693-1743) and Frances Jennings.

Henry II, was the third son of Capt. Henry Lee I (1691-1747) of “Lee Hall”, Westmoreland County, and his wife, Mary Bland (1704-1764).

Mary was the daughter of Hon. Richard Bland, Sr. (1665-1720) and his second wife, Elizabeth Randolph (1685-1719).

Henry I, was the son of Col. Richard Lee II, Esq., “the scholar” (1647-1715) and Laetitia Corbin (ca. 1657-1706).

Laetitia was the daughter of Richard’s neighbor and, Councillor, Hon. Henry Corbin, Sr. (1629-1676) and Alice (Eltonhead) Burnham (ca. 1627-1684).

Richard II, was the son of Col. Richard Lee I, Esq., "the immigrant" (1618-1664) and Anne Constable (ca. 1621-1666).

Anne was the daughter of Thomas Constable and a ward of Sir John Thoroughgood.

• May I kindly assert the above arguments again that while Stephen Durnan is no Jesus, or General Lee, he is an object of limited notability in the fact that there is a "Durnan" article on this very site that mentions him. I did not create that page/article. I merely attempted to create a page from that page that would contain a link to Stephen for those that wished to learn more about the family and those with that surname. Stephen Durnan may be obscure to many, but the above-quoted argument that I found suggests that obscure is not harmful and I assure that the content is valid. What harm will be done in adding this to the encyclopedia? The fact that Stephen is mentioned in the Durnan article and his name is raised on many web sites dealing with the Durnan surname, tells me that there is some, albeit limited notability. As the argument states, if there is so little interest in Stephen Durnan, then you will not be expending any bandwidth and no one will search for it anyway. I do not believe this to be the case as the article for "Durnan" receives visitors and I believe that the site for Stephen will too. Can this article be put back up and tagged for discussion? May 28, 2007 21:03 CDT

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory of genealogical entries. —Centrx→talk • 14:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Senordingdong 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Not notable at this point The information provided was a listing of basic facts about his life and the names of his children, and a unsourced account of his adventures of a farmer, of which the most notable event seems to have been getting a hernia at a barn rising. Somewhat more than this is needed, as we've been consistently deleting local worthies unless there's some actual notability from somethings, and sources to prove it. I don't think the article asserts any reasonable notability, and a speedy was probably appropriate. I will be glad to email the content to the author, --e mail me from my user page so I know the email address, but I do not think that any further work on this is likely to make an acceptable article. DGG 23:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

He has the material since after putting it up for review, he went ahead and recreated it word-for-word at Stephen durnan. IrishGuy ^talk 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, for the record. Totally unsourced article; claims of editor to personal knowledge are not reliable sources for an encyclopedia. No prejudice exists against a reliably-sourced rewrite. Xoloz 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Srikeit 16:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The article is marginally more coherent than the request, but in the end, as it says, "Very little is actually known about Stephen Durnan". Yup. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, while the article was quite long, I don't see a single assertion of notability. Valid A7. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• That fundraiser page is for the Wikimedia Foundation. The sum of all human knowledge doesn't necessarily have to be all in Wikipedia. Dictionary stuff is knowledge too, but it belongs in Wiktionary. Source documents belong in WikiSource and so on. Geaneology info of non-famous people (or people who aren't known outside their specific field of expertise) belongs at some Wikia project. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As pointed out here on the admin board, the following users are all sockpuppets of the same person and have been blocked: Newport, Poetlister, R613vlu, Brownlee, Londoneye, Taxwoman, Simul8, Osidge, Holdenhurst and Runcorn. These ten users were in the habit of supporting each other's comments in deletion debates. As such, I request that the following debates be overturned, because the present outcome is obviously the result of sockpuppet vote stacking. Note that in all cases the closing admin was unaware of this.

Overturn and delete:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_24#Category:Jewish_United_States_Supreme_Court_justices

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_12#Category:Jewish_businesspeople

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_10#Category:Maimonides

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_10#Category:Jewish_scientists

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional portrayals of psychopaths

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinnernet

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_4#Category:Jewish_fencers

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsa Zsa Riordan (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_27#Category:Actors_by_religion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Garron

Overturn and rename:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_20#Category:United_States_National_Guard_officers

Overturn and undelete:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_22#Category:Jewish_Christians

The POV should be obvious. Note that this is not a list of every deletion debate he's participated in, just the ones that would have had a meaningfully different outcome had he not. I have no objection to splitting this debate if some arguments apply to one article/category but not to the others. >Radiant< 14:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The most recent one of these was a month ago. Wouldn't it be a better idea to simply renominate the ones you still feel should be deleted? For the record, the psychopaths AfD was already endorsed here (I don't know if there was sockpuppetry involved here, but still), and I wouldn't dare touch London N1. I really think these should simply be nominated on their own. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I have to agree that the most useful procedure would probably be simply to renominate anything that you believe should be deleted. Of course in the nomination you would point out that the prior debate was affected by the sockpuppetry and therefore shouldn't be considered valid. However, I would support relisting anything that was deleted potentially as a result of duplicate !voting. Newyorkbrad 15:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Yes, renominate these deletion discussions. Better to err on the side of caution.--Alabamaboy 15:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support for any where his votes actually changed the results. After that, if anyone wants to re-open discussion on one or more of these, let them do it according to the regular rules. Od Mishehu 16:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Support but only for where it made a difference. There's a list here for any CfD/AfD that may have been overlooked: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/May 2007#Vote and Consensus Frauds. Actually there's a disclaimer there that those are just the most recent. There's probably more from earlier but I'm not sure anyone really wants to have to redo everything. Bulldog123 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Garron — Lack of contribution by the sock-puppet would not have changed the no consensus outcome, since the significant argument was presented by another person.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinnernet — Lack of contribution by sock-puppets would still have left several editors with differing opinions.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional portrayals of psychopaths — This is another discussion where knowledge of the sock-puppetry reveals a clear thread of conversation in the lower half of the discussion. However, lack of contribution by sockpuppets (which includes one additional sock-puppet who was not ballot-stuffing, incidentally) would not have influenced my contribution to the discussion. ☺ And there was significant discussion amongst non-sockpuppet editors.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1 — Another thread of conversation becomes apparent, once one knows that there's a single person there. However, article merger does not involve AFD, and the fallout from Runcorn's sock-puppetry is already being addressed for these cases at Talk:London postal district.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsa Zsa Riordan (2nd nomination) — Once one knows that there is one person behind the accounts editing in the lower half of the discussion, a clear thread of conversation becomes clear. This is also evident from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsa Zsa Riordan. These discussions were clearly influenced by the deception. This is the only discussion where renominating, checking for sources first of course, would appear to be appropriate.
• What is of more concern is any AFD discussions that Runcorn closed where xyr sock-puppets were involved in the discussion. Uncle G 16:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The second Wipipedia AFD was a bad example of that... but that has luckily already been addressed. A list of all AFDs he closed should be looked into... --W.marsh 16:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• I have listed one of these articles for a new afd here. I suspect most of this stuff will have to be relisted separately... --W.marsh 16:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse this, or maybe relisting in the case of the overturn -> deletes. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• I don't have a very strong opinion here, but I would think about just relisting all of these. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• For the ones where you know what the result will be, there's not much point in re-listing, but there wouldn't be any harm in it, under the circumstances. This is a good reason to remember that the strength of the arguments and the quality of the article are more important than the number of people saying it should be kept or deleted. — CharlotteWebb 20:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you think that any of the AFDs apart from Zsa Zsa Riordan would have come to a different result if the same discussion had been had without the sock-puppet contributions? I think that they would have all come to the same result, for the very good reason that you touch upon: The actual substantial arguments were being made by other editors, and weren't swayed by the sock-puppets, so discounting the sock-puppet contributions doesn't really affect the discussion. I definitely think that we should not run Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1 again, for the simple reason that editors appear to be already resolving it without deletion on Talk:London postal district. Let's not disrupt that. Uncle G 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist all. It would be quite difficult to discern a proper consensus from any of these debates considering his/her extensive sway over them. It would be best to give them a fair debate this time. Krimpet (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist separately and of course find any others. The articles are not identical, & the preesence of the sockpuppets so screwed up the debates that I wouldn't attempt to rejudge them hastily in one lump like this. (Knowing this does clarify some earlier unexpected decisions) DGG 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist all in order to determine an untainted consensus. Durova^Charge! 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist most of them. The categories all had a decent amount of non-sock support, so I'm not sure if a deletion would've been achieved even discounting them. Relist all cats. Fictional portrayals of psychopaths certainly saw the balance tipped by the socks, though the one major keep opinion was given by a non-sock. Relist Fictional portrayals of psychopaths. Taylor Garron had incredibly low participation, and only one of the sock army posted there; it probably should have been relisted rather than closed as no consensus. Relist Taylor Garron. Kinnernet had a good amount of non-sock support, and may have been a no consensus without them. Relist Kinnernet just to be safe. London N1 is under discussion at Talk:London postal district, so I don't think action is needed right now. Finally, Zsa Zsa Riordan is going through AfD now, and that can probably be allowed to run its course. WarpstarRider 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

All categories on here or all categories they've ever participated in where there could have been a difference? Some of it goes back a long time; more than a year. I'm not opposed to the idea but it would relist a LOT more cats and some more articles. Does anyone want them added to this list? Bulldog123 02:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was just referring to the ones listed at the top of this section. I'm sure there have been a lot more XfDs that were influenced by this group; I guess you could bring them here as well. WarpstarRider 03:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Relist any discussion in which there's a reasonable possibility that the sock voting influenced the outcome, including all of these, so that a real consensus may be reached. Any relists should specifically note that the previous outcome was influenced by sockpuppetry and should be considered invalid. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relist all that were closed as "no consensus" and any others where there's any reasonable possibility that the socks influenced the outcome. I think consensus is something that's always worth shooting for, and untainted debate is more likely to lead us to a real consensus even in those cases where the influence of the socks may not have been the deciding factor. Xtifr _tälk 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Here are a few others we should consider relisting:
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 16#Category:Jewish musicians
    • Six sock !votes and lots of comments. Many of the "keeps" are also conditional so I believe a consensus for either side may have been reached otherwise.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Peruvian Jews
    • Six sock !votes. What's shocking is this list was actually deleted DESPITE the many sock !votes, but then it was overturned at Deletion Review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February#20 February 2007#List of Peruvian Jews) almost exclusively by the socks.
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2006 September 10#Category:Jewish sportspeople
    • About three or four sock !votes, ending in no consensus. I'm not sure about relisting this. It's a maybe, but I feel the others are warranted.
  • There also was a major skew of opinion on the Category:Actors by religion CfD long ago, but it seems most of the subcats were already deleted, including the parent cat, so there is no point in relisting. Bulldog123 19:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Peruvian Jews the substantial arguments are made by other editors, and the sock-puppets are mainly echoing those arguments. Ignoring the sock-puppet contributions leads to the same result when making the decision based upon the actual arguments rather than upon a head count. Similarly, the no consensus decision for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2006 September 10#Category:Jewish sportspeople would still have been no consensus if none of the sock-puppets had contributed. Uncle G 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: any no-consensus closes more than a month or two old, and any keeps more than four or five months old can probably be relisted without review. Any deletions engineered by this Master of Puppets should probably be brought for review no matter how old, though. Xtifr _tälk 02:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists requires review here, as does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (2nd nomination). Discounting the sockpuppets leaves very few actual arguments that have been elaborated in detail. Uncle G 07:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Those that would have probably been deleted under WP:SNOW had sockpuppets not voted. Relist the rest. Whsitchy 14:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• There are several editors above who have said "Relist all discussions which, upon review, turn out to have property X.". A point that they seem to be missing is that this is Deletion Review. If they don't actually review the discussions, to see which ones have property X in the first place, saying that all discussions with property X should be re-listed is not really much help. Everyone polices Wikipedia. It's everyone's responsibility to review the discussions. I've been labouriously going through the project-namespace contributions of several of the sock-puppet accounts and reviewing the various deletion discussions, and my opinions so far are as above.

  (summary: Most of the discussions wouldn't have had their outcomes affected, for the simple reason that the substantial arguments were put forth by other editors, and would have led to the same decisions on the merits of the arguments even with the sock-puppet contributions, many of which lacked actual arguments of their own and simply parroted the arguments of others, ignored. Of those that wouldn't, one doesn't need dealing with via deletion and is already being discussed on an article talk page, one has already been nominated for deletion, and the two remaining are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (2nd nomination).)

  The way to help this process is for other editors to do the same. (Kudos to those editors who have.) Remember the principle underlying {{sofixit}}: This is a volunteer project; other people aren't necessarily going to do the work for you. If you don't review the discussions, they won't necessarily get reviewed. Uncle G 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I would like to respectfully disagree that the outcome of these cases should be determined by simply ignoring what the socks had to say and evaluating whatever is left. That underestimates the influence the socks may have had on these debates. A lengthy, heated debate can actually discourage people from participating (I know it does to me, though I'm starting to get over it). So, the piling on of the socks may actually have scared away people with good arguments to offer. Anyway, consensus is good, so I see no harm whatsoever in relisting each and every no-consensus that was trampled by the sock hordes. You did raise some good counterarguments for a couple of them, but I would still prefer to err on the side of caution, and relist all the no-consensus ones. Don't overturn them. Don't assume they were ok just because the taint isn't obvious. Just relist them. Xtifr _tälk 14:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

NWA Hawaii (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Apparently this was speedy deleted, though the talk page remains at Talk:NWA_Hawaii without any note of speedy deletion. While this page may deserve deletion, I do not think it is/was a candidate for speed deletion and that AfD is the proper approach. Antonrojo 13:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Question: Have you requested reconsideration by the deleting administrator? Newyorkbrad 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I was not aware, until now, that I could find that out through Special:Logs. The page had been deleted and restored previously, and the current note states there are very few ghits, when I am finding over 2,500 so I'll ask for more detail on the reason for deletion. Antonrojo 16:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Per my deletion summary: Spammy, written by the subject, edit war between subject and detractor, lack of independent sources, fewer than 150 unique Google hits and not a lot in there to work from in neutralising. WP:CSD G11 and A7. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Written by subject? What evidence do you have of that? It's not ideal, but there is one independant source mentioned. If there's an edit war the people in it should be blocked. Never take sides (deleting takes the side of the detractor). The number of Google hits is immaterial, it's the reliability and the quality of the content that is important. The thing is officially sanctioned by the National Wrestling Alliance. At least redirect it to the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• An email to OTRS from the subject complaining that other people were changing his article. Note that the editor has no significant contributions outside this subject, virtually all contribs to the subject were by this editor or by the external parties with whom he is clearly in some dispute. There are fewer than 150 unique Googles to look through and note that "NWA Hawaii" gets 2640 hits (including non-unique) whereas adding -Wikipedia takes that down to 1710, so it looks like we'r ebeing used to promote something. Hence my strong preference for waiting until an independent party decides to write this rather than a conflicted editor. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Flags of Nepal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Procedural nomination by closing admin, following discussion on my talk page with a dissatisfied participant in the May 20 CfD. My reading of the debate is so completely different from that of the objector that I think a review would be helpful to both us. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - The consensus for keeping the category was clear and unambiguous; 2/3 of the people voted to keep the category. jbmurray, who is disputing the decision by the administrator, seems to be unhappy that none of the participants in the discussion specifically cited WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth whereas BrownHairedGirl cited this guideline when closing this discussion. In that case, may I clearly state that when I wrote my comments to keep the category, I was referring to the criteria at WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. Dr. Submillimeter 12:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• The closing looks reasonable to me. However, at some point in the future I would suggest a group nomination of this and similar categories, because such countries only has a single flag and is unlikely to have more than that any time soon. There is something to be said for the scheme, but there's also something to be said for not using cats that can only contain a single article. Endorse now, relist at some point in the future when people who care more about this issue than I do feel this is appropriate. >Radiant< 12:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just on this point, that it would have been better to suggest a group nomination... and beyond the fact that I raised this suggestion in the debate over what wasn't in the end my proposal. I've received this response before, but especially as someone relatively new to these Category deletion discussions I'm reluctant directly to propose mass deletions. See for instance my comments also at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Categories_for_people_comment.2Fquestions. Again, there may be some consensus behind your response, Radiant, (in which case again I'd be happy to be pointed to the relevant discussion) but it seems to make equal sense to try a test case before proposing mass deletions. I.e., in this case, discuss the case of Category:Flags of Nepal on its merits, and should consensus be reached there then apply similar logic to other categories in the parent category. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it certainly does make sense to do a test case before a mass nomination. However, sometimes people will object to the test case merely because it isn't a mass nom (which tends to be spurious with respect to articles, but not wrt categories). That's basically what happened here ("keep as part of the overall scheme"). In such cases one may want to proceed to the mass nom at some point. >Radiant< 13:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Let me adapt some of what I said at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl: I'm surprised by the closure of the above category, not least because in the closer's summing up introduced a whole new argument, for which no consensus had been sought or found within the discussion itself. Moreover, the argument is hardly "clear": I'd say it was clearer that when Wikipedia:Categorization, for instance, talks of "large" categories, it means categories with over 200 members, such as for instance Category:Songs by artist.

Dr. Submillimeter now says that he/she had this argument in mind when commenting in the debate. I'm all the more disappointed that there was therefore no response to my specific request for the precedent as to the notion that "putting the articles 'below the line', where [they are] likely to be missed" would "disturb" the "the Category:Flags by country category tree." Had the reference been made at the time, when I asked to be pointed towards some precedent, then there might have been some discussion as to how applicable this guideline may be to the debate.

I should say that I recognize that there was a 6:3 supermajority, though I had understood, contrary to Dr. Submillimeter, that these discussions were attempts to reach consensus rather than votes.

Indeed, the context of my disappointment is less the NPOV summing up, or even whether or not Category:Flags of Nepal lives or dies, but with problems both with the Wikipedia category system (mentioned in the discussion) and the fact that there is such a marked reluctance to engage in discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion (for which I could provide many further examples). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Jbmurray, first point: it would be nice if you could assume that I acted in good faith. As the per discussion on my talk page, I don't recognise this repeated suggestion that I "introduced a whole new argument", although I would not rule out doing so if there was a clear wider policy breach at issue (as an extreme example, if all the votes were to keep a Category:Lying evil politicians who eat babies and conspire with Satan to destroy human civilisation, I'd still close the CfD with a "speedy delete" as an attack category). That's part of what jbmurray missed: that a closing admin's job is to weigh the arguments and not just count votes. In this case, the arguments made by the keep voters agree with a current guideline, and there was no significant support for any other position based on guidelines.

The one change I might make I was closing the CfD again would be to note that a group nomination for the parent category and its sub-categories was option, but there seemed to be very support for the proposition that these categories were inherently a bad idea, so I could have been legitimately criticised for following that route. In this case, I do wonder if there might have been less complaint I had made a one-word closure; I hope not, but it would be a pity if closing admins were to feel that closing a CfD with some sort of an explanation was only going to raise the chance of accusations of bias :(

However, the conclusions I draw from this are a little wider:

1. That it is very advisable for participants in a CfD to cite the policy or guideline on which they base their !votes, so that that the discussion is comprehensible to those not versed in CfD minutiae.
2. That an explanation of a closure can help (and where a CfD is not overwhelmingly clear in its outcome, I try to close with more than a single-word "keep" or delete"), but that it cannot explain every aspect of CfD policy and practice. In this case, I think that Jbmurray appears to be at a bit of a disadvantage in not being familiar with all the relevant guidance, and I wonder whether we have sufficiently clear explanations of the CfD process?
3. That people new to CfD may find it a rather bewildering process. To some extent hat's inevitable due to the huge number of guidelines and conventions involved, but I hope that we can all remember that CfD should not be seem to develop too much of a cliquey jargon which could make the rest of community feel excluded from the process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply Thanks for this, BHG. Let me first clarify that I have at no point meant to suggest that you acted in anything other than good faith. If you have received that impression, I apologize. I disagree with the way in which you closed the debate, but I hope I can express that disagreement without suggesting any deliberate malfeasance.

Second, I agree with your conclusions (above, in this discussion) on the whole. I was indeed glad (as I said on your talk page) that you pointed me to WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. I am sure I had read that page, but I had not made the connection during the debate to that clause. I wish that the connection had been made during the debate. I think that would have helped the discussion and the search for consensus. Again, I disagree with your reading of that clause (and therefore the reading that Dr. Submillimeter claims to have implicitly followed), but think that precisely for that reason it should be up for discussion. It seems to me it refers to categories with over 200 subcategories. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, and perhaps it could be clarified further. I am genuinely seeking out (as I hope should be obvious) the reasoning and rationale and precedents behind categorization policy and decisions. Hence I explicitly asked for such precedent during the debate. I admit that I sometimes get frustrated when it seems to me that the answers to these questions are taken for granted and not worth providing. And again, I'm sorry if that makes it sound as though I am not assuming good faith. But once more, often I find in these CFD discussions either that there is little attempt to reach consensus, or that there is little done to point to previous consensus. That may indeed just be an unfortunate impression. But it's why I followed up on this particular closure. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment OK, meanwhile I've tried to spark some discussion on one of the issues that emerges from this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Question_about_Small_with_no_potential_for_growth. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Very little discussion has ensued. I've changed the guideline accordingly, until such time as there's some interest in addressing the question. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure - and for the record, my reference to the category scheme in my !vote was an implicit reference to WP:OCAT as well; I will endeavour in any future similar nomination to mention it more explicitly. Otto4711 16:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as reasonable, though not necessarily what I would have  !voted.DGG 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• The only thing I can see with that category, as a vexillologist, is probably two or three articles going into that category; the flag of Nepal, maybe the royal standard and of listing of all Nepali flags in a list. While I do admit this is too small of an article and should be combined with something else, 2/3rds of the people who went there disagree with me, so I endorse the CFD. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Wjhonson/Shawn_Hornbeck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

page speedied without any valid speedy reason Wjhonson 01:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. Per deleting admins's summary: Someone seems to be making a WP:POINT. If that article is deleted and endorsed then this is inflammatory, if it is not, it is unnecessary. Attempted end-runs around policy and process should be discouraged. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Please be so good as to explain in detail how the contents of that page were any sort of end-run around any policy or process. Perhaps you're not familiar with exactly what the page said. Wjhonson 02:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Policy and process were not followed in any of the proposal, the discussion, or the deletion. This is part of the problem. The admins probably do not understand and certainly do not follow the policies which they quote and link to at every possible opportunity. Smackyuk 02:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Mispost Meant for the Daimonin review below which has been censored. 84.43.30.186 12:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, whether or not it's an end-run around process (which, given the contentious DRV on the subject, it very well might be), this was a GFDL violation since no attempt was made to preserve the history, and the nominator did not even make very many edits to the article when it was in the article space. Valid G12 deletion. --Coredesat 04:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Another vote from someone who did not actually read the page that was actually there, but only thinks they know what it said. Can we not have a coutesy undeletion of the last version so we can all see what it actually said? Wjhonson 04:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm an admin, and I saw what was there. I'm not sure if this can be undeleted for the review given that there are copyright issues involved, and you apparently revert-warred with a user over a {{db-copyvio}} tag on the page. --Coredesat 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - G12 is not a reason. If need be, the relevant non-offending history from the old article can be restored and userfied. We userfy deleted pages all the time on demand. Personally, though, I really don't like single-incident biographies. If this article is going to exist, it would be much better to title it by the incident like "search for Shawn Hornbeck" or something and redirect the name to it. --BigDT 05:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• This is yet another tired attempt to challenge the operation of the biographies of living persons policy. The deletion was of course unimpeachable. --Tony Sidaway 06:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The deleted article was not a biography. The deleted article consisted of one single sentence. I'm surprised that some of you would comment without even looking at what was there JUST RECENTLY. This has nothing at all to do with what was there two, three or twelve edits ago. ONLY with what was there, last. So at least check before you comment. Wjhonson 06:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. All the deleted version of the page said was "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Shawn Hornbeck"." However, the BLP-violating previous version of the page was still in the history. I think this is best left gone. Neil (►) 09:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• I can't see any obvious purpose for this page other than preparation for an end-run around deletion policy. Wjohnson created the article with a single sentence and a link to the deleted WP page, his post to my talk page leads me to believe that tis was done solely to avoid a G12 speedy as a GFDL violation should the deleted content be pasted in. Without the deleted content it is pointless, with it it is WP:POINT. The idea that we should have to follow yet another set of process, rehashing the same arguments between the same people in yet another venue, is just silly. There are ways and means of pursuing this dispute, this is not one of them - the phrase "get a clue" springs to mind, actually. If Wjohnson is genuinely convinced that there is an encyclopaedic subject here, he needs to work with those members of the community who have raised valid concerns with the presentation of it as a biography, rather than appearing to want to end-run round those concerns and take the dispute to yet another venue. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss valid reasons, you need to have some first. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion In the case of BLP, once it has been decided, then it makes sense not to permit the material on a user page, or the whole procedure is a little meaningless. I am somewhat influenced by the fact that I consider this one, as entered under the name of the young victim and in such detail, as the clearest example of true cause for BLP deletion we've seen this week.DGG 23:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comments The above comments are quite silly. The page was solely there as an EXAMPLE of how you might tag a page for Verbatim copying under the GFDL. Period. That's it. Nothing more. The page itself had no such copying, it was an example of the TAG. Get it? That's it. All the rest of this is just self-mutilation by those who think the purpose was some sort of end-run which it wasn't. The page had no biographical content. The knee-jerk reactions are really juvenile, don't you think? Wjhonson 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Of course you did. and this version was just a test to see what an end-run round deletion policy would look like if someone chose to do it, right? And you just randomly chose a particularly controversial article rather than an uncontroversial one, what bad luck. How silly of us to think otherwise. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've undeleted the page so everyone can see what it actually says. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: I'm afraid that this is a fairly obvious attempt to hide a recreation in the history of a page. A clever attempt to evade policy, perhaps, but not something we should encourage. If the user really just wants to make an example of a tag, he can do so under another page name and without inappropriate history (which can be linked to even from external sites). Xtifr _tälk 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

notaility not established, no independent reliable sources Smackyuk 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• WTH was this about? What possible definition of consensus are you using? Half of your own admins had severe reservations about deleting this page. The last admin to post also backtracked on the issue of notability and went for verifiability instead. Now it is deleted (by yet another admin) back on notability. !?!

One thing this 'discussion' has made abundantly clear is the admins notable, to use a much-favoured phrase, lack of understanding of Wikipedia's own guidelines and policies. Just look at the [discussion] for examples of admins bumbling about misunderstanding and misapplying these. 'Final decision based on the merits of the arguments' -- what a joke! The final decision was not even based on the final argument of an admin, noone responded to MT's last comment in more than 24 hours, and the throughout the 'discussion' admins and editors alike had widely differing view -- there was no consensus.

Another point. It is clear that there is a systemic lack of understanding of the realities of OS software development and free software in general within Wikipedia. Perhaps you should consult some kind of encyclopaedia and learn about the concept rather than trying to delete what you don't understand? Do you really think the figures from sourceforge et al are unreliable? Do you really think gamespot and the like are more reliable sources for an encyclopaedia?

To put it in simple terms: perhaps admins should read and learn (and possibly even understand) more, and judge and delete less?

Wikipedia is destroying itself because of its own arrogance and self-obsession. Smackyuk 00:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely shocking. Deleted as if a consensus was reached, and the discussion was completed? Not at all. The admins couldn't even reach a consensus, let alone a consesus of deletion. Encyclopedia? Wiki? Where. This is no encyclopedia.

The issues..'Notability' and 'Verifiability'. (The latter only being revealed around 36 hours ago, if that) Notability was, by the end of it, achieved. Verifiability was, by the end of it, achieved. So what's the problem? Some of these admins shouldn't even be dealing in deletion cases when they don't even understand the guidelines themselves. Faith in Wikipedia is virtually gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.112.95 (talk • contribs) 19:03 (UTC), 30 May 2007

• Endorse deletion. The issue brought up was a lack of independent reliable sources. There are still no independent reliable sources that anyone has provided. What's the dispute here? -Amarkov moo! 03:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I was one of the major advocates of deleting the article. Amidst all the hype of the discussion, multiple trivial sources, and more, I noted that there were two small sources, Lockergnome.com and About.com, which provided substantial reviews. I don't know if that's significant enough to meet WP:NOTE and WP:V, and haven't had time to make my own judgement about reliability of these sources. I was actually expecting at least the possibility of a relist or no consensus, even though the article itself hadn't been edited to reflect some of the site references in the AfD. Despite the vitriol above I'm not convinced the consensus was delete (though I'm also not interested in challenging the Admin's rationale in closing.) I've also posted my request to content review, to potentially userfy the article. LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh With Me / Logical Entries} 04:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per BLP concerns. Good call. Nandesuka 12:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close, I see nothing here worth reviewing given that no reliable sources have been presented. Nominator is basically bashing admins rather than trying to address any of the concerns. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. --Coredesat 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wayne Crookes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

A WP:BLP delete. I understand that this article is a sensitive one, but it seems to be a clearly notable subject. If WP:OFFICE action should be taken, so be it, but otherwise I'd like to see a process. Rjm656s 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence, actually. If memory serves it was stubbed after Crookes sued WP, Google, and one other site. He's probably notable, and the stub isn't hurting. Have you discussed with the deleting administrator? Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was created as an attack page and was sourced to a wiki, a blog, and some government statistics (original research). If it were re-created with the newspaper stories about the lawsuit, it would be a trivial news report. See also OTRS # 2006072110015911 and [5]. —Centrx→talk • 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• He may well be notable, but Centrx is certainly correct in that the article was created (and edited after that) as an attack page. On the other hand, could the article not simply be rewritten from scratch (so we can stop faffing about at DRV, just rewrite) citing proper reliable sources in a version that is compliant with BLP? This article does seem to have a history of BLP problems, but could not a valid article be written? Certainly several of the deleted revisions were pretty useless. Moreschi ^Talk 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is possible that a new non-inflammatory page about this person that is cited to some reliable newspaper articles could be created, but I think it unlikely that it would be anything more than a news report with undue weight. —Centrx→talk • 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see why this has to come to DR... just recreate the article with some sources. Voila, problem solved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • can't be recreated, deleting admin salted it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, sure enough. As that's the case, yes, Overturn. If we've got a chance to create a not shitty article, we should embrace it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Unsalting it is not the same as overturning the deletion and restoring the page with all its history. —Centrx→talk • 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yup, and some balance, as is required, so the article is not a coatrack. Moreschi ^Talk 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, article as deleted was not a valid G10, and at least unsalt so that it can be replaced with a neutral stub. This man has gotten a lot of press, we can't allow his legal threats to shut down the writing of a valid article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Legal threats are the context which warrant care, but I deleted it because it is not and could not be made into an encyclopedia article. Also, "lots of press" does not make for an encyclopedia article, usually the opposite. —Centrx→talk • 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore the stub version in the cache. At least allow a restore, Night Gyr nailed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Why not start from scratch at least, rather than restoring the attack pages in the history? —Centrx→talk • 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've recreated as a one-sentence stub and have unsalted, but in my opinion there's no good reason for the world and his wife to be able to see the history, which contained some pretty awful stuff. Moreschi ^Talk 18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• At this point I think we can just close this, the disliked revisions are deleted and there's a stub waiting to be improved. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Is this a joke? The article contains one sentence - "Wayne Crookes is a person", a stub tag, and a "not verified" tag. I don't have an opinion now on whether or not an article can/should exist, but in no way, shape, or form, is "Wayne Crooks is a person" acceptable content for an article. I'm inclined, unless someone wants to put something in there, to speedy it A7 (but leave it unsalted). Again, I don't care if an article on the topic exists, but we shouldn't mock the guy that sued us by having such silliness. --BigDT 18:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not being silly. Jimbo, no less, did just this once, creating a BLP stub that said "X is a person". You don't like it {{sofixit}}. The current version is neutral, accurate, and has the virtue of brevity. Moreschi ^Talk 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And it's being expanded, with sources, as I speak. Excellent. Now, can someone close this? Moreschi ^Talk 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close as moot - article has been recreated as a stub. From what I can see the history contains possible libels, and certainly violated WP:BLP. Rather than blow hot air here - go and create a good article from the stub--Doc^g 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

A properly referenced article that probably warrants existence but at the very least should go through AfD. Deleting administrator states "No assertion of notability, article in poor taste, BLP by spirit, if not letter" - if it is not by the letter of BLP then it should certainly not be deleted using that (given the conflicted opinions about BLP deletions). Notability must be assumed at least to a basic degree because of the references. violet/riga (t) 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by closing admin. BLP is about protecting the dignity of people. The fact that the child in question is dead does not remove the fundamental BLP issues - her family, including her brother mentioned by name in the article, still have every bit as much potential to be hurt by this article as she would be. BLP is our policy about being ethical citizens. This article has clear ethical issues - this is an ephemral case where we do not add meaningfully to the world and we substantively take away. It should remain deleted. Phil Sandifer 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted We are not a newspaper, nor a shrine to the dead, and murderers are not automatically encyclopedic. If it turned out that the killer was a former juvenile offender released with a new identity, that might deserve an article which would mention the victim. Otherwise, keep deleted. Thatcher131 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, cached version was not problematic, notability was asserted with sources, was not a news article as some assert, and, sadly, the subject was dead, so BLP isn't really a useful distinction here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • BLP is a policy about ethics. The ethical foundations of BLP apply very well here. Phil Sandifer 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • But it simply does not apply! You can't twist the meaning of the policy. violet/riga (t) 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You're seriously saying that we should ignore the ethical issues behind BLP because it doesn't fit the letter of the policy? The process wonks have found their final frontier. Taylorized ethics. God help us all. Phil Sandifer 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • BLP is a policy about covering one's legal behind. BLP is also about living people. 0/2. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm curious. Do you misunderstand BLP, ethics, or both? Phil Sandifer 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • None of the above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • As you would put it, 0/1. Phil Sandifer 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Hardly. You know nothing of my ethical positions, and you apparently think I can't read BLP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
              • "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominance comes a measure of responsibility. Wikipedia is, fundamentally, a project that aims to improve the world. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion, grace and understanding." Quick. Guess what policy page that's from? Phil Sandifer 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
                • BLP. Now, explain why that's relevant here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • BLP is not "a policy about covering one's legal behind." BLP is a policy which assures that our actions will be ethical. FCYTravis 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't buy into that propaganda for a second. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Ummm... propaganda? Phil Sandifer 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Yup. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I do not think that word means what you think it means. Phil Sandifer 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I for one am not prepared to act unethically, nor will I endorse a policy interpretation that encourages others to do so. Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree 100% with you on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Your actions indicate otherwise. Hell, it appears that you've argued elsewhere that WP has no ethical duties or guidelines it's required to follow, so this "agree 100%" doesn't seem to make the slightest bit of sense. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I think Calton nailed it. Elsewhere ([6]) you have posited that you act ethically as you know it. So either you're being inconsistent, or your ethics are not in tune with consensus as I believe it to exist, because the ethical thing to do is to remove this article, we are not a tabloid and we should not be causing harm to innocent victims and their families by long term notoriety of what is basically just a horrific murder. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Or, my ethics are simply as relevant as yours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Thousands of people are murdered every year. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - There was nothing which demonstrated encyclopedic interest. Scurrilous, unsourced and almost-certainly-false rumors about the relationship of this case to another one do not demonstrate that. FCYTravis 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- I'm questioning the, um, point of bringing every common sense deletion of someone's misguided attempt at an encyclopedia article about a non notable living person based on their being involved in some news story or other. Is this an exercise in seeing how many people will trot out to vote on these? If I had the impression that the users bringing these here actually wanted to collect biographical data on everyone mentioned in the news in the 21st century I would suggest starting a project somewhere else to do that; it's not our mission. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So why exactly are we here? Jkelly 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do you question the point of challenging "common sense" deletions, but not the deletions themselves? The administrators at this point know that the deletions are controversial, so they really should stop doing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Controversial != wrong. No change for the better was ever effected in any society without controversy. Wikipedia is no different. FCYTravis 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, but this was, and continues to be, controversial and wrong. Stop. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Caring about Wikipedia's impact on turning 15 minutes of fame or infamy into that person's Permanent Life Record is not wrong. FCYTravis
          • Assuming your position > everyone else's is wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the article was not about this person, the references were not about this person. They both referred to other events. There was no assertion in the slightest of encyclopedic notability (and yes, in cases like these we do have a certain duty of sensitivity etc). Wikipedia is not a news reporting agency, and articles about people should be about those people. Not about other events. Moreschi ^Talk 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. This seems to be an out-of-process deletion per the edit summary on the speedy deletion: "No assertion of notability, article in poor taste, BLP by spirit, if not letter."

  As for "No assertion of notability": WP:CSD#A7 refers to "Unremarkable people" and "An article about a real person [...] that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." I haven't read the article to ascertain its importance or significance, nor can I because of the deletion, but continuing: "If controversial, [...] the article should be nominated for AfD instead." I would say that the reactions here (and other articles) constitute controversy.

  While "poor taste" may appear in an essay or in discussions, I'm not familiar with any policy or CSD that makes any reference to it. It strikes me as a very POV interpretation, and not grounds for deletion of an article.

  "WP:BLP" seems to be a primary point of contention both here and at other discussions of recent OOP deletions; but as Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu isn't an "LP", that seems patently inapplicable.

  I don't have any vested interest in this article, and don't particularly want to argue the merits of the article itself as (aforementioned) I haven't/can't read it. But AFAIKT, this seems to have been a sourced and verifiable article that, while possibly meriting a deletion discussion, did not qualify as a speedy deletion as was implemented. There is no CSD for I don't think it's encyclopedic. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, redirecting to the article on the murderer (which still exists) may have been appropriate, to avoid redundancy, but this article did not fit any speedy criteria. C'mon people, take these to afd. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• overturn for process --the BLP concern can only be about the accused, who has pled not guilty, and the article about him remains on WP. The N consideration for speedy is no assertion of notability, and that was not the case, for if the possible murderer was notable, it is reasonable to think that the victim might be. Not that I would necessarily agree in the end, but it was not a speedy. It is clearly not an uncontroversial deletion, and needs a open discussion. The discussion should be taking place at AfD, and not here. There have been too many examples lately of IFEELITINMYHEART as a reason--one way or another. I would have done just what Night Gyr suggests. DGG 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given the content, that attitude positively disgusts me.--Doc^g 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I find myself in agreement with the comment by closing admin above. ElinorD (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• This article is dead. --Tony Sidaway 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's avoid rhetorical use of terms like "dead" in discussing an article about a murder victim. Newyorkbrad 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - unencyclopedic articles with little or no meaningful content directly related to the subject must die. This stays deleted. Nick 01:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, in discussing an article about a murder victim, it is jarring to see phraseology such as "must die" employed. Newyorkbrad 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion look folks an article (with a picture) about the horrific murder of a little girl. Stop and think please. This is not in the least encyclopedic. And since it narrates her kid brother finding her - it is most certainly a BLP issue. This isn't a game. We are not doing this.--Doc^g 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per User:Phil Sandifer. The people screaming for overturn are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel in their quest for rationales, not to mention indulging in a fair amount of pot/kettle behavior ("Assuming your position > everyone else's is wrong" nearly made me spit up my coffee). If they have a point to make, make it elsewhere and not at the expense of Wikipedia and the poor bastards, thrust into the public spotlight, who have have to suffer so some people can make some kind of point, whatever the hell it is. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - this is a very sad case but the girl is not notable and we have a long established policy that being a victim in a notable murder does not make one notable. Any encyclopaedic content in this page is already included at Dante Arthurs. TerriersFan 03:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is no assertion of notability in this article, as it's been shown many times that being a victim of a murder does not make you inherently notable. BLP concerns are quite obviously irrelevant, but A7 is reason enough for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 03:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion because it fails A7. Not because of BLP, which has nothing to do with biographies of dead people. The "L" stands for "Living". Neil (►) 09:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per BLP, and per doing the right thing. That's right. Per BLP. She's dead, true, but in my view, BLP's spirit applies here just the same. Those that say that it does not, based on the precise wording of BLP, miss the point. Those that insist on an AfD are process wonking, in my view. Those that don't see why this is the right thing to do perhaps should seek another project. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is a news story, not an encyclopaedia article. Wikinews is the next office down on the right. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion', primarily per Doc and Lar. Newyorkbrad 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Let me get this straight, now BLP is used to delete articles about dead people??? Wow, this idiocy has just reached a new level.  Grue  19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak endorse deletion per Amarkov and Neil, with the emphatic provision that this is not an appropriate exercise of BLP (for various reasons into which we need not to get here [but surely have addressed and will continue to address elsewhere at DRV]); the underlying article, though, cannot, I guess, be understand as asserting notability (I should say that I continue to believe that a declaration that an individual was a victim of a notorious crime is an assertion of notability, such that speedy deletion should be inconsistent with A7, but that I recognize that, BLP aside, there is a clear consensus for the idea that A7 should apply to such declarations and that, even as policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive and even as consensus can change, it is not appropriate for us to overturn that consensus at an insular AfD or DRV). Joe 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  I should clarify that although the deletion wouldn't fall under BLP's purview, it would fall under "common sense" and "human decency". I said A7 as it'll satsify the process wonks. Neil (►) 12:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for your clarification. To be clear, my thinking, then, does not appear to follow precisely that of Neil; I, for one, as a few others here, I think, would most strongly object to deletion if the underlying article made an assertion of notability, not only because I would find, absent A7, no justification for speedying but also because I could not imagine BLP (even if one tries thence to apprehend some moral spirit) to extend quite as far as others might seem to think it to extend, and surely not to permit deletion before discussion. Joe 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see some abbreve-itis here. It's easy to throw around BLP, but if you know it stands for "Biographies of Living People", it's impossible to apply it to a dead person. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse Deletion: The AfD from March was closed as a Keep, thus I can see the rationale for bringing this subsequent un-debated deletion to DRV. However, ultimately I agree with TerriersFan, in that the relevant information is already contained in the Dante Arthurs article (which has itself survived several AfD attempts, and fact of which was noted in the AfD for this article), and notability has not otherwise been asserted sufficient to maintain a separate article. Given that the review appears more controversial than the original deletion, I feel we should let it remain deleted; it can be re-created later, in the "organic" way that new articles are created all the time, if the circumstances then warrant it. — digitaleon • talk @ 04:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Anna Mae He (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted with no process at all, citing WP:BLP as the reason. The article was well sourced, including citations to multiple national news stories. There was and is no BLP issue here, not by the current terms of WP:BLP at least. And if there were, that case could properly be made in an AfD where the matter could be discussed, changes to the article proposed, and a proper consensus on whether the BLP policy calls for any modification of this article, rather than its being deleted by one admins unilateral action. This was in no reasonable sense an "attack page". There was no need for a speedy deletion here, a delay of a few days to let the matter be discussed at an AfD would have done no serious harm, and IMO the proper policy based result of an AfD would have been "keep", perhaps with some editing down. Overturn and let anyone who wishes nominate for AfD. (The deleting admin has already been notified that other editors disagree with the deletion, and has declined to undelte said he would undelte the history, (but implied only as part of a merge) if consensus developed to do so.) DES ^(talk) 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. No legitimate rationale for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps not under your apparent ethical system but I am not sure everyone else would agree. I think many would say that deleting this is the ethically correct thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD, whatever BLP issues there are are probably not bad enough to warrant speedy deletion, since the article was sourced. List it at AfD since there are potential problems here with notability, among other things. --Coredesat 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Yet another in a series of tabloid articles attempting to document in excruciating detail for all eternity every single child who was ever temporarily in the news. This page was not a biography, but instead a 20-paragraph report of every single twist and turn in the court case over her custody. Part of it could be merged into a broader article on child custody, but beyond that, the details of the case are hardly encyclopedic. FCYTravis 16:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps so, but that could and should have been discussed at an AfD where options such as merging, or rewriting could have been discussed and tried. Or the editor could have been bold in editing and edited down to a stub while discussing on the talk page. Speedy deletion should be the last resort, not the first. DES ^(talk) 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oh for goodness sake! There's a civil discussion going on on my userpage - during which I've indicated a willingness for undeletion to be considered. But alone comes DESiegel, doesn't bother discussing anything or entering into that discussion, and plops it here. Can he please provide evidence for his assertion that I have "declined to undelete". No. Please try using discussion rather than process next time.--Doc^g 17:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I apologize, i misread this edit as your view. I still maintain that deletion first and discussion afterwards is gettign the cart before the horse, and while you discusssed, you did not promptly undelete. DES ^(talk) 17:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I might add, this "process" consists of discussion. Please try using discussion first, rather than the delete button, next time. DES ^(talk) 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. To claim that the administrator has declined to undelete when discussion is on-going hardly seems accurate. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand - are you endorsing the deletion because DESiegel inaccurately described Doc glasgow's stance? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No. Mackensen (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Per WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, biographical articles should only be speedily deleted if an article is both unsourced and negative in tone. Editors may disagree with whether or not it is negative in tone, and I personally do not think so, but it is a fact that the article is well-sourced. And to respond to User:FCYTravis - if you believe the content of an article is not notable or not encyclopedia, I believe the correct process is to list it at AfD, and not speedy delete it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. This article reads like a tabloid, not a biography. Heck, the first line introduces this person as a victim of a custody battle. There is no reason for this article to exist. Sean William @ 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't that be a discussion at an AfD? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No. Sean William @ 17:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's exactly what it's for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per HongQiGong. Some endorse comments read more like delete votes at AfD and that's where this should be. violet/riga (t) 17:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion BLP allows for bold action in cases like this, not to mention that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a branch of Wikinews. If this person is notable a year from now, then a short, encyclopedic (not 'blow by blow story retelling') article might be appropriate, but this is just tabloid-surfing and an AfD is unnecessary before-hand. If DrV consensus is to run it through AfD, then it should after the fact without foul, but there would have to be an acceptance of the decision. BDJ's participation above should remind us that endless DRV-AfD cycles are a possibility and consensus should reflect awareness that at some point, the discussion has to stop. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • BLP only allows for speedy deletion if the article is negative and unsourced - not if an admin thinks the article is not unencyclopedic. The article is not a hoax or an attack page, suggestions on how to improve it or even proposed deletion using the "prod" tag would have been much appreciated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm reading BLP right now, I see nothing to indicate that this is permissable. Also, I have no clue why you're tossing my name out there in that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted It is impossible to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about a person's life when the only reliable sources relate to a single incident, no matter how well documented. How sad that the family troubles of this person have been so well documented that for the rest of her life, potential employers, co-workers, suitors, neighbors, and anyone with a purient interest in the private lives of other people will be able to discover every detail of her private life, and how disgusting that some Wikipedians think we should be a party to this with our top-ten web site simply because there are enough sources to keep us clear of libel laws. Jimbo's edit to WP:NOT makes it clear this sort of article is no longer appropriate. If process demands that it be kept, then fuck process. Thatcher131 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It may be that the article should be renamed to one about a courtcase or a custody battle, and this incident is notable because it reached a state Supreme Court, with the Embassy of China sending representatives to listen in on the case, but I don't believe "fuck process" is a legitimate reason to delete an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you have any idea how many custody cases reach state supreme courts each year? Hundreds if not thousands. Unless a case leads to an important precedent, I find little reason to consider any particular custody case encyclopedic, and the fact that this article would enshrine in perpetuity not just the subject, a minor at the time, but also unproven allegations of abuse against the parents, argues for me against inclusion. Thatcher131 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The incident has also appeared in a whole lot of press coverage, including multiple articles on ABC News - to link a few[7][8][9][10] - would you not say that makes the incident notable? As I've said, maybe the article needed to be renamed, but there's nothing in WP:BLP that warrants its deletion. You said earlier that it is "sad" that this person's custody battle is documented here, but the article only reflects existing sources. If something is inaccurately reflected of our sources, we can improve it. That you think it's "sad" her custody battle is documented is not a reason to delete an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • WIkipedia is not a newspaper. Lots of things that get lots of newspaper coverage don't belong in an encyclopedia. And as far as I can concerned, respecting basic human dignity is a reason to delete an article, especially one about a little girl who did nothing wrong but which will ensure that she will forever be known primarily for her family's problem. Do you understand the level to which this article invades her privacy, and will continue to invade it for years if not decades? Never mind ECHELON or Warrantless searches in the United States, fear Wikipedia. Thatcher131 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Under that rationale, any number of WP articles could be deleted, and huge chunks of an article like Iraq War can be removed. I understand your empathy for the little girl, but our job as WP is only to reflect the sources. And one can also argue that she "deserves to know the truth" - we can go back and forth forever with these types of rationale based on personal preference forever. What we need to do is stick to policies, they're there to give a semblance of order. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Poppycock. Most of the sources for Iraq war are newspaper articles because it's an ongoing event. In ten years there will be books written about the war, and in 20 years there will be revisionist histories criticizing the first wave of books, and so on. A war is an encyclopedic event; a child custody battle is not. Thatcher131 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
              • And that's a notability issue, that's something that should have been discussed at an AfD. WP:BLP only allows for speedy deletion if an article is negative in tone and unsourced, not because it's "sad" that a person's custody battle is documented. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (after EC) Whether it should be kept, or in what form, would IMO be better discussed with the article at hand for all to read, and edit. That is what an article talk page could do after a stubing edit, or an AfD discussion. "It is impossible to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about a person's life when the only reliable sources relate to a single incident" we have many articela about hsitorice figures notable only for their participation in a single incident. not all articles named for a person need be full biographies -- indeed not all can. Yet there is no rule sayign that we msut have either a full biography or nothing at all. Maybe we should ahve a policy to that effect (although i disagree). But we don't yet. If this deletion is undone, that does not for a moment mean the article will never be deelted, much less never drastically rewritten or merged. Why are people being so much in a rush to delete? Would a few days discussion in an AfD have been a major problem? DES ^(talk) 17:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, and let's remember that basically all articles on WP are works in progress. The article needed improvement or renaming, not speedy deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Jimbo's edit does nothing of the sort. A neutral, encyclopedic article is not only possible, but existed at the time of deletion. Nothing said in the article was not already a very high google hit with or without us. It's time to kill that "top ten website" red herring for good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question: Could anyone please comment on WP:BLP#Articles about living people notable only for one event? It seems to me that it would qualify, but I'm open to persuasion. --Ishu 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't authorize people to simply hit the delete button willy-nilly. It also doesn't mean we cannot have any articles on such people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. You beat me to the edit conflict on that point. --Ishu 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. When you write an article about a certain person, you are expected to write about that person. This was not an article about her in the slightest. Possibly an article that complied with BLP and was actually about her could be written, though I would prefer not, as as far as I can tell she is a private individual. Not an article we need. This custody battle may well be notable. She is not. Write an article about the custody fight, then, not this non-biography. Moreschi ^Talk 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: per Thatcher131. You have got to be kidding me. There was a lot of ink used on one incident? Gee, what a surprise. We have tabloid press gossip even on notable papers - I'm um, shocked? No, actually, I'm not. What I am wondering is why we're wasting time on a process-wanky Drv for an article about someone which is so clearly not an encyclopedic topic. This is not only Articles about living people notable only for one event, this is not even remotely a Significant one event. I'm sure I can find lots of ink on any number of completely nn people, based on one incident which the press picked up and ran with, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Article is ethically bankrupt. Phil Sandifer 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- I'm questioning the, um, point of bringing every common sense deletion of someone's misguided attempt at an encyclopedia article about a non notable living person based on their being involved in some news story or other. Is this an exercise in seeing how many people will trot out to vote on these? If I had the impression that the users bringing these here actually wanted to collect biographical data on everyone mentioned in the news in the 21st century I would suggest starting a project somewhere else to do that; it's not our mission. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So why exactly are we here? Jkelly 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The question of notability should be discussed at an AfD. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do you question the point of challenging "common sense" deletions, but not the deletions themselves? The administrators at this point know that the deletions are controversial, so they really should stop doing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, Seriously, speedy is only supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions and you HAVE to know that deleting well-sourced articles is going to be controversial. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A controversial speedy is necessarily an incorrect one? Not seen that before. Be nice if the article was actually about the title, at any rate...Moreschi ^Talk 19:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The point of speedy deletions is to accelerate the pace of eliminating narrow classes of material that almost everyone agrees should be gone, as the rules say: 'These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. If a page does not uncontestably fall under a criterion, or it has previously survived a deletion discussion (except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements), another process such as Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be used instead.' It's not supposed to be unlimited power to remove anything an administrator doesn't think belongs. 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Gyr (talk • contribs) 14:16, 30 May 2007
    • (after EC) From WP:CSD "These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. If a page does not uncontestably fall under a criterion, or it has previously survived a deletion discussion (except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements), another process such as Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be used instead." That at least strongly suggests that deletions known to be controversial should not usualy be speedys. DES ^(talk) 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's come to my attention that editors like User:Badlydrawnjeff and User:Doc glasgow for some time now been involved in disputes about biographical articles, what to keep, what to delete, and how to apply WP:BLP. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I just became aware of this and have no opinion in the overall matter. But I honestly feel like the Anna Mae He article in question here just became a careless casualty in this "war". The article was not an abuse of process, this was not a case of multiple AfDs and multiple DRVs - the article was simply speedy deleted even though it was sourced. The article may have problems, but it was a work of good faith attempts to have a good article. I have no desire at all to be involved in these ongoing disputes about biographical articles. I would really appreciate it if deletion was overturned and suggestions are offered as to how to improve the article, or even have the article go through an AfD process, instead of just speedy deleted. Maybe it needs to be renamed, maybe it needs to be trimmed down, maybe it needs more sources. It's more than a little disheartening that good faith editing is just speedy deleted because of an ongoing dispute about biographical articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and the article certainly reads like it belongs in one. --Carnildo 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• List at AFD - This DRV is looking too much like an AFD. All uncited information and information cited from unreliable sources should be removed before that though. I think blanking the page for the AFD and having users go to the article's history to view the text might be appropriate though, as it is a tabloidish story. Wickethewok 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This article was not a biography, it was sensationalist journalism. This is Wikipedia, not Wikinews. -- Donald Albury 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Others have said it better: this is not a biography, it's an unencyclopaedic account of a messy custody battle and a millstone to hang around the neck of a child who has no say in it. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia policy to offer a substantive opinion on any of this, but I do think a speedy deletion was uncalled for. While it's true this was an unencyclopedic biography of a living minor, the custody battle seems notable enough(sadly) to at least merit a discussion of its inclusion. Also, I really hope this: [11],[12], doesn't go any farther, but if the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved, we may actually be forced to include it.Lindentree 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court declined cert. End of case. Just one of thousands of contested custody cases. Thatcher131 00:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, although I think the Anna Mae He Act might be worth a stub. I must note, though, that the Elian Gonzalez article also seems to cover the controversy far more extensively than the person, despite purporting to be a biography. Despite the obvious notability difference, he too is still a minor. Could somebody please clarify for me why it cannot be speedily deleted to protect him? Lindentree 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware that Anna Mae was the subject of an international diplomatic incident, or that her case was covered by press on four continents. I could be wrong about that. The Gonzalesz article is largely about the case, perhaps it should be moved to Elian Gonzalez custody dispute or some such in order to clarify that it is primarily about the incident not the person. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn for discussion There are possible BLP concerns, since the subject is a child is a custody battle, but the article has existed for over a year, and should not be deleted by unilateral process. AfD is the place for discussion. It is frequently said here in denying overturns that only process is relevant here. An incorrect speedy is process. N was asserted by the article. If one disagrees, that's what AfD is for. DGG 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per FCYTravis and per Thatcher131. ElinorD (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion We are not doing this to a child. We are not restoring a horrible, intrusive, mess in order to satisfy process wonking. No.--Doc^g 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AFD. Given that this child may have a state law named after her, I think there's a good argument that a) Wikipedia should have some coverage of the case and b) Wikipedia is not substantially increasing the profile of this individual, although a potential rename of the article would probably be appropriate. Endorse Wow, I hadn't actually seen the deleted content before making this statement - I had just looked at the sources via a Google News search. I think the case itself may be worthy of an article, but the deletion of the (pretty awful) content as of the Google cached version was appropriate, as any article on the case would require a major rewrite. JavaTenor 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep deleted or restore to a different name - if the article is about the custody battle, call it Hae vs Baker custody battle or something - don't claim that the article is a bio of the girl. And there's plenty in there that is unsourced. --BigDT 00:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: Not everything that appears in a newspaper appears in an encyclopedia. This is a classic example of that. Danny 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is the sorta shit WP:BLP was made to keep dead - David Gerard 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• There is absolutely no place for any article like this on this encyclopedia. I therefore express relief that it was deleted, an act that I would have been urging on any administrator within earshot, had I known about it before Doc. Needless to say if any administrator restores it I shall call for him to be stopped. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - truly awful article with an almost non existent amount of encyclopedic content on the actual subject. Don't get me wrong, there's sources and such but none of the content is encyclopedic and none of it is about the subject - sourced butn unencyclopedic content must die. This article stays dead. Nick 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion largely per Thatcher. – Steel 01:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per my comments on the 5/28 DRV log, just change the background and the names, but the principles are substantially the same. Newyorkbrad 01:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• I read the article; the word that comes to mind is "grotesque". It's not about the child except in the most indirect of ways, and this isn't something that we should be covering. Endorse deletion. DS 02:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the BLP parts are unsourced so this article has to go on policy grounds. There is significant sourcing on the custody battle so an article on that is possible but if one is produced it must be written without the objectionable content. TerriersFan 03:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Look, just because people are doing inappropriate BLP deletions doesn't mean you can start contesting all of them. And this is clearly appropriate. An article on a living person must be about the person. It's certainly a BLP violation to define a person through one negative incident, like this article did. -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This article is full of crap and non-notable.--Certified.Gangsta 04:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Changing my mind after thoroughly reviewing the article at home and not hurriedly in an airport. The article is rubbish and the biographical sections do violate WP:BLP. --Coredesat 04:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per BLP, and per doing the right thing. That's right. Per BLP. Some say that the article doesn't fit the letter of the policy as written, but in my view, BLP's spirit applies here just the same. Those that say that it does not, based on the precise wording of BLP, miss the point. Those that insist on an AfD are process wonking, in my view. Those that don't see why this is the right thing to do perhaps should seek another project. This long drawn out discussion is itself doing harm though and we would be better served by less knock down drag out fighting about this stuff. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per DGG. Alternately, delete this version without prejudice and create a better sourced version that focuses more on the timeline and cross-national implications. Calwatch 04:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AFD Then interested editors can argue why it should be kept or deleted. Instead, there was a speedy which did not meet any criteria for same, followed by an acrimonious and rambling pseudo AFD here. If new grounds for Speedy need to be established, then go to WP:CSD or even WP:BLP and add a criterion allowing admins the latitude to remove what they feel is distasteful. Edison 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I can only speak for myself, but I am going to support overturning every single speedy delete that uses WP:BLP as a rationale. I don't care how poorly worded they are, how unbalanced they may be, how sad the circumstances, but this has to stop. Instead of deleting them, stub them, note why they were stubbed in the talk page for the article and list them for AfD, if they are not notable. This deletion spree has spun so far out of control that Monica Lewinsky is in range of the BLP cabal, and it's only a matter of time before Jeffrey Dahmer becomes eligible for this bizarre form of parole. (Oh, by the way, he's dead, so ordinarily BLP wouldn't apply, but that was under the rational rules that applied in the past. Death is no longer a disqualifier for BLP.) Horologium t-c 00:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Your comments will be ignored. Check the recent changes to the deletion policy made by Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, Tony, please check those recent changes - claims of BLP with no basis in reality will be ignored. Meanwhile, since he has adequately shown why the deletion was improper, his will have more weight. Thanks for noticing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  We'll soon find out whether we're dealing with reality or jeffipedia. In reality, protest votes made to express dislike of a policy aren't arguments to overturn deletion of seriously damaging content. --Tony Sidaway 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  When in doubt, go with the cliche, right? In reality, comments that display why an activity was improper are better arguments than attempts to justify improper activity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's called hyperbole, Tony. A quick check will show that this is the only BLP CRV I've participated in this week. You know, unless you have actually read the BLP policy (something which you emphatically asserted you had not read last week), I have trouble accepting your references to it. Additionally, there is a little thing called "Courtesy Blanking" that can be used if there are concerns about content; a courtesy blank and an AfD are a much better combination than deleting and then having a review. Vaporizing the pages means that the unwashed masses who are not admins are not able to view the article to make an informed comment, which really goes to the heart of the matter. What's the point of editing if your contributions are vaporized and only the admins can see what gets speedied? Why not just cut regular editors out of the process and have the admins do all of the writing? FWIW, I am fairly deletionist (as a review of my AfD positions would reveal), but I have an issue with the current incineration-fest due to alleged BLP violations. Under ordinary circumstances, Jeff and I would probably be opposing each other, but he and I share a common disdain for out-of-sequence deletions. Horologium t-c 01:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Tony, I can't speak for anybody else but myself here - I voted to overturn not so much because I felt the article was in a good enough state, but because I would have appreciated suggestions to improve or rename the article, or even an AfD. A lot of people felt that the article was not biographical - that's a problem that's easily solved by renaming the article and refocusing its topic. Also, I am not involved in this apparent ongoing war concerning WP:BLP and how to apply it, and I have no opinion on the matter at all, but I really feel like this article became a careless casualty of this war. I started the article, but it was other editors that edited it to turn it into the state it was in before it was deleted. It needed improvement, but it was still the result of good faith editing. It wasn't an attack page and it wasn't a hoax. It would have been great to be given a chance to improve it instead of having it speedily deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park IV (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

It should be deleted because because the article is very similar to the deleted page Terminator 4.both are possible continuations on a film trilogy, both films are well sourced on places such as IMDB, both have been talked about being produced since the release of the previous film by both actors and producers, and both have been given an approximate release date by officialls.For fairness Jurassic Park 4 should be deleted, because Terminator 4 has had several deletion discussions and so it should be the result to use to the Jurassic Park 4 article. Rodrigue 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Deletion review is for articles that have been deleted and you think were deleted outside of the normal deletion process. This article has been to AfD and survived only a few months ago. Anyway, you are in the wrong place. Leebo ^T/C 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually that isn't so, If an editor thinks that an AfD with a "keep" result was closed improperly, that also can be reviewed here, and in rare cases, such a review results in overturnign the clsoe and deleting the article. DES ^(talk) 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• You are correct, my statement above is incorrect. As far as I can tell, he's not requesting a review of the previous discussion. The proper way to say what I wanted to say would be "Deletion review is for reviewing deletion discussion decisions, not starting new deletion discussions." Leebo ^T/C 17:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse whether to keep an article about a planned future event, such as this, is a judgement call, the question is whether there is already enough verifiable discussion of the matter to make the subject notable, even if the event never occurs. (for example see The Last Dangerous Visions which is notable primarily for not having been published on schedule). In this case the judgment of the AfD discussion was "yes". I might or might not have aggreed with that view, but it is well within the reasonable range of judgement for an AfD within our policy. DES ^(talk) 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• This should be taken to the article's page (or a film series page) with a "proposed merger" discussion set. If your intent is to preserve the information, but in a better place, then AfD is not the place to go, and you should propose a merger.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• There isn't a Jurassic Park franchise article though. Alientraveller 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well whaddaya know! Alientraveller 17:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep There are plenty of sources for the article, so we're not crystal balling it. The AfD was properly opened, participated in, and closed; not sure what else needs to be said. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

George Griswold Frelinghuysen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

notable and referenced by current standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

• The only AfD I see is from two years ago and was entirely proper. Unless I'm missing something, why not just create an article? Mackensen (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorce deletion but with no prejudice against creating a new and sourced article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Totally inadequate AfD, only three people, 2 against and one for., argument for nom "and a President of the P. Ballantine & Sons Company, whatever that is," when it was a linked WP article. Argument for 1st delete: even though he had an Arboretum name for him (that was also N enough to have a WP article), argument of 2nd delete: "nn" I dont know what the standards were in 05, but this discussion doesn't meet any reasonable standard today. The existing article is a good stub as it is. DGG 23:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Obviously not available through Google cache after all this time, but, as Mackensen says, why not just create the article? ElinorD (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Article was deleted almost two years ago. No one's stopping you from creating a new one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I remember this article (I was the sole "keep" vote) and have sometimes thought of digging it up and bringing it here. Ideally I would have liked to find a little more about the guy. But yeah, I think he meets our notability standards--a current president of one of the largest breweries in the US would surely be kept. Our presentist bias is it work here. If Richard can (and knowing his work I'm sure he can) provide references for the info in the article I think it should absolutely be allowed. Richard, if you want me to copy it to your userspace so you can work on it, let me know. Chick Bowen 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm gonna restore and userfy, I don't think there'd be any objection if it has more sources/claim to notability when it comes back to mainspace. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• userfied to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/George Griswold Frelinghuysen Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This category was merged into Category:Songs by songwriter as a result of a discussion on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_7#Category:Songs by composer. Unfortunately, the person who proposed that merge did not have the courtesy to notify me that this was being discussed, as suggested in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Howto#Notes_for_nominators, so I only discovered that this was done after it had already happened. It seems that there are some people who think that, just because there are few people who nowadays write just lyrics or just music, that the distinction between lyricists and composers is useless (see Mike Selinker's comment on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 18#Songs by songwriter), but I think that this decision should not have been made without allowing those of us who are primarily concerned with older music to disagree.

Postings which have been made by Johnbod, both in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 18#Songs by songwriter and directly to me in User talk, seem to imply that he thinks all one needs to do is recreate Category:Songs by composer. It is my understanding that that would be a violation of Wikipedia procedural rules, so I can't see my just going ahead and doing it. And at least one other user, InnocuousPseudonym, agrees with me that what was done was a mistake. So I wish to reopen that discussion. -- BRG 14:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• The first debate was a rename, not a merge. The nominator commented: "For the best logical arrangement we maybe ought to have 3 categories (by songwriter, by composer, by lyricist) but in the interests of avoiding over-categorisation I think renaming this category would be the best solution." He pointed out that a great number of the people categorised wrote both words and music. I personally feel that the decision there did not rule out the re-establishment of Category:Songs by composer for pure composers (musicwriters) only. The lyricists already have their category, which is not involved in these debates. Classical music is unaffected by all this btw, that has different categories. It is clear from two later debates on May 18 and the abortive one onMay 17 that the songwriters category has good support, for people who wrote both words and music. I think BRG should be asking here for confirmation that there is no block on creating a new Category:Songs by composer for people who only wrote the music. I would support this. Johnbod 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As BRG says, I strongly support the re(?)-creation of a "Songs by composer" category. The composer-lyricist distinction was the norm for at least the first half of the 20th century (encompassing the bulk of the Great American Songbook) and applies to at least a portion of more recent songwriting teams. InnocuousPseudonym 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• overturn as everyone involved clearly wishes to do.DGG 23:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my case, I don't think the previous decision should be overturned (and there are many editors I'm sure who would agree), but I think the closing here should confirm that a re-creation of the "vacated" Composers category would be ok, so there are 3 categories: by songwriter, by composer, by lyricist. Johnbod 00:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse renaming. Seems like the debate was pretty clearly for renaming. I'm not sure what my comment about composers and lyricists has to do with the validity of the closing decision.--Mike Selinker 00:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about composers and lyricists clearly indicates that you think most people do both and that is why you wanted the rename. As InnocuousPseudonym and I have tried to make clear, there are a great number of people who did one or the other nearly exclusively. -- BRG 13:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, and I could be wrong or I could be right. But it doesn't change the validity of the closing, which seems fine, and which I would have supported either way.--Mike Selinker 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, seems a reasonable outcome. We don't always need to split cats into finer detail like that. >Radiant< 08:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We may not always need to split cats into finer detail, but in this case we certainly do. Normally, in fact, Wikipedia uses narrow cats and a hierarchical structure. Why should this not be such a case? -- BRG 13:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also the songwriters cat is enormous & a split would make both easier to use. Johnbod 12:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• As a participant in both debates, I would like to say that, in the first debate, I found the nom's suggestion that three cats might be overcategorization to be somewhat persuasive, but on reflection, I'm not so sure. In the second debate, I objected to the use of a horrid neologism, and also to the effective removal of the just-created by-songwriters category, but never really addressed the question of creating three categories, except by reference to the previous debate. So, for the record, I'd like to say that whatever I wrote in those debates should not be read as opposition to the idea of having three cats. In case that helps. :) Xtifr _tälk 16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse renaming but allow for the re-creation of Category:Songs by composer. There were no procedural issues with the original CFD nomination and BRG and Johnbod both have good arguments for the categorization scheme. howcheng {chat} 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse renaming but allow for the re-creation of Category:Songs by composer, per my comments above, since I haven't put it in bold yet. Johnbod 00:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

Improper closure of an MFD discussion. This page was a redirect from an old userpage to a new one, and one that contains over 2,000 incoming links. The page was originally deleted at the request of the user, User:White Cat. The deletion was seem as unnecessary and made things needlessly confusing for edits both editors finding Cool/White Cat, and for users following those links. I recreated the redirect, per Wikipedia:User page. White Cat tried to place the speedy delete tag on the page once again, but it no longer qualified for speedy delete. It was then taken to MFD. Two admins have attempted to close the MFD, both on incorrect grounds. The first admin was reverted by myself, with support from other users including at least two other administrators whom felt taking it to DVR wasn't necessary. It has since been speedy closed again, but now the page has been protected.

Speedy closed as "user request" (WP:CSD#U1), however U1 states that if U1 is contested it should be taken to MFD: " If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page. "

Improper close, plain and simple. Even if you don't feel such things are necessary, they are supported by policy and guidelines, and by several people from the MFD. Something to note is that even if the MFD got speedy closed that still won't prevent the user page from being recreated. Recreating pages is not a 3RR violation, as some people have suggested, especially since there is no consensus or policy that requires the page to have been deleted. This is normally not even an issue we face, because long before that we take such situations to XfD. If you feel this redirect should be deleted, then all the more reason to continue the MFD, which would create a consensus to keep deleted.

This isn't even a big deal, but it's somewhat bizarre that both White Cat and the deleting admins feel so strongly about deleting the page. No reason has been cited for deletion, and there would be nothing to gain from it, and it would only inconvenience and make things confusing for others. Keeping a redirect hurts no one, and shouldn't be a controversial issue. But, for whatever reason, it is controversial, and that's what we have the MFD for.

Also, no one is saying anyone has to have a userpage, that is not the function the page is having at this time. Rather, this page is now pointing users to the new user name that Cat has chosen. White Cat has made it very clear that he did not change usernames to vanish or start fresh, and has been completely open about who he is and was (complete with links on his current user page). Of course users can have their own pages deleted, but that's not the issue here. It's a redirect, for the sake of a great amount of past discussion and many incoming links. It actually benefits White Cat (which makes the situation even more bizarre).

I'd like to quote something David Levy said it to Newyorkbrad (the final admin to close the MFD):

"No offense, but I don't perceive you as a neutral party (to any greater extent than I'm a neutral party). You didn't weigh the arguments and arrive at a consensus-based decision. You threw them out and substituted your own judgement for that of the community (instead of simply expressing your opinion in the discussion). —David Levy 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)"

And having said all that, relist MFD -- Ned Scott 05:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - the old talk page is still there. Anyone looking for the user can easily find him. I don't know or care why he wants his old page deleted, but as someone who has been harassed before, I can certainly understand that there might be a good reason. At any rate, unless there is evidence of bad behavior or some such thing, we delete user pages on demand. Five admins have deleted this page. One person has recreated it four times and reverted an admin's close of the MFD twice. Something is wrong somewhere along the line. --BigDT 05:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not the MFD discussion itself. The closing was improper, regardless of how you feel about the situation. Also, even if I was the one who recreated the page and reverted the closure, others (including two administrators) supported that. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Other people have not re-created it in order to allow the discussion to proceed and be well-considered, but that was truncated. The fact that more people were edit-warring to achieve a certain outcome does not mean that outcome is right or better. No reason whatsoever has been provided by User:Cool Cat for deleting the page, and if the reason were harassment, the effective way to end harassment is to actually create a new account completely severed from the old one. If there were harassment, migrating all his contribs and making 10,000 edits to change his signature advertising the change to everyone with a watchlist would be the least effective way to end it. —Centrx→talk • 05:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Ned, you and everyone else would be much better off if you would let Cool Cat (or whatever he wants to call himself) be and move on to other things. Seriously. Chick Bowen 05:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd love to move on, but others have insisted that a DVR is required instead of letting a simple MFD continue. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This is grossly unnecessary. --MichaelLinnear 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What you personally feel is unnecessary is not a reason to keep this deleted. An improper closure is an improper closure. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Closing the MfD was unnecessary, and the people who closed it unnecessarily insisted that the issue be brought here. —Centrx→talk • 05:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain. While I agree that this closure was improper, our ultimate goal is to build consensus (not drama). I've been discussing this matter with White Cat, and he has expressed a willingness to work toward some sort of compromise with the community (beginning with the creation of a temporary page at User:Cool Cat pending a long-term solution). Therefore, I urge you to withdraw this listing (at least for the time being). —David Levy 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Users can have their own user pages deleted for any reason - end of story - thats why they are user pages. There shouldn't have even been an MFD. The amount of time/text wasted on this already is pretty ridiculous/hilarious/sad. Wickethewok 05:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know how many times I have to quote this: " If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page." Your reason for keeping it deleted is not supported by the deletion policy, which directed us to an MFD. You can disagree with that all you want, but that's the way it is (for now). -- Ned Scott 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  Also, that presumes that the account's contribs remain at the same username. In this case, they were all moved elsewhere, which without a redirect would be mysterious. —Centrx→talk • 05:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Reminding everyone that this is not a vote. It's been shown that this has been an improper closure, and unless you can show otherwise then how you feel about the deletion itself really isn't relevant to the MFD being relisted or not. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Any admin can speedy any page that falls into the criteria for speedy deletion. The fact that there was an MFD going on changes nothing. This was not an out of process deletion - it was a legitimate speedy deletion. --BigDT 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It is disputed that it actually qualifies for speedy deletion. I suppose that could be discussed on User talk:Cool Cat, but otherwise the best place is an MfD. —Centrx→talk • 05:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. I've looked at WP:CSD#U1, and the history back through April, and cannot find what Ned Scott quotes above. U1 reads: Personal subpages, upon request by their user. In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page. Also, sometimes, main user pages may be deleted as well. See Wikipedia:User page for full instructions and guidelines. Also, relative to the Right to Vanish, I know of nothing that would require White Cat to have a redirect from his old name. The original deletion seems proper, and I don't see any need for it to have been at MfD in the first place. I'm more concerned about Ned's actions in this, the extremes to which he is forcing this issue. --InkSplotch 06:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  It's on the linked page with full instructions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  "See Wikipedia:User page for full instructions and guidelines." As for my actions, I would not call what I am doing an "extreme"... I do get worked up when I see people side step discussions and force an issue, though, but who wouldn't? You're basically asking why I care. For one, he's using this deletion to justify changing his old sig in talk archives, which he was forced to stop, and was reverted on. Second, and probably the bigger motivation, regardless of what the MFD is about the forced closure was totally unacceptable. It's alright if other people don't care, and if they think it's silly, but that's no reason to throw other people's valid concerns out the window. No one is asking that anyone cares about this, we're just asking for a simple discussion on the matter. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  Ah, I see it now. Thanks for pointing it out. Well, it's a stronger argument now, but I'm still looking into things...particularly this bit about Cat updating his old signatures. If anyone has a link to the discussion on AN, I'd appreciate it. At this time, I'm letting my vote stand. CSD is a policy, the supporting User Page is only a guideline. Ned, I called your actions extreme because you seem to be the only one carrying this torch, and it seems more disruptive to me than just letting Cat fix his old signature links. I referenced Right to Vanish, and I still feel it applies here...'Vanish' isn't just leaving Wikipedia, it's also a right to a fresh start. You're causing a lot more drama for Cat trying to do just this than is at all necessary. I'll keep reading up on this, but for now my comment stands. --InkSplotch 13:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  I'm bringing this to DRV because I think the actions of the closing admins was completely inappropriate. I'm more concerned about this affecting future MFDs than I am about the redirect itself. Keep in mind, from my point of view, I was simply making a redirect. Undoing the admins incorrect actions was easy, justified, and allowed a consensus building discussion to continue. The early closure of the MFD is what escalated the situation. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Revert waring is never right and is never justified and is to be discouraged. If you disagree with a deletion you take it to deletion review assuming its worth spending time on it. Pointlessness of your policy-lawyering is simply jaw dropping... -- Cat ^chi? 06:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Do you even know what the hell you are talking about? Nothing I've said is even close to policy-lawyering. If the closing admins disagreed with the MFD they should have brought it up in the MFD. Blatantly incorrect actions are ones we should simply fix. A revert is not always a bad thing, and was only done because... policy and guidelines backed me up, others involved (including other admins) felt speedy re-opening was ok and DRV was needless, the speedy close was a disruption, taking it to DRV would only cause more disruption, and the rationale thing to do was simply continue with the existing discussion, and I could go on and on. I have done nothing wrong with those reverts, and rather, it was those who speedy closed who are in the wrong. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Do I know what I am talking (typing) about? I am pretty certain I am or else I wouldn't be putting anything here. You seem to be unfamiliar with WP:CIVIL. Have a read of it, then reread it.
  The procedure in correcting "blatantly incorrect actions" is clearly laid out with WP:DR. Unless the edits are destructive compromising encyclopedias quality that require urgent action (such as vandalism, blant copyright violations) you have no reason to "revert" much less revert war. I see no evidence of a compromise in encyclopedias quality with the deletion of a non-critical userpage redirect which in your words is a "trivial situation". See WP:3rr#Exceptions for when "revert waring" is fine - even then it is more than discouraged. So, since it isn't critical, you are expected to take it to the person's talk page you are disagreeing with at a minimum. In this spesific case that would be me and each admin that has deleted the page or closed the MfD. Speedy close was well inline with WP:IAR if nothing else quited qualifies such as WP:CSD#U1 or WP:CSD#G7. Further revert waring against multiple admin closures is again disruption. You have border-lined violating WP:3rr by doing so if not crossed it. Waisting the communities time by forcing a trivial matter to the point of a MfD and later a DR is disruption and to be blunt quite dicky.
  -- Cat ^chi? 09:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Ned Scott, thats a combative mentality frowned upon on wikipedia. -- Cat ^chi? 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Improper close, plain and simple. He was trying to short circuit a fight that was getting pretty nasty, but speedy closes only throw gasoline on that fire. Better to give it the full five days to burn out. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse deletion, m:Right to vanish, valid U1 - the page has no apparent need to be retained, and an existing MFD does not disqualify a speedy by any means if the page meets one of the criteria; in this case, the page was {{db-user}}'d, etc. Stop forcing this issue; apparently it's not enough to edit war over whether the redirect should exist. Furthermore, you should not have reverted the MFD closures at all, as you are not an admin; if you had a problem you should have brought it up with the closing admin or came here first. --Coredesat 07:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This user does not wish to vanish, it has nothing to do with the right to vanish at all. Second, being an admin or not has no bearing on being able to revert a closure. Being an admin does not give one more authority, it just means they are trusted with admin tools. Reverting the MFD was an attempt to make the issue less of a big deal and to not waste people's time. Reasons for retaining the redirect have been provided. The U1 CSD says specifically to use WP:USER for detailed instructions, where it says that an MFD does disqualify it from being a speedy. Disagree with that all you want, but that's what it says. It is not a valid U1 deletion, and that's a fact. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• endose I closed this MfD as a speedy delete and was reverted for some reason - Brad did the right thing. Now, go do something useful.--Doc^g 09:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Get on with life. Trebor 09:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You not having an interest in this situation is not a valid reason to endorse an improperly closed MFD. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: In other words... you revert warred with 5 admins and the user owning the userpage. -- Cat ^chi? 10:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The numbers mean nothing, all five were wrong, and you don't own the page. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: No block)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: Pages protected)

  -- Cat ^chi? 10:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse per some prior DRV discussions where it's better to overrule policy for common sense. – Chacor 10:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Considering how split the MFD was before it was closed, it's not accurate to call the speedy close common sense. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion The page was deleted in accordance with common sense and policy (I can't believe I said that). CharonX/talk 11:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh. I'd make a fuss about how, once again, "I know best now shut up" has been a fellow admin's response to a discussion he doesn't agree with, but, really, what's the point? Neil (►) 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse - if it isn't U1 it would be G7. Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  You mean G8? :D -- Cat ^chi? 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted I am more and more convinced that Wikipedia is (collectively) insane. What possible reason is there to not grant this user the courtesy afforded to any other user who asks it, including a number of notable pests? This should never have been at MfD in the first place. Thatcher131 14:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The difference is the other users' contribs were not moved, thus severing the user account from its history. There are also no personal information or harassment issues, because the user has kept all his contribs connected to his new account. —Centrx→talk • 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted echoing Thatcher's concerns above. White Cat has been extremely cooperative in keeping links to significant elements of his previous identity on his new userpage (including the block log). This seems to me a straightforward CSD U1 request and NYB was correct to delete it. I remain unpersuaded that the deletion of this page is harmfull or that White Cat has to prove it is beneficial. Deletion of userspace is performed on request except in exceptional circumstances - this seems fairly mundane to me. WjBscribe 14:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from the deleting administrator or I should say from one of the five admins who deleted this redirect. I re-deleted the redirect by request of the user involved. Simply put, the idea that this trivial matter warranted a five-day community-wide discussion is inane. I do not understand why this matter is being pressed so vigorously—or indeed, at all—and no one has been willing to tell me, which I find extraordinary. I respect our deletion processes and yet, there comes a limit to the extent in which we should engage in process for its own sake and it is submitted that with all respect we have reached it. Editors interested in debating policy issues have several hundred more productive discussions in which they could participate to choose from. Newyorkbrad 15:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Simply, if someone wishes to find the contribs that used to be associated with User:Cool Cat, or to contact that user, they are going to spend time finding the new account, and then rather than making everyone waste that time create a simple redirect which there is no reason to delete. This is not process for its own sake; the discussion is supposed to get understanding on the issue, which apparently none of the five admins who deleted it have. —Centrx→talk • 17:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a trivial situation, but it was required if Cat wanted to get his userpage deleted. He was the one who wished to press the issue in the first place, and he could have easily just let it go. I haven't let it go because of how inappropriate it was for you to just throw out the active discussion, incorrectly citing policy, when in fact you were just applying your own rationale. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Week Overturn - as this redirect is useful and valid and the closure was out of processes. Week because... who cares? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• comment Technically Ned Scott is correct: WP:USER#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? does contain the text he quotes. it also says "Where there is no significant abuse and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page and user subpages be deleted" and the clear implication is that such pages are normally deleted on request unless ther is a good reason to retain them, and the primary reson cited is "evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept. which i gather does not apply in this case. The early close was IMO unwise, given that at least one editor was so striongly pushing for retention of this page -- as so often, a speedy clsoe made things worse, not better. But in this case i can't see any likelyhood that a resumption of the MfD would result in the page being kept, so unsually for me endorse, despite improper process. DES ^(talk) 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A lot of people on the MfD said it should be kept; in terms of numbers it is evenly split and the people saying it should be kept have good reasons to do so, so where are you getting your evaluation of "likelihood"? —Centrx→talk • 17:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • On rereadign the MfD it seems that soem users on both sides of the matter were being rather WP:POINTy about the issue, but it was not as clear as my earlier hasty scan indicated how this would come out. I'll change my view to weak overturn, to let consensus form. I express no final opnion on whether deelting this page is or is not a good thing, i donm't see it as a vital issue either way, and not of the reasons cited at the MfD strike me as showing why it is so important. DES ^(talk) 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorsing this as a matter of course. If there is much more of this disgusting hounding of Cool Cat, as his mentor I'll raise the matter with the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Telling Cat that he can't just throw a fit and get his way is 'not "disgusting hounding". I don't know why he over-reacts like he does to such minor situations, but that doesn't give him a free pass to fuck consensus. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse and I seriously question the motivation of the nominator, who has a history of tensions with the individual in question. bastique 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Thatcher131. Why not afford the user the ordinary courtesy granted to other users? Also, why make an issue of something that really doesn't matter? ElinorD (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • U1 is there because it's almost always non-controversial, for normal situations there will be no issue and no one will care. It is not a right, and I suspect the people who think it's a right is nothing more than a misconception developed because we lacked situations such as this one. It's not a right, it's just something that is ok for 99 percent of the time. And the ones making an issue over this are the closing admins, who've been far more disruptive than the MFD itself. When I'm acting with our guidelines and policy backing me up, I don't see that as me acting alone. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Bah! Ned Scott should have let this slide; but, when he didn't, admins should have followed the rules carefully. This conflict would have been over by now if either party had behaved well. —SlamDiego_←T 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, right now we would be in the second day of a pointless 5-day MfD, quite possibly followed by a trip here to DRV anyway, all in the service of nothing in particular. And in the meantime the user in good standing who, for whatever idiosyncratic reason, didn't want the redirect there would be annoyed by having content on his own (ex-)userpage against his will. Newyorkbrad 01:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • So what? The correct thing, regardless of how you feel about the situation, would have been to let the MFD run. It was no longer a speedy deletion criteria, plain and simple. It doesn't matter how stupid it was, the closure was wrong. This is not a vote, and the issue is very clear here. We relist XfDs that are both improperly closed and controversial (at the time it was split right down the middle). You will not be allowed to ignore our deletion policy twice. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: Your fervent insistence that we must continue to discuss a dispute of this nature, no matter how trivial the dispute may be or how misbegotten the nature of your concern with it, simply because there exists a rule that arguably authorizes the discussion, is without merit. Frankly, at this point my only regret at having speedy-closed the MfD is that it disqualifies me from being the one to speedy-close the DRV. Newyorkbrad 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • MFDs shouldn't always have to be a life or death situation, and many of us felt it was still worth discussing. At this point, it's not worth the effort, but that is because of your doing (and Doc's technically speaking). You forced it closed, demanding that anyone who have a problem with it to take it to DRV. When I did.. you complained about that. What gives? You are to blame just as much as I am for making this a big deal. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • If it is so trivial then there should be no problem with leaving the redirect in place. —Centrx→talk • 04:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I've always seen deletion of pages in userspace as a right (in fact if not in name), unless deleting the page would serve to obscure a history of disruption. Even if Cat has done some bad things, deleting his (her?) old userpage doesn't obscure that very much, so I see no reason not to allow it. -Amarkov moo! 03:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please understand that this is the DRV. You are expressing that you feel the deletion is correct, which would be an appropriate comment for the MFD. The DRV is discussing if the closure was correct or not. Regardless of how you feel about this being a right or not, the instructions on the matter says that other users have a right to put this up on MFD. While I do think there is a history of disruption, that's not the only reason for which one can contest a userpage deletion. For one, Cat is using this deletion as leverage to continue his sig changes, an attempt at validating the action, which he was forced to stop doing. -- Ned Scott 03:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • But your contesting of the deletion is based on CSD U1 not applying. I'm saying that I believe it does, and if a speedy criterion applies, the closure was perfectly correct. -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • "If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page." Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not in plain english? -- Ned Scott 04:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment: That's about the userpage content itself, not a redirect page created and insisted upon by someone else. This is ridiculous already. Newyorkbrad 04:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • It doesn't say that at all, brad. It makes no distinction between the function of the page, and only says that if others feel there is a reason it should exist then it should be taken to MFD. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Ned, you left out the previous sentence. "If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information." That passage you keep quoting is talking about a need to retain the page because of disruptive behavior. There is no evidence of disruptive behavior in a simple redirect, thus an MFD is out of order and it is a valid U1 deletion. --BigDT 04:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • The page content can be speedy deleted if there is no evidence of disruptive behavior, but that is not the only reason such a deletion can be contested. It's Wikilawiering to suggest that the paragraph is encompassing any and all situations that could possibly apply. "if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page" doesn't say "if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page for evidence of disruptive behavior" -- Ned Scott 04:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
            • And keep in mind that U1 is assuming it's a normal user page, and not something like a redirect to a new user name. You are over-extending the rationale of U1 to a gray area, where it no longer becomes a clear criteria being met. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
              • There is no gray area. Cool Cat is still his user name. It's still his user page. I'm not required to have a user page. You're not required to have a user page. That paragraph you keep quoting from talks about disruptive behavior before the sentence you quote and it talks about policy violations after the sentence you quote. The logical assumption in my mind is that your sentence is talking about a need to retain the page because of policy violations. Any time that a deletion is contested, deletion review is always the proper course of action. When someone keeps recreating an article that is speedied, we salt the thing and tell them to take it to DRV. DRV, not MFD, is the correct process for contesting deletion and I have seen before and see no readon now to override his right to delete his own user page. --BigDT 04:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Straw-man, I'm not saying Cool Cat has to have a userpage, I'm saying the benefit of having a redirect to his new account outweighs his desire to have a redlink (for no reason, whatsoever) on his old account. Deleting user pages has never been a right, it's just been something that is normally uncontroversial. Do not confuse the two. Deleting the redirect was a WP:POINTy move by Cat to justify his sig changes, and only causes confusion and negative side effects to those trying to follow past discussions. And if the only reason for retaining the connection between the two accounts is disruptive behavior, Cool Cat has fulfilled that requirement, and I've said so since the start of this whole thing. It's a very gray area, because none of the policy was set up for this kind of situation, and it's anything but a clear speedy deletion criteria. You might feel strongly about this, but your feelings are not backed up by policy, and you should have brought your thoughts to the MFD. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • How does it cause any more confusion than for anyone else with no user page? His old talk page is still there and is a redirect, so if you click on the redlinked user page, you would see a blue linked "discussion" that will then redirect you to his new talk page. That's exactly the same number of clicks that it takes to get to anyone else that doesn't have a user page. --BigDT 05:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • We're not talking about people who don't have a user page for the current account they are using. Regardless of how many clicks it takes to get to his userpage, speedy closing the MFD as U1 was improper. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Moving all the contribs elsewhere changes the situation. Normally, if someone deletes their user page, all the contribs would still be in the same place, and the user would still contactable on their talk page. —Centrx→talk • 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment At this point, if someone would mark the MFD as something like "no consensus" or "no one gives a fuck", I'd be content with that. People are right, it's not worth this utter bizarre resistance just to help improve things for other editors. I no longer seek a relisting, but the closure is still improper and not supported by policy (as it was claimed). I don't know how the others who are supporting relisting feel, but I suspect that they wouldn't object to this. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I hope that anyone who knows my work on this site realizes that my goal here was to put an end to an unnecessary and bitter distraction from our main goals, not to perpetuate one. I still think my closure was proper, and am sorry you disagree, but if changing the wording of the close would reduce discontent I'd be happy to do that. Newyorkbrad 11:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Inquiry: Wouldn't any non-keep close rationale be cited as referance on similar future cases? -- Cat ^chi? 14:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • We don't keep "precedent" files on matters of minimal importance, and hopefully there won't be any "similar future cases." If I am able to get this resolved please don't complicate it further. Newyorkbrad 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • What will happen is about 3 months from now someone will find a comment by User:Cool Cat and wish to contact the user, but he will find there that the user page is gone and all the user's contribs have disappeared. Then, he will find the username he changed to and contact him there, while doing the polite thing and putting a redirect on User:Cool Cat so that other user's do not have such difficulty. If your purpose is to dispose of the issue so summarily that you have done so arbitrarily, then you may as well have done so by leaving the redirect in place. Since you think the issue is so trivial that the outcome does not matter, then the easier route to dispose of it would be to take the course of action that will not result in an endless stream of innocent people innocently re-creating the redirect, which will then either be let to remain, in which case your MfD decision is null, or it will be re-deleted, citing the MfD as precedent. —Centrx→talk • 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, if the user types "User:Cool Cat" into the search box, as of this moment, the redirect still comes up (because there is one at User:Cool cat with the small "c", even though User:Cool Cat is a redlink, which makes this issue even less important than when we started. I feel brain cells dying off every time I think about this issue and how many words have been spent on it. I plan to say nothing further about this matter. If I start to change my mind, stop me. Newyorkbrad 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I strongly believe people will have better things to do in three months than meddle with my userpage. You cannot really have a second guess as the deletion rationale. -- Cat ^chi? 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
              • They are trying to contact you, or investigate the mystery of the missing contribs, and then after going through the trouble of finding it out, they create a redirect, which requires about 5 seconds of time, and saves anyone else the future trouble. —Centrx→talk • 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Brad, "user request and precedent" was cited for the closing rationale. "precedent" I think should go all together, since this situation is not the same as the others cited on the MFD. If "user request" could be note that the U1 application was disputed by others, I'd be happy with that. Something like "It was disputed if U1 applied or not, but the matter has been dropped to de-escalate the dispute". -- Ned Scott 06:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. While I feel that much of the discussion on this page could have been avoided if the MfD were allowed to run its full course, I also feel that similar discussion would probably have taken place over there if not for the speedy close. I don't have strong feelings about whether or not the close was improper. Let me just point this out: if anybody stumbles upon the User:Cool Cat page, they can find the connection to User:White Cat by either clicking on "discussion" or viewing the activity logs for the Cool Cat page. Yes, it's more inconvenient than a simple redirect but not terribly so. --Kyoko 16:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy - allow discussion. But more importantly, get a life and get back to writing an encyclopedia - let's not argue about how many angels dance upon the tip of a pin, OK? That being said, Cool Cat, why in the world do you have to create needless controversy with this kind of nonsense? With all due respect, this is far from the first time you appear to be climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. The Evil Spartan 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  I am White Cat not Spider Cat. I dislike climbing german parlimentary buildings and I do not do cosplay. -- Cat ^chi? 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletionEven though it shouldn't have been improperly deleted, the reasons for its deletion remain: it's his userpage, and he should be able to delete it at his own will. hmwithtalk 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Restore redirect. His userpage is deleted. Putting a redirect there for easy navigation doesn't change that. It has so many incoming links that having a redirect is necessary. Why is he even resisting a redirect if his talk page redirect is supposedly so easy to find? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  It is not point. I do not want "what links here" show my non-current edits. That way I can more conveniently follow references on me. -- Cat ^chi? 11:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  So it's better to inconvenience the community on the whole for something so painfully minor? -- Ned Scott 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Is your argument so weak that you have to respond to anything and everything I respond to? -- Cat ^chi? 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Just because I respond to you doesn't make my argument weak at all. It's called a discussion. But hey, I like how you avoided my question and tried to turn it around on me (in a way that.. doesn't make any sense at all and only makes you look stupid, but hey, whatever floats your boat). -- Ned Scott 04:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist at MfD These four things I know are true: (a) It is eminently clear that, in the absence of some profound new argument, MfD will counsel deletion here; (b) It is, to me, quite plain that deletion is appropriate here inasmuch as we do not proscribe editors' rendering their signatures as redlinks and inasmuch as User talk:Cool Cat, a tab for which one reaches when he clicks on User:Cool Cat, redirects to the new talk page (which redirection may not be obligatory; (c) It is well settled, the occasional recent DRV notwithstanding, that where a non-trivial amount of editors suggest that a criterion for speedy deletion does not apply to a given page, even where the number of those reasonably suggesting a criterion to apply are sufficient to suggest the presence of a consensus for the application of a criterion, inasmuch as speedy deletion commands the support of the community as policy only to the extent that it means to effect relatively uncontroversial, pro forma deletions and since it is always better to permit discussion, even that which one sees as fruitless and unnecessary (exceptions may apply where discussion is particularly disruptive, but disruptive does not equal consuming the time of certain editors who might, I think, be better served to spend their time otherwise), where the curtailing of such discussion is likely to engender more trouble (if a full MfD had been completed here and had borne out a clear consensus for deletion [or, really, since relative to a userpage a presumption is in favor of permitting a user to delete his page, OWN notwithstanding, other than a clear consensus for keeping], Ned and David, et al., would not, I imagine, feel compelled to consume the time of the communtiy with the issue; and (d) DRV (almost exclusively) about process (I suppose that process may not be of paramount import where an overturning of a particular decision at DRV should produce unnecessary disruption and ultimately a disposition identical to that which preceded DRV, but I recognize that the disruption of this page's being relisted will prove less severe than of this DRV's affirming a closure that some think to have been out-of-process); hence, overturn. Joe 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that this multiple page debate is over a "#redirect User:White Cat" content. I do not understand why people are thinking so hard about it. -- Cat ^chi? 06:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Could not the same be said for.. you..? -- Ned Scott 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  On a side note, dang, Joe, that's freaking art (meaning: well said!) -- Ned Scott 06:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, if the user wants his/her former userpage deleted, keep it deleted per CSD U1. Let's get back to work since this is an encyclopedia. He still lists his logs on his new userpage and also his old talk page is not deleted. Terence 07:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• U1 says a user can have their userpage deleted, yes, but it doesn't say anything about preventing anything from being there (such as a redirect). I can't help but think that, logically speaking, U1 was about the content of the page itself, and not about the title. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Existing policy can be followed now, and amended for future cases. I believe that many of the people who are now insisting that policy should be followed would accept it also being amended. —SlamDiego_←T 14:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Existing policy wasn't designed to work for these kinds of situations in the first place. The idea was that such deletion requests were almost always minor, non-controversial, and where it was removing content that the user themselves had generated and wasn't required to fulfill any particular function. The policy even says for more details to see WP:USER, where it's suggested to take such things to MFD. I do wish to expand on U1, and help clarify situations for the future, but what it says now is not in conflict with contesting U1 on MFD. -- Ned Scott 21:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, but presumably you would insist that you are trying to get policy (ill-designed or otherwise) followed. So long as there were no ex post facto application, would you object to amending policy so that, in future, a request such as that by the Cat could be honored without the sort of discussion for which you now argue? —SlamDiego_←T 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • (I ask because I am somewhat sympathetic to each side here. I'm inclined to believe that the rules were and should not have been broken, and I'm inclined to believe that the rules should allow a user to get his page truly wiped.) —SlamDiego_←T 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as one of the deleting admins, I really don't understand how such a simple request got as far as DRV. This is ridiculous. Yonatan ^talk 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Because it was an improper closure? It doesn't matter if you feel it's a silly issue, multiple long term editors in good standing raised questions regarding the issue, including if U1 even applied or not, especially given that we don't anticipate U1 ever being controversial, is all the more reason to have allowed the MFD to continue. As one of the deleting admins, you've one of the reasons this has gone so far, and why it went from a simple MFD to a larger issue. Let me ask this, why be so insistent that there not be an MFD? Why do the people supporting close continue to insist that having an MFD is the big deal? Maybe you don't understand the situation because you don't have all the answers, nor are you the "judge" of such situations, the community is. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment An interesting thing happened, Cyde Weys, unaware of the MFD/DRV, recreated the redirect for User:Cool Cat. An understandable miscommunication, but it does give us some interesting insight from someone who hasn't been apart of the discussion so far. I'm not trying to pull Cyde into the debate or anything, as I doubt he feels strongly about it one way or the other, but I felt it was just too interesting not to note.

  "It's not about what you desire though, it's about what is most functional and useful for the whole of Wikipedia. Your bizarre and unexplainable desire to not even have a redirect from your old username is not outweighed by the very pragmatic usefulness to everyone else, especially those unaware of your name change, of having such a redirect. --Cyde Weys 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)" [13].

• Full text at User talk:Cyde#User:Cool Cat. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This image was used in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu article (a featured article) to illustrate the three top commanders at the battle. The image was listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 7, where it had unanimous consensus to keep it (the nominator not withstanding). User:Howcheng deleted it, claiming "it was never explained in the deletion debate exactly what is so important about this specific image", when in fact that was explained in the previous deletion debate. There is clearly not going to be a free replacement, and the image is necessary to illustrate the commanders at the battle. Also, to respond to Howcheng's question, this specific image is necessary because it illustrates all three top commanders planning their battle plan. Raul654 02:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Overwhelming consensus that the image isn't replaceable or decorative, considering the article passed the FA wringer and there was no consensus for deletion at the IfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at IfD Whilst I think it exceedingly likely that a consensus will develop at IfD for the image's being kept (and properly so, IMHO), I would suggest that the original IfD ought not only not to have been closed as delete but in fact ought not to have been closed at all (were closure to have been undertaken, no consensus; hence keep would surely have been the appropriate disposition); although the discussion bore out what one would imagine to be all of the relevant arguments, there was not really sufficient participation from which to divine where the consensus of the community lay. Joe 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  Remember that "consensus" is the gathering of valid arguments, and not the counting of votes. The keep votes on the ifd failed to address the concerns raised on the nomination, and as such, don't form consensus. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know that your definition of consensus is quite right. Whilst it is true that a consensus at a particular insular AfD cannot override policy to which the community generally have acceded, a consensus at a given XfD as to the application of a given policy is presumptively correct. If, for instance, an editor nominates an image for deletion in view of its being inconsistent with our non-free content policy and eight of ten who partake of the IfD suppose that the nominator is incorrect, it is not for the closing administrator to substitute his own judgment for that of those participating in the IfD except where the reasoning of !voters is so plainly capricious as to be unlikely to command the support of any non-trivial number of editors; the latter situation is surely not present here. Where an XfD suffers from low participation, relisting may be in order; where there is a plain consensus amongst those participating at an XfD for an interpretation of policy that others suggest may be plainly inconsistent with the wishes of the community, an admin (adminship is, after all, ministerial) must close the discussion in accordance with the consensus interpretation. Other editors may, then, challenge the decision taken as plainly inconsistent with policy, and those participating at DRV might determine that, although the closure was proper, the discussion failed to consider certain issues, such that relisting is in order. XfD is not a vote, but neither is it an invitation for a closing admin to substitute his own judgment, or that of a few participants in a given XfD, for those more prominently expressed where the latter are not facially contrary to policy. Joe 01:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  But if you read the ifd in question, you'll see that the keep votes didn't addressed the policy. They simply repeated that the image is necessary to illustrate the article, without explaining why. One editor said "it adds significantly to the Dien Bien Phu article" and other said "(it) depicts the command of one side of the very important battle", but both of them failed to explain why the Dien Bien Phu article needs an illustration that "depicts the command of one side of the [...] battle" to begin with. It's not obvious to me why, in order to be understood, an article about a historic battle needs to be illustrated with a picture showing three men pointing to a map. The ifd closing was correct. --Abu badali ^(talk) 11:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  Precisely. And I have to note that of the three editors who contributed to the discussion (Raul654, AnonEMouse, and Zeus1234), none of them are regulars at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. The NFCC is one of the most arcane portions of Wikipedia policy, so it's not surprising that they don't really grasp it entirely. Abu's arguments were the only ones that addressed all ten points of the NFCC. It's my prerogative to disregard those comments which don't take into account or misrepresent the entire policy. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  It is only the closing admin's prerogative to disregard those comments that are entirely inconsistent with policy, not those that offer plausible, if dubious, interpretations of policy (since adminship is ministerial, discretion is, or ought to be, rather limited). If an admin confronts an AfD in which deletion is urged by eight of ten !voters solely on the grounds that the subject is a bad guy, he is compelled to discount those !votes because they are not consistent with any interpretation of policy (he ought then to relist to generate more discussion). Here, though, the keep !votes can be understood as advancing an interpretation of policy (those !voting keep don't ignore NFCC's criteria; they ostensibly construe and apply them, and it is not for a closing admin to consider how well they apply them, only that purport to apply them), and that interpretation's being different from that of the deleting admin does not permit the latter to substitute his judgment for that of those participating in the XfD. Where a consensus appears to have developed at an XfD for an interpretation of policy that an admin thinks to be entirely at odds with policy, he ought to raise that issue in the XfD or relist to generate a clearer consensus. At the very least, relisting was appropriate here to provide other editors the opportunity to suggest why an article about a historic battle needs to be illustrated with a picture showing three men pointing to a map; a failure to relist and to delete without sufficient community involvement is itself a procedural problem the presence of which merits an overturning at DRV (if only to permit another discussion). Joe 06:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, obviously. Consensus can't trump copyright law. Think about it - suppose Encyclopedia Britanica wanted to use this guy's photo and not pay royalties. His estate (or whoever owns his photos) would sue. Fair use isn't "this looks pretty and I don't feel like paying royalties so I'm going to use it". To use this photo under a claim of fair use, we would need to be offering some kind of critical commentary about the photo itself or a discussion of the topic would not be complete without including the photo. For example, when you see Kent State shootings, you instantly think of the Pulitzer photo. No discussion of that topic is complete without the photo. But this one? There's nothing iconic - it just happens to depic the topic. We cannot use this image under the law. Any consensus to the contrary is invalid. --BigDT 04:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As a fair use justification, there's no apparent legal issue. Our policy is much stricter than the law for short-sighted, pragmatic reasons, and it seems like a lot of people think this image still makes the cut. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This image probably does meet our policy. It unquestionably does not pass the legal standard, though. You can't use someone's photo simply to avoid paying them royalties. That's why we don't use news media photos. The fact that this photographer privately sold his photos to books instead of calling himself a journalist changes nothing - we can't use this photo legally without paying royalties. --BigDT 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair use standards are different for nonprofits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's true, but keep in mind that we have commercial downstream uses. Everything we create needs to be GFDL-compatible and the GFDL permits commercial reuse. If this image would not be legitimate to use commercially without permission, then we can't use it either. --BigDT 13:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • And the policy allows for fair use. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Neither policy nor consensus can trump law. Nobody anywhere outside of Wikipedia would try to use a news media photo under a claim of fair use. It just doesn't make a bit of sense - it is inviting a lawsuit. --BigDT 14:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
              • And, again, this is not legally problematic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
                • How? Saying it doesn't make it so. The fair use doctrine lets us use a screenshot from Star Trek when talking about Star Trek. It lets us quote from Rush Limbaugh when talking about him. It doesn't let us use Joe Schmoe's photograph simply because he happens to have taken a photograph of the subject of the article. If Joe is selling rights to use his photo, then our use of it is infringing on his right under the law to make money from his intellectual property. There are three DRVs right now basically on the same issue and this applies to all of them. I'm going to say it in big letters - FAIR USE IS NOT A LICENSE TO USE COMMERCIAL CONTENT WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. If our policy doesn't adequately recognize that we cannot use these images, then our policy is broken and we need a Jimbo ex Machina or some such thing to fix it. --BigDT 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • This image doesn't meet our policy. It fails item #2 (in that it's a non-iconic from a news agency used in an article about the event depicted) and item #8 (in that it doesn't help the in the articles comprehension). We don't do with non-free material what we can do without it. And this article doesn't need an image of 3 men pointing to a map. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is the photographer and where is this image sourced to? Kotepho 05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is http://www.indochinawar.com/image3.html. They give the photographer as Georges Boudarel. (See fr:Georges Boudarel.) I don't read French, but from the google translation, it looks like he served with the French during Vietnam and later wrote books critical of the war. The book that published his photo is not one he wrote, so presumably he licensed his photo to them. --BigDT 05:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BigDT, that is one the wrongest statements I've seen in a long time. Fair use IS, under every definition in the law, a license to use commercial content without paying for it under particular circumstances. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

False. Fair use is a defense that you can use in court if you are sued for copyright infringement. No court would ever recognize use of some random news media photo as a fair use. --BigDT 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per Raul.  Grue  19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  Just like the ifd, this is not a vote. Endorsing an argument doesn't make it stronger. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Uh, yeah it does. We're trying to build consensus here, not to compete in Who Comes Up With The Longest Way To Say "Copyright Paranoia Sucks".  Grue  19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  This isn't "copyright paranoia" -- it's about following WP:EDP, and calling it such only mocks the Foundation policy. howcheng {chat} 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Fair use is indeed a license to use content without paying for it, or in the face of the opposition of the copyright holder. See Fair use. There are several aspects of the fair use test, and no one of them always controls. One aspect is whether the copyright holder would suffer any economic loss, and that test always considers the commercial market for the work, if any, and how it would be harmed by the use. Another aspect is the amount of the work used. Yet another aspect is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". In this case, what wikipedia is doing is commenting on the historical events, events which are depicted in the photo. This makes at least a reasonable claim of fair use, and would for downstream reusers, at least for reusers who are mirrors or forks, even commercial ones. But no fair use claim is ever identical to any other, and unless we remove all images used under fair use claims, any downstream reuser must make an indpendant evaluation or be at risk, at elst theoretically, of suit. This image is no different. DES ^(talk) 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  You say the article is "commenting on the historical events, events which are depicted in the photo." I did read Battle of Dien Bien Phu, specifically the "Lead up to Castor" section where the image was located. Nowhere in there is there any description of what is depicted in the photo: these men sitting around a map. To be absolutely clear, there is no commentary on the image whatsoever. Let me put it another way: We normally disallow magazine covers to be used when the cover itself is not discussed. This is exactly the same. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • So why should any AP photographer ever take a picture of a news event? If anyone (including commercial entities) can just use it and call it fair use and refuse to pay royalties, what's in it for the photographer? --BigDT 22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Becauawe one photo, of an event several decades ago, may be usable under "fair use" by some but not all reusers for some but not all purposes, it does not follow that all news photographs may be reused by anyone at all for any reason whatsoever. Fair use is all about making those distinctions. Also, as a practical matter, most AP photographers are either on salary, or are paid for the inital uses of their photos -- the fraction of their income that comes from reprints 30 years later is effectively zero. If this were a photo of an event last week, the case for fair use would be much weaker, in part because the potential commercial market would be much larger. I again suggest that you read our article Fair use, it explains what the legal rules are at some length. DES ^(talk) 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Incorrect. History books or ...encyclopedias (!) are still potential customers to AP. Your argument would imply that it's ok to pirate old (but still copyrighted) movies, just because the bulk of their revenue came from the ticket sales. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted our use does not appear to be transformative. There is no critical commentary of this image and it is used soley to identify these people (them looking at a map is not something that needs to be illustrated). Kotepho 22:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from closer: I'd like to point people to the newly rewritten WP:NFCC #8, which I believe is more in line with Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy (full disclosure, I wrote it a week after I proposed it, during which time it received no objections). So with that in mind, since Raul states that the image is required in order to show "all three top commanders planning their battle plan", here's my follow-up question: What information can be gleaned from this picture that can't be adequately explained in words? It's just a picture of some people sitting around a map. howcheng {chat} 23:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - despite my recent rampage through the fields of Wikipedia fair use with a machete, this is precisely the sort of thing fair use is for - David Gerard 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In what way does this image meet NFCC items 2 and 8? howcheng {chat} 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - The "three top commanders planning their battle plan" is not an information that asks for an illustration in order to be understood. The threshold for using non-free material is that it's necessary for the article comprehension, and not that it's simply useful. Showing three men pointing to a map doesn't help an explanation about a battle nor about the strategies or tactics used in this battle. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. It meets all of the Non-free content criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I repeat: in what way does this image meet NFCC items 2 and 8? howcheng {chat} 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hop (drug) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

why I think it should be undeleted:

1) Very well documented, including journal articles and OED references. Cited journal articles are not found in the OED reference.

2) While the term is no longer used in contemporary language, it survives in important American literature, such as "THE ICEMAN COMETH" by Eugene O'Neill and "THE THIN RED LINE" by James Jones. Thus, in my opinion it still lives on and is important information to document. When one reads about a "hop dream" or being "hopped up", the context often doesn't give enough information as to the meaning of the term, especially in literature prior to the 1960's when talk of sex and drug use had to be written in less explicit terms.

3) The article content was not *just a definition*. It gives an etymology with references and several examples. Please read the actual content before judging second hand from the AfD note of one person. Moreover, the content was not and is not in wiktionary.

4) Many other slang terms are included in wikipedia: Cracker_(pejorative), White trash, dork. Why do they exist and not this?

Repliedthemockturtle 01:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. According to the AfD, the article was just a definition, and one that said it was slang for opium. There's no reason given why the AfD was wrong, so... -Amarkov moo! 01:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Looking a second time, it turns out that I misinterpreted the comment on AfD; it was referring to the Wiktionary article. Could we get this temporarily undeleted for review? -Amarkov moo! 01:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Restore There is decent content in the article. Even if it is a duplicate of the Wiktionary entry currently, one can imagine some further expansion and at the very least it could survive as a redirect. Pascal.Tesson 14:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Restore, then expand encyclopedically (if User:Repliedthemockturtle volunteers to maintain non-dicdef content), then relist at AfD for a new consensus on whether it's non-dicdef enough for a Wikipedia article. I can't see the article and its refs (I'm not an admin and Google cache doesn't have it), but I trust the judgment of User:Pascal.Tesson on the content. Wiktionary, besides the two-word description at "hop" number 5, has the phrase [//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hopped_up hopped up] with slightly more content and a sample usage, but no connection to the term's use in twentieth-century literature (William Burroughs is another influential example, cited in Opium). Phrases with the term "hop" also took on significance in jazz and blues that are probably more documented than "just another slang name for a drug". WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary tells us that

  it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

  If the article and its sources satisfy the AfD's closer that it's more than an expanded dicdef, then it should be relisted. The consensus may or may not find the article to be more than just a minor cultural-linguistics essay. Normally I would expect AfD to reach a decision to merge this into one paragraph in Hop, but that's a disambiguation page with no parent better than this one. It points to Opium but that article doesn't mention "hop(s)" nor "hopped up" nor use in jazz or blues. Barno 16:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• A comment on the nominator's point 4: besides the guideline that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for this article to exist, the other slang terms may or may not have been debated on AfD and found to be "essential" enough or to show well-documented significance that passes WP:ATT. You're free to nominate-for-deletion any of those articles on slang that you don't feel meets the policy WP:ATT or the guideline WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you do, check its "AfD history" link first. Barno 16:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• comment I have doen a temporary undel so that the history is visible to non-admins. DES ^(talk) 20:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The AfD was reasoanbel, and the statemetns made there were not inaccurate. no process violations that I can see. However, do not salt, specifially, there should be no bar to creating a new and more encyclopedi article on this topic. allow the history to be userfied if anyone wants it as a basis for such an expanded articele, and if it is used, undelted the history if such an expanded article is created. DES ^(talk) 20:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• comment I am not an admin nor an expert on the workings of wikipedia policy, but it seems that it is very easy for an article to be deleted but very difficult to have it reinstated. My main point here is that if precidence (i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is not a sufficient reason for inclusion of an article, why should we rely so heavily on the decision of the orginal AfD? Shouldn't this be evaluated anew, instead of leaning so heavily on the original AfD decision ('no process violations' seems to me to be a decision based on precidence)? My secondary point is that I see the delete/undelete arguments to be somewhat overtechnical and knee-jerk reactionary ('dicdefs don't belong here') My personal guidelines for inclusion are these: 1) does the article provide (and will it continue provide) useful information to people? 2) is the topic important enough to justify inclusion in an (extensive) encyclopedia on general knowledge 3) is the article factual and researched well? As far as wiktionary versus wikipedia, I think that any article that can benefit from the wiki process of elbaoration and research belongs in wikipedia. A dictionary is a place where people go to look up a definition, not a place to collect extensive etymological knowledge on a word. Take a look on the entry for the term OK. This is a fascinating and useful article on a slang term. It never would have gotten to its current state if it was deemed a dicdef. Lastly, in the spirit of democracy I think it's best to err on the side of including material when at least some segment of the wikipedia community find it useful. What is worse to loose knowledge or to have a little extra trivial knowledge? I lean towards the former being worse. Seems like we have wasted much more time, energy, and disk space on discussing this deletion than if we just executed the 'sin' of leaving the darn (rather harmless) entry in place. These are my thoughts...take them as they are...Repliedthemockturtle 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, there doesn't seem much to be said about this, but it seems like it would do fine as a couple sentences in the main opium article, which already uses the term "hop fiend" without much explanation. Why not just redirect and leave the history behind it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Really, this article was deleted almost 2 and a half months ago. It looks like a dictionary entry and would probably be better served by a mention in a relevant article. Other than that, this is DRV, which reviews process not content (if anyone's forgotten that lately). Process was fine and fair. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 23:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, but allow recreation. No problem with the result, and it does read like a dicdef, but that's no reason to disallow a possible better article in its place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question Could someone please explain to a relative beginner what is the practical difference between overturn, and endorse but allow re-creation? DGG 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • History undeletion, probably. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • More specifically, i would say that if deletion were overturned, the previous article would be recreated, to be expanded or not in the normal editing process, with the implication that the existing form is acceptable id not exactly FA matériel. Endorse but allow recreation means that the old article will be deleted, but when and if a reasonable article on the subject is created, a) it won't bee subject to speedy deletion under G4 (recreation of deleted content) and b) the old article will, on request, be undeleted as part of the history of the new one. But nothing will be there until a new and better article is written by someone. DES ^(talk) 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If the new article is substantially different you can't speedy delete it as a G4. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Endorse deletion Administrators have discretion to end discussions they think are getting out of hand. [Good thing I'm not an administrator... :)] I see no reason to overturn. YechielMan 01:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)
• Endorse deletion. I haven't seen any evidence that process was not followed in the AfD or subsequent deletion, which is what we review here. Heather 14:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, merge and redirect. There was far too little participation in the AFD and no one even considered merging it into the opium article which would seem like a sensible solution to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Page speedy-deleted for invalid reason: page was listed as db-spam, yet was not unencyclopædic OwenBlacker 08:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note blatant conflict of interest ([14]). Guy (Help!) 09:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I do work for uSwitch and it was remiss of me not to mention that in this listing (though it is linked from my User page, I believe); my apologies. I still believe, however, that the article is (at least the beginnings of) encyclopædic. Our Senior Editor here went to great lengths to try to be NPOV in writing the initial article, which has been edited since by other wikipedians. — OwenBlacker 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy restore. Agree re the COI, but a quick look at the deleted content does not suggest why on earth this was speedied. uSwitch as a valid company, who work much like Kelkoo but for utilities. They've been in the news plenty of times in the UK([15] [16] [17] [18] [19]), and are a partner of the Britannia Building Society ([20]) among others. This needed checking and editing, not hamfisted speedy deletion. Neil (►) 12:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've restored per request of Neil. It was not deleted because of COI, it was deleted because it looks and reads like a blatant advertisement, which is the definition of spam. Notability is a big question, as it is presented in the article. I realize, Neil, you think it was a bad decision, but after reviewing the article, I still stand by the spam judgement. AKRadecki 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Restore - This is a notable company within the United Kingdom. They even advertise in the London Underground, which seems to demonstrate that they have enough visibility to warrant a Wikipedia article. (Perhaps OwenBlacker would agree to voluntarily avoid editing the article so as to avoid the conflict of interest?) Dr. Submillimeter 12:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been involved in writing the initial article and watch it for vandalism (I was off sick and thus missed the {{db-spam}} tagging). I don't intend on adding POV material to the article and will generally avoid making substantive edits. — OwenBlacker 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. COI is not a reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • To clarify, the conflict of interest was not the reason for deletion, it was tagged as "blatant advertising", qv {{db-spam}}. — OwenBlacker 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It didn't (and doesn't) read like blatant advertising to me. Neil (►) 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - the company is notable if not for their activities then their advertising campaign (see Sheilas' Wheels, Crazy Frog) Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - notable in itself as a UK business but also within the context of the changing UK energy market. It needs better references and a stronger section on the criticisms that have been made of the company - mainly that because they get commission for a switch, that they might select companies that benefit them more than the consumer. --Fredrick day 14:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - Deletion is not the sole route to the type of correction that *might* be called for in this regard. We have plenty of tags to slap up on the article to improve it. Wjhonson 15:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - as above Catchpole 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn but place an {{ad}} banner at the top until it's less advertising. Note that g11 states, Pages... which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic; this page requires minor changes, not major. The Evil Spartan 18:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, looks like it passes WP:CORP. If it seems NPOV and spammy, we have tags for that.--Rayc 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted as a violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use #5, on the theory this is a non free press photo of a living person. However, that guideline also states "If photos are themselves newsworthy (e.g., a photo of equivalent notoriety as the Muhammad cartoons newspaper scan), low-resolution versions of the photos may be "fair use" in related articles." This image depicts the Zimbabwean opposition leader brutally beaten for political reasons. The image appeared in the relevant article. It is therefore a newsworthy photo not just being used to show what a living person looks like and proper fair use. -N 20:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from the closer: The event itself was newsworthy. Neither Morgan Tsvangirai nor History of Zimbabwe mention this specific image. The uploader cited four different articles in defense of his image -- none of them felt the need to use this image. Hence, the image in and of itself is not newsworthy and thus Wikipedia:Non-free content#Examples of unacceptable use #5 applies. howcheng {chat} 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I initially quoted articles to give the historical context. However if you look closely you will see that I listed many article that later on in the discussion that did have the photo. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion: The image wasn't deleted "on the theory this is a non free press photo of a living person". It was deleted because it was a non-iconic unfree picture of an important event used to illustrate that event, in direct market replacement of the original purpose this image has to it's copyright holder (a news agency that makes a living out of licensing images like this for, among other things, websites like this). --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. There was no consensus to delete this photo to begin with. Additionally the photo itself was newsworthy was iconic.. The picture is of Morgan Tsvangirai leader of the MDC (the opposition movement in Zimbabwe), showing his appalling injuries after he was tortured very badly by the Zimbabwean government. This obviously is not reproducible at any later point. The issue is a big one both politically and in the human rights community. The government there often denies doing this kind of thing and this photo is one of the few times that it can be proven wrong. This has caused a big international uproar. Here is the original photo or similar image used in context around the world: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], Here is an article and under the caption reads "Footage of Mr Tsvangirai's injuries was shown around the world" - see here [27], [28], [[29], [30], [31], [32], [33] Thus it is very notable and qualifies under fair use. Please, before you judge this, learn about the recent History of Zimbabwe. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The whole thing about "no consensus to delete" is moot because policy trumps consensus every time. Here is what you need to do in order have the image kept: Prove that this specific image (as opposed to any other image of his injuries) is noteworthy and cite that in the articles, which may be difficult considering that the BBC article you cited [34] stating "Footage of Mr Tsvangirai's injuries was shown around the world" uses a completely different image. That will get you past WP:NFCC #2. Here are examples of truly iconic images: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, The Falling Man, Phan Thị Kim Phúc, Elián González, Image:Reichstag flag.jpg, Earthrise (the last two are public domain). Can this image stand with the ones I just listed? howcheng {chat} 00:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I showed many articles with the exact same image. The point was to show that the image of his injuries was a big deal. The BBC article had a different picture of those same injuries, but the tagline saying they that pics of his injuries went around the world implies that any pic of his injuries at the time was notable. It was a big deal politically. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the problems here is that this photo is too recent -- it's just from two months ago and it hasn't had the time to make a similar cultural impact with the ones I listed above. howcheng {chat} 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - we absolutely cannot use news media photos. Press agencies make their money licensing those photos. If we use them without paying license fees, that's a huge potential liability when we get sued. --BigDT 00:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Custodiet ipsos custodes makes a good case for fair use justification within policy, as far as that policy appears to be explained—it does not appear to be true that "we absolutely cannot use newsmedia photos" according to WP:NONFREE. A free content alternative is simply not available, and that image seems to be of iconic import to recent Zimbabwe politics. Is the scope of that importance notable? WP:CSB. —pfahlstrom 03:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - We can use news media photos to illustrate articles (or sections) about the news media photos themselves. But we absolutely cannot use news media photos to illustrate the articles (or sections) about the news events they depict, which is the case here. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comments only for now. First, I don't know what the hell "iconic" means in contexts such as this; I suspect it's just "very well known" but amn't sure. If it means "very well known", let's say so; if it means something else, let's say so. Secondly, whether or not WP can use news media photos, it does use them. Here's an example. (NB I am not putting forward the use of this photo as a reason to use the photo under deletion review, merely remarking on WP as I see it.) -- Hoary 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll define iconic as "well-known enough to be recognized by a large number of casual readers". Maybe it's systemic bias to say that a photo from Zimbabwe just doesn't have the same reach as the photos I listed above (which with the exception of the Reichstag flag were all widely circulated in the U.S.), but until there is literature about the image itself (for example, the book Flags of Our Fathers is specifically about the photo Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, but we don't need to have an entire book) then it's a non-notable picture about a notable event. howcheng {chat} 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, OK. I'd never seen The Falling Man before. (Its title made me think it might be this really famous [or so I think] photo.) The Elián González photo looks vaguely familiar, but strange as if I had seen it at all I would have done so in black and white. -- Hoary 11:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• If an image is "iconic". it was discussed elsewhere be someonelse, and we should only use it here in the context of discussing the image itself (and not the event it depicts). The award wining Elian image, for instance, cannot be used in Elián González to illustrate the text about the boy being rescued by an INS agent. It can only be used to illustrate the information that this very picture, taken during that event, won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize. Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg, as far as I know isn't discussed anywhere. All the links User:Custodiet ipsos custodes ofer are to new articles discussing the event in question. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy. As far as I can tell it meets all ten points of this policy which incidentally mention significance rather than iconicity. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Policy can't override the law. Think about it - if Encyclopedia Brittanica decided to use news media photos without permission, what would happen? They would get sued. As a non-commercial entity, we may be able to get away with some things they can't, but we do have downstream uses. We absolutely cannot use news media photos - it's just asking for legal troubles and they should be deleted on sight. --BigDT 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it can, but you appear to disapprove of any form of fair use alltogether even if both policy and law allow it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • Actually it fails to meet "2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." - by using the image on an article about the beating, we are basically competing with news media outlets who might use the image commercially for the same purpose. Megapixie 15:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The original market value was to be used as news. The news cycle is very quick and after 24 hours it starts getting old. After weeks and months have passed its primary market is not damaged. It does have a secondary market, however this is something the courts have given much more leeway on. Let me quote from a recent court of appeals opinion:[35] and [36] 'Were a court automatically to conclude in every case that potential licensing revenues were impermissibly impaired simply because the secondary user did not pay a fee for the right to engage in the use, the fourth fair use factor would always favor the copyright holder.' Additionally Wikipedia is a non-profit and an educational forum. Fair use really does work here. As I have tried to stress many times before, each case is individual and it is erroneous to assume a blanket legal rule against one type. I have actually spent many many hours researching this. At this point I could write a long sourced article about it. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • So in essence, you're more arguing against the policy itself, not in its application, right? The non-free content policy here is intentionally more restrictive than what U.S. copyright law allows because its primary aim is not to keep us from getting sued, but freedom instead -- the freedom for anyone to do anything they want with the content. Every piece of non-free content is a hindrance to that goal. Now we are not going to go the German route and ban all non-free content, but we can limit its usage to only what's necessary. You might find other examples of improper usage of non-free images, but that doesn't mean we allow more. howcheng {chat} 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Well I was addressing the issue of those who said it was a straight out copy violation. However I understand the Wikipedia policy allows fair use on some limited occasions. This implies some degree of commercial loss by "secondary use". Otherwise we would never be allowed to use a copyrighted image in Wikipedia (i.e. even a magazine cover in reduced pixel form could be licensed by the copyright holder, yet Wikipedia sometimes allows it). So for the same reasons as above, one must logically interpret the rule to apply to primary and not secondary loss of commercial use. Thus even according to the Wikipedia policy this image is permitted. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 22:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • But look at the court case you are quoting from. The issue there was the use of an event poster where there was historical significance of the poster itself, not merely the fact that it happened to depict people from the band. In this case, any photo from the period would do just fine - there's nothing historically significant about this photo itself. Further, whereas the primary purpose of the poster was to promote the band (a purpose not infringed by using it without paying royalties), the primary purpose of this photo is to sell it and collect royalties. --BigDT 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • You are mistaken to say that the photo is not historically significant. The images of Morgan Tsvangirai after he was beaten up caused an international uproar. The point of the photo was to show his injuries after the government literally tried to beat him to death (not any photo would do; only one having him with his injuries next to the hospital.) Secondly I disagree with you about the primary purpose of the photo. The news agency photos are taken primarily to illustrate current events. The overwhelming majority of photos are used and printed within 48 hours of being taken. After that they are considered 'old' news. A tiny proportion are used later on are sold afterwards for other uses. Thus that later use is secondary. --Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I grant that in the case of the aforementioned poster - there was only one poster and it had significance in of itself. Here, there are a very limited number of photographs. The event they portray is important. However the image of a badly beaten man itself is iconic so the few alternatives are each iconic. Perhaps like the multiple shots of Iwo Jima. Each of them is iconic. Secondly there are no alternatives. There were only a few photographs taken of Morgan Tsvangirai while he was exiting the hospital for treatment/convelessing. Given also that Zimbabwe is one of the poorest countries in the world and that its economy is in ruins, cameras are very scarce and thus it is virtually certain that no new free shots in the future will become available. Accordingly the images are very rare and iconic. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 10:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • On top of that, we can use a low-resolution version if market value is an issue. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I think the arguments on both sides that are being raised here were already raised in the debate. I trust that Howcheng would have been open to an argument he felt was convincing. I see nothing wrong with the closure. Mangojuice^talk 04:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

John P. Kelly (Philadelphia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Author not notified (i.e. there was insufficient notice given), nor was there a real consensus. The standard used was rather arbitrary. evrik ^(talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• How was the standard used "arbitrary"? The nom asserted this man is a non-notable politician and the discussion participants agreed. --Iamunknown 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (These should be combined, I'm just duplicating text)
  • As an example of the arbitrary nature I'd invite you to look at John Kelly. Then I would invite you to look at John P. Kelly (New Jersey). The councilman in question is as notable as most of the people on that list. The assertion that he was not notable was invalid, and he meets the google test. Also, you should only get one bite at the apple. After not getting the desired outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John P. Kelly (Philadelphia), the article ws listed a second time for deletion. --evrik ^(talk) 01:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion the supposedly "arbitrary standard" cited at AfD was WP:BIO, a widely accepted standard which is hardly arbitrary. The arguments to keep, on the other hand.... Xtifr _tälk 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• No notice is required, so the notice given met all our requirements. That standard seems fine. --pgk 22:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion on the basis that there certainly was a real consensus. At the end of 5 d, there were 2 deletes in addition to the nom, & 1 keep on the basis that a member of a city council for a large city was automatically notable--which is not the practice. The AfD was, properly, continued an extra 5 days, and there were 6 additional deletes & no other comments. That's consensus. If he does become notable, then it will be time to re-create an article. DGG 22:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This was rushed and there wasn't enough consensus to justify closing deleting. I agree with Evrik that more notice should have been given. Also, I think the debate was hastily closed. --South Philly 12:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Eight days is not "rushed". AfD normally gets five days. What do you mean by "more notice"? Corvus cornix 22:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted and speedy close. "Author not notified" is not a valid reason to overturn anything. Also, AFD debates don't come much clearer than this one. >Radiant< 12:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose speedy close. --South Philly 13:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no valid reason presented for overturn. --Fredrick day 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Juan F. Ramos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Author not notified (i.e. there was insufficient notice given), nor was there a real consensus. The standard used was rather arbitrary. evrik ^(talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• How was the standard used "arbitrary"? The nom asserted this man is a non-notable politician and the discussion participants agreed. --Iamunknown 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse 1 delete,no keep arguments, continued 5 days, another 2 deletes, no keep arguments. Properly closed as delete.DGG 22:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn This was rushed and there wasn't enough consensus to justify closing deleting. I agree with Evrik that more notice should have been given. Also, I think the debate was hastily closed. --South Philly 12:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and speedy close. "Author not notified" is not a valid reason to overturn anything, and the AFD was unanimous. >Radiant< 12:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, all of three votes. Oppose speedy close. South Philly 13:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Please point out any policy that states AFD has a quorum. >Radiant< 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no valid reason presented for overturn. --Fredrick day 12:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, consensus was clear and unanimous and arguments presented were fully valid. Xtifr _tälk 14:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, but allow recreation if evidence of notability is found. (Or if the guy becomes notable in his own right.)--Rayc 19:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Article was about a charity, though related to The Family International is an actual 501(c)(3) with a presence in California. The article also listed detailed information about their officers and directors which is important for folks to know about. I've been trying to document more 501(c)(3)'s on Wikipedia and this is an article I've been working on to raise general public awareness. Etcher 19:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• When the closing administrator said, "If they [references] can be found, then the article can always be recreated", he or she left editorial discretion for recreation. Why not just recreate with the help of Smee (talk · contribs) (the editor who said he or she could find citations)? --Iamunknown 19:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, 501(c) (3)'s are not inherantly notable since anybody can create one. I know people who have created 501's for their kid's education, for tax purposes. This is not a valid reason for deletion review. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment Is that even a valid reason for deleting it then? Shouldn't we do away with all articles regarding foundations? This charity has been cited in news media as well. I wouldn't put it in the same category as one created for their kid's eduction and tax purposes. - Etcher 02:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as closer - one of the only 2 "keep"s was based on the "20 or so" citations, but none were forthcoming. I did indeed point out that a recreation if those citations were provided would not be a problem. I have no idea why this has come to DRV. Neil (►) 12:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Because isn't it better to rework the current work then start from scratch? I get your point and references was something I was gleaning for the article. In any case I will respectfully withdraw my request for Deletion Review and try and start work on the article again once I have references and sources squared away. - Etcher 16:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:Administration_Abuse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Reason for deletion "Trolling in the wrong name-space" invalid explanation. This article was not trolling, and it was done in the correct name-space WP. It's a Meta article, not a Wiki article. (DRV initiated by User:Wjhonson at 17:57, May 29, 2007)

• On a technical note, "WP" is a pseudo-namespace; if it was to be a project-space essay, the prefix "WP" should be replaced with "Wikipedia". --Iamunknown 19:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• This page will not make Wikipedia a better place. Endorse. – Steel 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, The content of this is a duplication of content found elsewhere on the project, and the title is just trolling. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and move to the proper mainspace. Does not appear to be trolling. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks Jeff, I would accept a restoral with a move to the proper name-space. I was not aware that Wikipedia and WP were different name-spaces, I thought one was simply a short-cut of the other. Wjhonson 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorese deletion - we have existing procedures and instructions. This reads like it was written by someone with a chip on their shoulder. AKRadecki 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How can you endorse and then say "we have existing procedures and instructions" in the same sentence? This deletion was a textbook violation of "existing procedures and instructions." --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy. An essay of this nature might best be developed in userspace rather than in Wikipedia/WP space. I acknowledge a conflict of interest as a potential target of the essay, per the creator's comments on another pending DRV. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy per Newyorkbrad (minus the COI, as I am not an admin ;)). --Iamunknown 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete. I can't see what the content was, but I'm assuming that it's not some sort of blatant attack piece, since nobody has said that. So, from the evidence presented, I'm not seeing a good reason for speedy deletion. -Amarkov moo! 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - blatant trolling.--Doc^g 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm dubious about an essay that characterizes summoning an uninvolved administrator as 'meatpuppetry'. Let him create in his userspace if he likes, but it's neither appropriate for the article namespace (where it was accidentally created) nor the project namespace (its intended location). Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Does that appropriateness require a speedy deletion? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, we can go through a five-day MfD instead and come back here when he challenges that outcome as well. The trend seems to be towards userfying. It can't be that important if he waited a month to challenge the deletion. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, if I had been aware, I probably would have challenged it sooner myself. Of course, the prediction that this would be deleted at MfD is bizarre as well, but hey. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • As it stands it would have been--or sent to his userpace where it belongs. I favor the latter course, incidentally. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Swatjester. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• It can't stay in the mainspace, but if the user would like for it to be userfied or moved to Wikipedia: space, I see no reason not to speedilly grant that request without prejudice. --BigDT 22:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, WP:POINT page. All this material is already better covered in policy pages. >Radiant< 08:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• If someone abuses their admin priviliges, you report them to arbcom. The page throws all administrators in the same pile and the abuses described are no different than the abuses regular editors commit. There's no point in writing an inflammatory essay about it that singles out administrators. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The point of the essay is to have a central place where editors (not admins) can comprehend *how* to complain about abusive admins. As it stands the process is so deep and confusing that virtually no person can understand it. I have been here for years and still do not understand how to do it. That is one reason why I started it this essay. And also collect to a central place, examples of the types of abuse and how to handle each type. This material is not covered in any central location and so loosely on policy that it's incomprehensible to the average person. Wjhonson 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• From WP:ANI:

Dispute resolution: This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process. If you want to make an open informal complaint about misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here. But this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of admins, please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include mediation and requests for comment.

Post-autonomous_art (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON I recently went to reference this article, which I've referred to in the past, and was surprised to find it deleted as nonsense. There is nothing non-sensical about the subject matter if one is schooled in contemporary visual art practices, and in fact this page is / was linked to from a number of respected academic sites. Unfortunately it was the most concisely-presented, and clearly stated source for background on this particular art movement available on the web. Its deletion was a disservice to serious discourse on contemporary art. BTW, I am in no way affiliated with the author, nor do I know him/her, I am simply an artist and critic who is engaged in this topic and find it rather insulting that it would be so summarily dismissed without any discussion whatsoever, which would have quickly brought to light the shortsightedness of the deletion Greenearrings 17:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Allow re-creation. This appears to be a recognized concept in the art world, which is not to say that I can make head or tail of it. The article as it existed didn't say much, and creation of a new article might be the best approach, although the earlier version could be reinstated for a short time as a starting point. Newyorkbrad 17:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Deleted as nonsense even while external sources call the article a good start. I have my doubts this was actually nonsense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn . Unfamilarity is not nonsense; when confronted with an apparently incomprehensible article in a field one doesn't know, one should leave it for someone who is more able to tell if it's nonsense. There's a good tag: {{expert}} . One ed. who didn't understand, and a usually careful admin, whose own better judgment was to mark it OR, but deferred to the original ed. who placed the tag, which defeats the purpose for having a 2nd person check.DGG 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I need to correct this: the ed. who placed the tag does edit regularly in the general field, so it is understandable why the admin. deferred to that eds. view. DGG 23:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Only 43 ghits for this term, and the link provided by badlydrawnjeff is to a blog. Corvus cornix 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. Mainly because the original deletion was a speedy but the article was worthy of deletion review. But note:

• The restored version should be the 1 Dec 2006 state, not any of the versions spammed by user:Postautonomy
• I am getting hundreds of ghits using "post autonomy" and "post autonomous"
• A few more references are required from independent sources
• I would be much happier if the article and this DRV had come from established Wikipedians rather than very new accounts: user:Detlevhfischer who created the article and user:Greenearrings here.

-- RHaworth 03:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'm new, but please don't hold that against me. In fact it was this issue that spurred me to become official user, due to irony that the deleted subject is exactly in line w. wiki philosophy, namely, collaborating and ceding some level of control or authorship. I'm very impressed by the careful consideration and discourse I'm seeing here, so consider me not only new, but a convert to further engagement. Greenearrings 02:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn (possibly relist). The current version by Postautonomy is not an article but rather a lecture which was rightfully deleted. However, earlier versions were significantly dissimilar. This should be restored to the more article-like version from December 1, 2006. The number of Google hits shouldn't matter, the quality should. If even one of these hits is the home page of a respected art critic, it's worth having an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Not sure why this was deleted as "blatant advertising". The article was short, but it depicts a valid software item which has been around for at least 2-1/2 years and is referenced by several articles. StuffOfInterest 15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - A followup. The person who tagged this article, Owski (talk · contribs), tagged many articles as spam and ended up getting himself blocked for tagging legitimate articles. --StuffOfInterest 16:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy overturned and article reinstated. I see no basis for tagging as spam/advertising. Concerns should be addressed via expansion, clean-up, or if necessary at AfD. Newyorkbrad 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 16:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

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

UNDELETE_REASON 217.195.82.2 11:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) The_Universal - the article about a online computer game. It was deleted for some reason, and all such links now point to a song title. Disambiguation was also deleted apparently. There are many places that linked to the game, now link to the song. For example, List_of_MMORPGs (under letter T), also List of free MMOGs has a link and a description of the game. The link is now broken. Why remove the game article but not remove all the links? And why all other free online games are not removed? I found out about the game from wikipedia, it was a very good article. It's a shame the article is removed now.

• Shame it might be, but we multiple, non-trivial, independent sources (for which read: sources which are considered authoritative - staff reviews, not user reviews - and which are not mere directory listings). Without those, we can't verify that the article satisfies core policies of verifiability and neutrality. Fix that problem and you can have an article. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok. One reference is the official game site: www.theuniversal.net. Another reference (not on the net) is the PC Gamer magazine, Christmas 2004 issue. Is that not enough?

  Well the first clearly fails the "independent" part of the requirement. And one doesn't tend to be considered "multiple", so I guess not --pgk 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• comment Most of the refs originally offered were to directory listings, but the ref. to a listing in the christmas issue is said in the AfD to be substantial (2 pages). Considering the subject I thinks it might be sufficient. Personally, I think number of registered accounts (the ed. says 13,000) can be used as factor N, just as circulation is used as a factor for newspapers. I'm just commenting because i know mine is still not the accepted view. DGG 23:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Patrick De Meyer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Very few comments on deletion, and none after a detailed response for keeping the article according to WP:BAND#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists. - Curious Gregor^TALK 10:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Subject-specific guidelines do not override the need for multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. Without those, we can't verify that the article satisfies core policies of verifiability and neutrality. Fix that problem and you can have an article. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - The only keep was from an majority contributor to the article. From the information given and the people involved, it would have clearley ended in a deletion, even if a few more people had contributed to the afd. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - As the admin who closed the AfD, I endorse deletion. The claim to notability it quite tenuous, and without much in the way of citations. He is claimed to have played in two notabile bands, Technotronic and T99. In Technotronic, his participation is listed under the "Trivia" heading (guested on on album, not a regular part of the band). T99's first 3 albums were De Meyer's solo works, so the article about T99 is essentially about De Meyer. It seems rather pointless to have two articles about the same artist just because he recorded under different names. At most, I could see a redirect to T99. AKRadecki 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Agreed that, based on the T99 article, a redirect seems appropriate. Serpent's Choice 15:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, there's no such thing as quorum on AFD. >Radiant< 08:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Undeletion' Patrick De Meyer was one of the composers for technotronic, as well as playing the syntheiszers. Hence, the page for him alone. T99 when it became famous was him and Olivier Abbeloos and so cannot claim to be an article solely for Patrick de Mayer. The WP:BAND#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists suggests that he is notable enough as he he fulfils rule 1

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above, a notable theatre, or has been taken up by a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.

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

popular ongoing comic strip and independent print comic since 2003 by the creator D.J. Coffman who is also the winner of the first Comic Book Challenge put on by NBC and Platinum Studios. Yirmumah has also been featured in Wizard Magazine's "Edge" series as well as been critically reviewed by sites like Newsarama. Yirmumah is also a featured comic of the new Cracked Magazine. The creator of is also well known for helping other webcomic creators in making money with their online content and many creators have used the information available at yirmumah.net/make_money A simple websearch for Yirmumah will also yield several other notable sources in popular culture, as many of Yirmumah's comics are featured in other media, including "The Taylor Hicks Drinking Game" and "Things not to say to Darth Vader at the Imperial Water Cooler" - Please put the article back up. Thanks! - 24.154.221.235 22:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, was deleted for no reliable sources, no new sources have been forthcoming. Corvus cornix 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment to nominator: I think we are much too exclusive on webcomics, but please give us some sources to work with so we can see if there is a plausible case for inclusion. Newyorkbrad 02:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Assertions that something is notable are not enough. We need evidence, in the form of reliable sources. If you have any, I'll be happy to change my opinion. -Amarkov moo! 03:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. No evidence of failure in the AfD, nothing new to consider. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. I can't judge the status of Platinum Studios, but if the contest was also run by a local NBC studio, it's not your run of the mill contest. The fact he won was mentioned in the New York Times. That one source may not be enough to back up everything in the article, but at least it's enough to convey the artist's notability (which opens up the option of merging all his comics to a page about him and his work). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I agree with Mgm - - Curious Gregor^TALK 11:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Northern ireland national football team logo.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I believe fair use applies for inclusion of this image in the articles Northern Ireland national football team and Irish Football Association. --Kwekubo 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Closing my own review; I've just noticed a PNG version of the image has already been uploaded to replace this version. --Kwekubo 13:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Enchanted Forest Water Safari (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unnecessary deletion I created this page and found it deleted; I did not enter enough information initially, so I went back and found non-partisan sources and generated detailed information about the topic. I found that the page had been repeatedly deleted by user Mhking, who stated that I did not cite third-party sources. Although my page did cite third-party sources, I cited to Mhking other pages (such as Six Flags Theme Park) that do not cite sources, but were warned rather than deleted. I am from central new york and have no vested interest in Enchanted Forest, but wish to participate in Wikipedia in a meaningful manner. I would like the opportunity to finish the page and provide useful information about this and other topics. Thank you for your time. Jjm10 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment why not just re-create the article? -N 01:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Response He has tried to re-create and it sources. It was suggested that he come to request deletion review. Discussion here. Uncle uncle uncle 04:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: on a purely-procedural note, Mhking (talk · contribs) tagged this with {{db-repost}} here: I see no sign of any deletion discussion. Oops much? —Phil | Talk 06:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  Not much of an oops. The deletion reason, rather than the tagging reason, is what we judge. That version was deleted under WP:CSD#A7, for not having an assertion of notability. You are correct, however, that WP:CSD#G4, which {{db-repost}} is for, does not apply to this article since it hasn't ever had an AFD. GRBerry 13:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete, as this is not a re-creation of the original article and hence is not subject to speedy under G4. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• I just wanted to add the comment that I did not fully understand the deletion discussion procedure, so after I found it speedily deleted (the first time), I went back and generated a complete article, with cited references. I believe this was misunderstood as an attempt to subvert the regular procedures; I was instead trying to answer what I thought was a concern about sources. I understand the importance of citing sources and my first attempt at the page was more of a "placeholder" (which I won't do without sources in the future) since I saw the subject did not exist and wanted to create it. Sorry for the confusion about this. Jjm10 01:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• I was the last person to delete this page (it was completely blank when I did so), and I'm also the one who suggested that Jjm10 bring his case here. Looking back through the history, I was actually impressed with the article...he did a good job writing it, it just lacked sourcing, which could have easily been taken care of with ref or fact tags. I support either restoring the article to it's "long" condition, or restoring the text to a draft page on Jjm10's user page where he can work on it and bring it up to speed; I'd be willing to coach him along in this, if he so desired. Once it was ready, I'd suggest a quick review by a couple of the original deleting admins, and then a launch back into the encyclopedia. I believe that this is a good-faith effort by a new editor who simply has got caught up in the "process" that this place can become. AKRadecki 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Radecki, which version do you say was good? Guy (Help!) 16:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  I'd say this one would probably be the best starting point. It does need some work, no doubt, needs a good lead, and reorganization, and needs the tone to be adjusted to be more encyclopedic, but it's certainly a start. AKRadecki 20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  That version, unless I am much mistaken, reads like a pastiche or satire of an amusement park rather than a sourced article. There are a number of assertions and descriptions of things in there that I am highly dubious are actually factually true, and I would want to see cites for them. ++Lar: t/c 22:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  Lar - The intent is not satirical. If you check the sources, you will see the factual information regarding theme parks of that era. Of interest (and perhaps not relevant here), the History Channel had an interesting series on theme parks of the 1950's and their impact on Americana, along with the contemporaneous development of more mainstream parks, such as Disney World. Inasmuch as assertions you feel unfounded; I would be happy to provide additional citations to bolster the article. Jjm10 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  OK. More sources always help. No insult was intended but the writing style DOES read like satire to me, and the park is not to be found in RCDB which threw me off, but there certainly is a website at the URL given in one of the versions ( http://www.watersafari.com/attractions/index.cfm?content_id=128 ) so I am confident the park exists and is notable enough to merit an article... the article just needs work. "no article" is better than a "bad article". ++Lar: t/c 12:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Srikeit 04:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• List at AfD. More eyes are only going to help this situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy The obvious solution is to restore this in the user's space and work with them to come up with something acceptable. We can then relist it when we have something worthwhile to look at. I'm willing to work with the author with this. 08:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC) (User:Spartaz)
• Userify... agreed. I really see no need for a listing at AfD at this point, that's just process wonkery, this is an obvious keep once it's improved. Give Jjm10 time to tighten this up and to add sources and then bring it live again... I know sources may be thin sometimes. If I may be so immodest I would like to point to Joyland Amusement Park as a potential example of a similar article. I just wish I had been able to find better sources than the park's own site and RCDB. Time permitting I would help with this too. PS, part of the problem here is that Jjm10 is not totally familiar with the (somewhat arcane) deletion process and was commenting on things in the articlespace rather than talk space. Give newbies the benefit of the doubt, please. ++Lar: t/c 12:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Allow re-creation and improvement per above. Can be renominated on AfD later if warranted, but I hope it wouldn't be. No reason to burden a new editor with an AfD right away or with a userfication/deuserfication process; I'm glad enough he found this page. Newyorkbrad 13:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Userification is very useful, and I'm happy to help any new editor with it if they ask... in particular I've already offered to help this editor in future. But since Uncle G created a new start point, go with that I guess. (and a tip of the hat to you for that, G...) ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• The deleted version of the article created by Thebigschill (talk · contribs) and linked-to above is, as Lar points out, highly suspect. It's not worth undeleting it for content. This is firstly because there appears to be some blatant hoaxery and agenda-pushing there. And secondly it is because I've started a proper article, from scratch, for you, using as a source a published book that devotes 20 pages to this park. I suggest that further expansion be done using that and other, similar, sources ready to hand and cited in the article. Take this as an implicit challenge to an A7 speedy deletion, which thus requires that the article go through the normal deletion process. Uncle G 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A very effective rescue by UncleG, as usual for him. DGG 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• One of the key arguments that made me reach my decision was : "Wikipedia is not WikiNews". Minor subjects involuntarily dragged into momentary infamy due to some very forgettable actions committed against them should not be treated as the latest scoop. Jimbo's edit to WP:NOT, NYB and several other participants below have expounded this with detailed reasoning. The deletion of the Ben Ownby article is clearly endorsed. However Shawn Hornbeck's may be considered as a provisional one. If Night Gyr's laudable efforts to contact the Hornbeck foundation receive a favourable response, an appropriate article can be made for either the foundation or Hornbeck himself. In the meantime, a redirect will not cause any irreparable loss of information, After all, we aren't missing any deadlines. --Srikeit 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Ben Ownby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Procedural nomination, either the page should be salted to prevent recreation if the concern for privacy is so great, or it should have been listed for AFD instead of speedied. Personally I think that both Hornbeck and Ownby are non-notable by themselves, but I would like to see greater consensus amongst the community than an administrator's unilateral decision. Therefore, I call for an AfD on procedural grounds. Past AfD was a "no consensus". Calwatch 01:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Deleting administrator's response:

The debate on this pair of deletions presents another opportunity for the community to provide input into whether and to what extent concern for the well-being and privacy of living persons will be taken into account in deciding on the content of the encyclopedia.

The subjects of these articles are young people (Ben is 13 and Shawn is 15) who were living otherwise non-notable lives as American children until each of them was kidnapped and was mistreated in a horrifying way. One of them, at the age of 13, was subjected to more than a dozen sexual assaults over a period of several days; the other's kidnapping separated him from his family for more than four years of brutalization and abuse. The ordeals suffered by these young people are harrowing to contemplate; the only saving grace is that ultimately they were rescued alive; and any decent person must hope that they are now able to overcome what they suffered and lead successful lives.

In doing so, one of the things that each of them will have to learn to live with is the pervasive publicity that they have now received in the mass media, including on the Internet. Ordinarily, the media, at least in the United States, do not report the names of victims of sexual assaults, and certainly not of victims who are minors. In this case, though, there has been massive publicity. This largely is an artifact of the fact that before these teens were known to have been sexually assaulted, they were "missing children" and therefore rightly the subject of publicity as their families and communities sought to locate and rescue them. Once that had occurred, perhaps the media and the families decided that the publicity when the boys were being searched for was already so pervasive that relevation of what had happened was a fait accompli and no steps to belatedly safeguard confidentiality could now be implemented. If that is so, it is a sad and troubling situation that raises a host of ethical issues for those media, but I see no reason that Wikipedia should knowingly make a bad situation worse.

We strive to create a broad-based and comprehensive encyclopedia covering an enormous variety of subject matters. For what it is worth, I am firmly anchored well to the "inclusionist" side of the administrator corps and am hardly someone who routinely goes out-of-process and starts randomly deleting things. But encyclopedic breadth does not exclude consideration of other relevant concerns. We have a duty to take into account the predictable impact of our articles upon living subjects, and in my opinion at least, especial solicitude is owed in the cases of young teenagers who are the innocent victims of terrible crimes that already will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

I do not contend that the fact that these boys' names and family circumstances have been publicized in other sources, and that they participated in discussing with journalists what had happened to them, are wholly irrelevant in deciding whether and how we should include such information. Yet, at the end of the day we have to decide what we believe is appropriate to be included in our encyclopedia, in which we hope that Wikipedia and our articles will be immortal. Whether today, or twenty years from now, if someone Googles (or whatever the then equivalent in later years is) the names of one of these people, should the first hit be what happened to them when they were 13? I would say no, and I would like to believe that a strong consensus of the Wikipedia community would agree. Note that I am not saying we shouldn't describe the general gist of what happened. The full story is still recounted in the article about the (alleged) criminal, Michael J. Devlin, although there is resistance to my editorial decision there to excise the victims' names. The question posed by these deletions is whether further publicizing these victims' names, geographical locations, and family circumstances will make us a better encyclopedia or make contributing to it more rewarding to any of us. My view is that it will not. See also my prior comments on related issues at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ Deletion dispute#Outside view by Newyorkbrad.

Accordingly, I ask that the deletions be sustained. Newyorkbrad 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree - There should have been an AfD, per Calwatch. In addition, Newyorkbrad should be barred from admin actions for at least a week as a punishment. Wjhonson 01:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Either the community will endorse my action or it won't, but after the thought I have given to this entire set of issues over the past several months and in light of the ongoing community-wide discussion of these issues, I find your suggestion that I need to be "punished" to be ... well, I'm not going to characterize it, though I hope that other participants in this discussion might. Newyorkbrad 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone obviously does not understand Wikipedia, Wjhonson. We do not bar people like that from accidents (especially when this was no tan accident). Please read more about Wikipedia before commenting like that again. Cbrown1023 talk 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete/keep undeleted Hornbeck, who's been featured in many mainstream places and is using his fame for good[37]. No current opinion on Ownby, although I'm leaning toward a listing for further opinion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I acknowledge that H is a closer call than O, although I am sorry to see back-pedalling from your initial understanding of this action expressed at User talk:Tony Sidaway#Another suggested deletion. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If we want to work that into existing policy, then that's fine, but I was also probably a little hasty now that I'm doing more research into this one. Even so, whether we draw the line or not is not a situation for one person to make. I may agree with your deletion of one or both in principle, but that doesn't mean we can leave the rest of the community out of the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed, especially when this "consensus" was made on the talk page of another administrator. While well-intentioned, it needs to go before the whole community. Calwatch 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Send to AFD, but keep the article deleted meanwhile for BLP concerns. I originally deleted it as what appeared to be a simple copy and paste of the old contents, but it appeared to have been another administrator doing it, so I undid my recreation protection of the page, but deleted the poor copying.. Now is a good time for an AFD now that the news about him has vanished, so people can look at whether he is notable or not with a clear mind, hopefully. Cowman109^Talk 01:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Per the cache, it's well-referenced and is not negative in tone - there's no BLP policy concerns here, and that should be noted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I will acknowledge that as well. If we are going to have articles on either or both of these two people, the articles were well-written and reasonably referenced. That type of concern was not the basis for my action in deleting them. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, in that case, my mistake. I think it would be best to send to AFD and restore, then. And my above comments were also in reference to just the Shawn Hornbeck article, I missed the fact that two articles were up for review here. Cowman109^Talk 02:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Restore both articles and permanently remove Newyorkbrad as administrator for his disgusting, arbitrary and grotesque censorship. What are we going to do now-remove the names of all alleged crime victim's? This will be the end of Wikipedia as a serious source. John celona 02:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect both to a broader article about the incident. FCYTravis 02:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: See existing article on Michael J. Devlin (the alleged abductor/attacker). Newyorkbrad 02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect This is essentially non-encyclopaedic material. If they grow up and write a book, then a case can be made for entries for these figures. Until then, the case for deletion is in my opinion open and shut. Agree with FCYTravis regarding the redirect. FNMF 02:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Neither boy has done anything notable to warrant an article about themselves, but their names are out there and easy to find. People will come to wikipedia looking for the, but I think we should have minimal information about the victims. This incident is very sensitive, and in the past editors have argued that any and all information about these children should be printed. I find that deplorable. These are underaged victimes of sex crimes. We have a duty to not only record the facts, but to also be compassionate and discreet when appropriate. AniMate 02:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, Hornbeck has started a foundation and has a personal website dedicated to advocating on behalf of missing children. Therefore, he has chosen to use his fame for various causes. Ownby is pretty un-notable since many kids get abducted for a few days or even a week at a time and their cases don't make it beyond the local media, nor do they end up here. Calwatch 02:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Do we know for sure that Shawn Hornbeck started the foundation, and not his parents? FCYTravis 02:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Even if that were true, I don't believe it would be enough to warrant an entry. FNMF 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• List on AfD - these articles existed for months and one survived an AfD, so an out-of-process deletion was not warranted. The names are already mentioned on Wikipedia, so that's not an issue. As to Jeff's earlier comments about 'minors', it's clear those don't represent his real views. I personally don't think people's age should be an issue for this purpose (unless it were legally required).The way, the truth, and the light 02:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - For those unfamiliar with what the article had said previously. I've copied the contents to my own space at Shawn Hornbeck (at countyhistorian.com) for reference in this debate. Wjhonson 02:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Why? It is so unnecessary. Ever heard of Google cache? --Iamunknown 02:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • From the tactics that have been used so far, which attack every foundational issue of Wikipedia (and threaten the downfall of civilization and the extinction of the human race, not to mention the time-space continuum itself), it's necessary in this case. Wjhonson 03:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect both per FCYTravis, the current articles aren't biographies of the people, who aren't notable themselves. Yonatan ^talk 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The concern I have with a redirect is that the "what links here" feature from Devlin's article will make it obvious why they are mentioned. Newyorkbrad 03:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that's taking your concerns a little too far, given the ease with which the names can be identified from other sources. The question should surely be whether these figures are deserving of entries, not whether we can keep their identities a secret (we can't). FNMF 03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I think the damage done by that isn't enough to merit the deletion of the article, unless the redirect starts showing up as one of the first results on Google, or something like that. In that case, we could get rid of the redirect as a Wikipedia search would probably get the Devlin article as [one of if not] the first result. Yonatan ^talk 06:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How are you defining notability? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure, that's a difficult question and merits a long response. I don't, however, believe that a person automatically becomes notable if he's involved in a notable\well-publicized incident. I also feel we need to take into consideration what effect this will have on the real lives of people. Yes, we have an admirable goal of creating an encyclopedia, but should this come at the expense of other people's lives? Does a person need to suffer their whole life just because of something that happened to them that was beyond their control? Obviously he will suffer anyway, but we should do whatever we can to lessen the effect this has on his life, as people's lives are more important than writing an encyclopedia. Primum non nocere. Yonatan ^talk 06:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect. Corvus cornix 03:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Bring back the articles - I believe Newyorkbrad should be reprimanded for his blatant disregard for other people's work. Lots of people worked on those two articles, especially the Shawn Hornbeck one. Everybody and their grandmother knows the names of the two boys. They both had press conferences, so clearly they know their name is out in the public; nothing we do here is going to harm then anymore then Michael Devlin. Hopefully, he will be punished to the fullest extend of the law. Fighting for Justice 03:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Newyorkbrad erred only in forgetting to salt these deleted article. I endorse the deletion. --04:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs).
• Redirect both per FCYTravis. As I am not an admin, I cannot see the deleted versions; however, when I was reading them last month, they were textbook examples of the pseudo-biographies that seem to bedevil non-notable people enmeshed in noteworthy situations. Risker 05:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect both per FCYTravis, or simply Keep deleted. Don't do anything to Newyorkbrad since this is not the venue for discussing such actions. Neither article was a biography, and as per my close statement on the AFD, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. --Coredesat 06:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• List at AfD. At a personal level Newyorkbrad has my full respect, but there is an underlying issue that cannot be shoven under the carpet. Unless clear, new guidelines are set, either by community consensus or from above, I do not see how issues like this one, which keep popping up again and again, can be decided unilaterally by an admin, however well-intentioned s/he may be. Stammer 07:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Commentary on the underlying issues. (Striking neutrality, see below)

Please do not misunderstand my intentions; I understand the reason for concern when handling these articles and all the other recent (controversial) WP:BLP applications. Obviously, when anyone — especially someone young — is made a victim in any way, special care needs to be paid to the manner in which that topic is discussed, if at all. And these concerns are compounded by the relative permanence of information via the Internet and caching.

However, I approach the assertion that articles about such subjects cannot be written with trepidation. The undue weight argument seems particularly ill-formed; authors are not afforded undue weight if their non-writing achievements are not discussed, notorious criminals are not afforded undue weight when their articles focus on their crims, and notable victims are thus probably not afforded undue weight simply by a lack of other information. The "human decency" argument appears, on its face, more compelling: that as an instrument of public good, Wikipedia has a moral responsibility to shield victims of harrassment, abuse, and criminality from public examination. But there is a dangerous line here, across which lies the logical fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam.

If we conclude that, for example, minor victims who are otherwise unknown are categorically unsuitable for inclusion, then we should probably likewise excise the following articles on a variety of topics:

• Feral children, including Genie (feral child), Oxana Malaya, Traian Căldărar, Andrei Tolstyk, Sujit Kumar, Rochom P'ngieng
• Child abduction, including Sabine Dardenne, Fusako Sano, Tanya Kach, Natascha Kampusch, Alex Griffiths, Elizabeth Smart (abductee), Erica Pratt, Paul Martin Andrews, Timmy White, Montana Barbaro, Sherrice Iverson, and perhaps Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
• Other crime and controversy: Baby M, Kara Borden, Jessica McClure, Ashley Wyrick, Amie Zyla
• Medical issues: Brooke Greenberg, Madeline Mann, Rumaisa Rahman, Amillia Taylor, Tiffany Yorks, Milagros Cerrón

This list could be longer. Not only did I not search very thoroughly, I did not include nonliving subjects, nor subjects who had an active role in the controversy or crime involved. Obviously, some of these articles are better than others. Some probably should be deleted summarily at this point. Some are good as they stand. Most need more development and better citation. I'm not advocating for or against any of these articles at this point, but we need to consider that expanding application of BLP, notability, and undue weight in this fashion may have wider effects that initially considered. As to whether that is ultimately good or bad... I'm not certain that I could judge even were I inclined to try. Serpent's Choice 07:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• List for AFD. I've given this a lot of thought and a lot of Google. Wikipedia is not the only permanent media. Once any of these people have entered the media's eye, there is simply no way, short of dedicated Googlebombing to the contrary, that nationally-publicized child victims who do not achieve recognition in other ways will ever have anything other than their ordeals as the top result of Google searches, even excluding Wikipedia. Sabine Dardenne, kidnapped 1996? Crime Library, The Guardian, The New York Times. Alex Griffiths, kidnapped 1990? Many false positives but a BBC News story on Google page 1. Erica Pratt, kidnapped 2002? Time, CNN. Timmy White, kidnapped 1980? Crime Library, San Francisco Chronicle, WorldNetDaily. Ashley Wyrick, abandoned 1987? SF Chronicle, CBS News. Nothing that Wikipedia does can possibly erase modern media coverage. Nothing. We can argue from now until forever the morality of that, but we cannot stop it. What we can do, on the other hand, is apply our policies to ensure that this type of article is extraordinarily well sourced and respectful (something that not all media outlets take the time and caution to do). These people will find their tragedies at the top of Google 10 and 20 years from now, but the power of BLP and editors writing with respect for their subject at least means that the top hit will not be sensationalist tripe. We should ask ourselves: in the place of Qian Zhijun, would we rather the first thing Google returns be a mature, well-sourced and well-written article, or "Fatty - the face that launched 1000 clicks"? Serpent's Choice 10:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Interesting list there. I see that most of the articles do not cite sources or are poorly sourced. They also strike me as the equivalent of a freak show ("See the dog boy! See the chicken man! Only 25¢, Just one quarter!") I fail to see how those articles add to Wikipedia, and can think of ways in which they damage Wikipedia. My standards for adding an article to WP are pretty simple in most cases; there are sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. But living persons are a different issue. We should not be holding up living persons to public scrutiny, derision, pity or whatever just because they have made a mistake, had an accident or have been abused. Offering up these kinds of stories for the titilation of our readers is a real disservice. It reminds me of the original reason behind the movement to prevent cruelty to animals. The first animal protection activists were not worried about the animals, they were worried about the effect abusing animals had on the souls of the abusers. I think both sides apply here; it is wrong to subject these private individuals to public scrutiny that may increase or prolong their suffering, and it is wrong to pander to the prurient interests of readers. This is an encyclopedia, it is not The National Enquirer or whatever the equivalent is in other countries. -- Donald Albury 11:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't spend much time examining the quality of the standing articles when I assembled the topical list (and, clearly, I should have). With that in mind, though, I think the solution here is cleanup ... if the best that we can offer is a freak show entry, then the article cannot stand under BLP (or common sense, good practice, etc.). If we can offer a mature, properly sourced article about the subject — the person — then the same very power that Wikipedia has to top Google lists ensures that material of quality is associated with the name. Because regardless of our actions, people who "have made a mistake, had an accident or been abused" are going to have those events immortalized in Google. If we are going to argue that our action should follow from moral grounds, the action under our control that is likely the least harmful (and hopefully beneficial on the whole) to these people is to present a factual article that avoids devolving to prurience. I'll convert one of these sad excuses for a Wikipedia entry into something closer to what I think it ought to be in the next few hours, by means of example. Hopefully, it will be more illustrative than their current condition, which, again, is inexcusibly low in general. Serpent's Choice 11:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• I won't pretend that its ideal, but I've ground-up reworked Erica Pratt. Why? Because this is (at least the start of) an example of what these articles could be. It presents minimal facts of the case. There is no need for lurid details, we are not a tabloid. It discusses what controversies and related issues are relevant — in this case, wider issues of media bias. It does not discuss other controversies and related issues that are not relevant and whose impact could be harmful — in this case, accusations that her family had gang and drug involvement. The sources are reliable and chosen, where possible, because they themselves made similar editorial decisisons. This young girl is lucky because, at the moment, her top Google hit (which isn't Wikipedia) is a pretty decent article. But, it could be dreck like this, which is nearly a hit piece, and is everything she doesn't want to have to deal with. Not all these victims are so lucky. Many face Google searches where the crap, not the cream, has floated to the top. We can't guarantee that Wikipedia will be the "I'm Feeling Lucky" entry, but we know this site has name recognition. The entire point of this extended discussion on BLP and its (proposed) use to delete whole categories of biographies is that we are doing the people a disfavor if we write about them. I suggest that if we exert the effort to write mature, competant articles, we do a bigger disfavor by remaining silent in the face of articles like that last one I linked (and many of these victims suffer from worse than that one). Because those articles are like Wikipedia in one regard: their online imprint is probably forever. Serpent's Choice 14:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, but not salting. I was wrong. Unable to directly view the deleted articles, I approached this topic largely from a purely Wiki-philosophy standpoint. But after my effort to rewrite Erica Pratt to meet my own stated purpose of providing a mature, non-harmful commentary on a similiar subject of media scrutiny, I went back and paid closer attention to the caches for the two articles directly under discussion, to see how close they were to my own standard. I cannot support salting; I still think Wikipedia can represent the moral good best by writing an appropriate article. But ... those are not the appropriate articles. Even where cited by reliable sources, the way to address abuse subjects in a neutral point of view is not to detail a luridly clinical discussion of the methods and frequency of their abuse. That is a tabloid point of view. We can — we must — do better if we wish to retain articles on such topics. Serpent's Choice 06:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• What's the point? The deletionists are getting away with it, and will continue to, because nobody will stand up to them. -N 07:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Procedural nomination? What kind of crap is that, then? We don't do process for process' sake, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. For shame. Nardma, I suggest that before you accuse "deletionists" of "getting away with it" you spend some time talking to people who field complaints from individuals concerned about their portrayal on Wikipedia. It's not a game any more. In truth, it never was. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  Let's take Barbara Schwartz as a very obvious example. She once sued every federal agency in existence, right down to the unit and office level in some cases, making for thousands of defendants--where in reality you are supposed to sue up at the much higher level, at the agency level (since for one thing individual offices wouldn't handle their own policy, external affairs, or legal matters). In the press, they dubbed her a "terrorist", and the Utah Supreme Court ruled that wasn't libel. No matter how neutral we word her article, it has a negative portrayal. She has a community ban from Wikipedia for consistently trying to get her article deleted or significantly altered when the weight of reliable sources are on the side of the current article. And yes, I have dealt with a hysterical editor, one who was livid we had his girlfriend's birthday in her article. He was extremely unreasonable and demanded to contact the Foundation, which then immediately removed the info from the article. (By the way, we need a better system in place to track Foundation actions in this regard. As far as I can tell, the only record the Foundation responded to his request was by having an administrator remove the information from the article...I asked at ANI and nobody seemed to know how a person would know for sure what their reply had been.) My point is, there is a line, yes, I understand this. Know why this case has victims' rights advocates crying for blood? It's because in this case you're erasing memories. Anne Frank is only well known because her diary was published post humously after she died to a horrible crime, right? If that had happened more recently you'd probably have deleted her article too. Point being, nobody has asked us to remove this article, so your argument about complaints is nil. In fact, in this case the person has started a victim finding organization to keep the memory going on. And still you delete the memory. -N 13:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nice straw man. Seems like there's no point of contact here between us, or between your examples and reality for that matter. Anne Frank? Get over yourself, please! Guy (Help!) 17:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, Anne Frank. Under YOUR CRITERIA, you'd delete her article. She was a previously private individual only notable for being a victim of her government's racist policies and for having her diary published against her will. -N 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Leave them deleted I think I've stated my reasoning in my comment above. -- Donald Albury 11:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Other than this notorious incident there is nothing to do a biography on. I think procedural nominations are generally a bad idea. Let's not mutually stroke each other with process and procedure, let's do the right thing. Demanding either salting or AfD seems silly, as we don't salt unless something has been recreated multiple times. Per NYBrad's commment, the community does need to come to grips with this question of how "concern for the well-being and privacy of living persons will be taken into account". I think we have a duty to be ethical, as I have said before, and that trumps the need to include every possible factoid. That's a sentiment I think there is broad consensus for if it were checked for. We had some good outcomes recently in which we managed to preserve the information that was relevant in the appropriate article without creating additional negative notoriety for the victims. Let's keep that trend going, hm? endorse deletion with a suggestion that the relevant article on child abduction be reviewed to ensure that this case is included in the proper context. I oppose redirects from their names as that gives the spiders more to work with. As for the suggestion that NYBrad be "punished" that is at best, laughable, as he is one of our very sagest admins. Oh, and I'm no deletionist, by the way, see directly above. ++Lar: t/c 13:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I couldn't care less but we need to stop fighting over the articles of minor individuals who are only notable because of events outside their control. Time to make WP:DIGNITY a guideline and update the deletion policy to reflect that BLP concerns outweight notability criteria. The way to do this is via an RFC or something similar. In the meantime we need to stop throwing mud at admins who are cleatly wrestling with a difficult issue and try and deal with this like adults. Lets cut out the irrational accusations and have a mature debate. If we can't do this then the project really has serious problems. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • But there aren't any BLP issues. A well-sourced, neutral article on a notable person does not violate BLP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • But there is something about needing to recognise the impact that a wikipedia article can have on a minor figure and this is clearly what is driving this spate of deletions. What we are seeing is policy evolving by action. This is the reality of how policy tends to be devised anyway as policy is what the community does rather then what is written down. So the practise of BLP clearly is evolving to proscribe articles about minor figures who have only a single claim to notability and who were unwilling participants in that event. Like it or not this does seem to be the more humane way to go. :) Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • We write from sources, so there's no added impact. Even with an article, the Wikipedia article is not number one on Google, and there's certainly no consensus that this is a minor figure, given the attention. Let's not assume that administrators working outside of consensus is "policy evolving by action," and let's start by looking at what we're going with as opposed to assuming things (in this case, that there are BLP concerns) that aren't there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, we add impact. We add impact by taking tomorrow's parrot cage liner and immortalising it on the world's biggest information source. Like it or not, bbeing on Wikipedia is massively different to being in the press. This much we know, because people who've been included in Wikipedia against their wishes have made it very plain. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Jeff: How are these guys notable, again? One incident. Why can't this go to WikiNews? We are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and we respect people and act ethically, not work to gain notoriety by increasing their discomfort. Perhaps we are talking past each other Jeff, as this seems blatantly obvious to me. And, I suspect, to many many others. Which is why I believe that there IS a shift underway in how policy views this and how things will be done going forward. ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Lar, how are they not notable? There's no shift underway - brute force is not a consensus shift. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Actually now that I have reread the discussion and particularly Guy's latest contribution and a few bits on talk pages here and there and then looked at the articles again, I do care. Endorse Deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of my view (which is that an article on these people doesn't have a place here), moving to wikinews isn't really an option as it stands right now, since wikinews is under CC-BY while we are under the GFDL. Yonatan ^talk 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AFD. The article survived a lengthy AFD and no-one mentioned any BLP issues, which makes sense since I can not see any either. These articles could be merged to Michael J. Devlin, but that is not up to one admin, or two or three, to decide and enforce. There is one "living persons concern" here, though. That is those living Wikipedians who create neutral, well-sourced biography articles, and do not want to see them deleted unilaterally and out-of-process. Prolog 15:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Restore AfD optional. Hornbeck had already survived an AfD where these issues were discussed so a speedy was inapropriate in his case. That these boys are notable for so tragic an event is in itself tragic but also true. Wikipedia does not, and in my opinion should not, have a policy of refusing to report on tuly notable events or people with the goal of protecting them. Thus this case is very different from one pertaining to a transient internet meme. Eluchil404 17:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, per Brad. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, worries are not a speedy criterion. Potential libel is, but uncertain cases are to be decided at AFD, not on an administrator's whim. Plus, when the parents have been holding press conferences and publicizing the kid in the media, why are we suppressing information? Redirection and merging would have probably been accepted had this been discussed on the talk page first, instead of stirring up a shitstorm. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted unacceptable articles - no notability - good BLP deletions - we are not a newspaper, this stuff dies.--Doc^g 21:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What part of WP:BIO, A7 (speedy deletion for notability) or G10 (speedy deletion for BLP issues) did these articles meet? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No one sensible gives a shit anymore. -Pilotguy hold short 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• OK, I have now gone back and re-read these articles. They highlight, to me, a fundamental problem with Wikipedia as it now is. We currently consider that anything covered in more than a small number of sources may be considered "notable" and therefore valid for inclusion. This ignores the fact that most cases of, say, missing children, will get quite a bit of coverage, but without ever rising above the status of generic missing child. Some become causes celebres, most do not. Tragic, but I think most of us agree that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Now, Wikinews can cover these stories well, because it;s a news site, so we'd expect to find news there. And news stories is what they are. Biographies are different from news stories. Biographies are supposed to be the life stories of culturally significant individuals. I think Wikipedia is ending up with a hodge-podge of activist-driven stories, court reports and the like drawn directly form news sources as primary publishers, most of which do not make it into the secondary sources (books of notable crimes, law reports, case law and so on). They are not actually encyclopaedic, as such, and most of them are subject to the age-old confusion between what is in the public interest and what merely interests the public. So: can anyone explain what the actual long-term cultural significance of this story is, and if so, whether it can be covered under a better title? Guy (Help!) 21:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't the venue for your opinions on notability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Nor is it a venue to nit-pick on the mis-followings of policy when an article should have been deleted. Whatever happened to "no useless bureaucracy"? Cbrown1023 talk 21:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Night Gyr, thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to patronise me. Not sure if you noticed, but deletion review is not a vote (I do believe Jimbo himself made that edit), my comments above are about these subjects, their inclusion or otherwise in Wikipedia, and the grounds on which we might judge that - or choose instead to leave it to WikiNews. The closer of this debate can weigh my opinion, I think, and decide whether it represents a productive contribution to the debate. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The articles seem to do nothing more than describe a sickening sequence of events in excessive detail. There may be an article to write on this topic, but these articles aren't them and should be nuked. Phil Sandifer 21:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and protect names as deleted is the only option here acceptable under WP:BLP - even having the names as a redirect will make the article the first Google hit on their names - David Gerard 21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and salt or redirect and full-protect. These are articles about children and those who have a great injustice done to them, we do not need their article and they have done nothing notable in their lives. I had a problem with these articles too a while ago. They were not following the biographies of living persons and had to be locked down for a while. BLP is a very serious thing, and people need to understand that. People also need to understand that with this encyclopedia comes a responsibility to realize that this can ruin people's lives or, in the case of spam, make them better. Before you understand that, no one is fit to edit a living person's article. That being said, I applaud Newyorkbrad's actions and should have made the same ones. Cbrown1023 talk 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• KEep deleted -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and salt the earth. Brad made a tough call and I'm grateful there are still administrators willing to do so. Mackensen (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Important Comment to closing admin If these articles end up being restored, please be sure that the edits removed per the BLP stay deleted. Thaks, Cbrown1023 talk 21:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted or if Redirect if it prevents the articles from being recreated though, for the same reasons as David Gerard, I'd rather the names don't appear in any article title. Nick 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• And a new addition from Jimbo to WP:NOT: [38] - David Gerard 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and award Newyorkbrad with a barnstar. We have no business creating articles about minor crime victims. A violation of privacy and decency. Fred Bauder 02:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Discount all noms who refuse to acknowledge that Shawn appeared on Oprah. That's not a *minor crime victim*, nor is it a private person just trying to live unmolested by scrutiny. That's a public person, using their notoriety for some cause. Quite a different thing entirely. Wjhonson 02:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think any commenters (I don't think you meant "noms") should be discounted because they give less weight to a particular fact than you do, but I again acknowledge that one of these cases is more clear-cut than the other. I'll respond to some of the other comments here tomorrow. Newyorkbrad 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Oprah is influential but the vast majority of those who appear on Oprah don't need Wikipedia articles. It does indicate that the subject and his parents consider that some degree of publicity is inevitable in this case and they'd rather it were positive and beneficial. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. My opinion on the deletion, I'm sure everyone can guess, so I'm not going to bother. I'm just going to say that I find this "redirect" stuff incredibly funny. Whenever someone tries to enforce an AfD redirect as if it must be followed, people complain "No, that's not a valid AfD outcome!" But we're willing to enforce a DRV redirect? -Amarkov moo! 03:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I honestly have no idea what your opinion on the deletion is, and I am sure that the closing administrator is not going to take the time to "guess," so if you have an opinion on the matter that you want considered, please share it with us. As for the redirect issue, different considerations apply to protecting redirects for BLP and related reasons as opposed to in other circumstances. More tomorrow. Newyorkbrad 03:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I personally think that redirect is a valid AfD outcome, equivalent to "delete, but then let's do something useful with the title". So you don't really need to convince me. I just find it funny that people will support letting deletion discussions enforce redirects now that it's something they think should be redirected. -Amarkov moo! 04:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Viridae's statement below reminded me to say something. Definitely kudos to Brad for explaining his reasoning instead of "OMG U R ALL ST00PID U MUST TAKE DIS 2 ARB LOLZ". I still oppose deletion, but at least I'm not being steamrolled over. -Amarkov moo! 04:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to main article per someone saying we don't need a biographical article on every single person who gains brief notability (however notable they may be) I do belive they are notable for their involvement in this incident, but i don't believe they have shown continuing notability. Hopefully the articles can be successfully merged into a main article on the subject - however I do believe that going through afd would have been more appropriate, but unlike several adminsistrators who have made unilateral deletions on BLP grounds recently, Brad has explained his position very well, appealing to the decency of the community (not just forcing his decision down our throat - and for that he gains great respect). These children have been through horrific times and given the nature of their experience, I believe this is one of the times where decency should prevail over notability (which they undoubtedly are). Viridae^Talk 04:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wonder if the Hornbeck family did anything substantive or notable in the four years that he was gone. Was he on milk cartons, America's Most Wanted, etc. The cached version just says they called some psychics and that was it. Right now it primarily focuses on his capture and aftermath and not much on the search. I would strenuously object to striking both Hornbeck and Ownby's name from the record, though, and I have been patrolling the Devlin article (which should be changed to something generic like 2006 Missouri kidnapping rather than a thin biography of Devlin) to make sure that it does not happen. Calwatch 05:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• List at AfD. The idea that someone would summarily delete an article without discussion speaks to no small amount of hubris. By any reasonable measure, deleting this article this article would have essentially no effect on a minor's privacy, given that Google, for example, gives over 100,000 hits for the subject's name. BLP is no issue as long as strenuous citation efforts are taken (which should be no problem, given the mainstream media coverage). zafiroblue05 | Talk 05:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - If the consensus is to keep them deleted so be it, I can respect that. However, I don't see why we can't have them considering we have an article on vaginal flatulence. I mean, if ever there was inappropriate article it is that one. IMO. Fighting for Justice 06:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment But that article doesn't name underage victims. The two articles under discussion here were not deleted because they were inappropriate, they were deleted because they are potentially damaging for underage victims of sexual abuse who are not notable for any other reason. -- Donald Albury 11:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm, the more I read these discussions, the more I'm convinced that there needs to be a better way to develop consensus here. Is there any chance of a more widely-advertised note about this issue? Right now we're just dealing with individual pages as they come, but not developing anything overall. FrozenPurpleCube 07:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#One-sided accounts of events as biographical articles was written 5 days ago. Uncle G 12:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I'm thinking of something that attracts the attention of everybody, like the recent password security thing or the poll regarding WP:ATT. FrozenPurpleCube 15:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Two individuals (minors at that) who have no notability outside of the crimes committed upon them; there are few cases more clear-cut, IMO. If the crime itself is notable (it seems to have received a fair amount of press coverage) then there may be a case for keeping an article on the crime, but not these. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - as Morven says, there are other ways of dealing with this other than the biographical, especially as according to the deleted article he did not set up this foundation, his parents did. Potentially damaging articles like this, that do not discuss people as people but merely as crime victims, are not needed in the slightest. Troutslap the people calling for Newyorkbrad's head: don't make fools of yourselves, this was the right decision and not an abuse of admin buttons. Moreschi ^Talk 13:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I think Newyorkbrad very eloquently lays out the issues here, and is making an appropriate judgment call, which I endorse. On a related note, I am very disappointed in those calling for him to be drawn and quartered. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that the judgment call he is making is wrong; it is absolutely unreasonable and shameful to accuse him of not acting in good faith. Nandesuka 15:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. It's a bit ridiculous to suggest that we can have an active non-profit called "The Shawn Hornbeck Foundation", which has ongoing activity (see here), and yet salting the earth for WHO is Shawn Hornbeck ? So Wikipedia becomes WikiCensorship and we have another scandal on our hands because we refuse to discuss a person who gets one hundred thousand hits. Are we suddenly the mind-police? Is this 1984? Are we going to start denouncing each other to the State? I hope so, because I have a long list already. Wjhonson 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• This obviously isn't going to be closed as overturn now, so I suggest that we can close it as "deletion endorsed." If desired, the deleting administrator may consider salting either now or at some time in the future, should it become necessary. --Tony Sidaway 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, Tony - if we're simply going by weight of argument, there's certainly nothing in the way of the endorse arguments to suggest that this was proper. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Tony, thanks very much for the endorsement. However, the discussion here has been helpful in developing community views on some BLP-related issues. Some valid points on both sides of the issue have been raised. I intend to respond to some of those who have taken the opposite position from me this afternoon. I hope we can use this to develop some more of the community's thoughts on the broader issues. I'd prefer not to see the discussion closed as yet. Newyorkbrad 16:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Correct that, Shawn now gets one hundred and eleven THOUSAND Google hits. That's thousand. I recommend we merge this article with other wikiscandals. Wjhonson 16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Okay, this rhetoric is becoming offensive. Many in the Wikipedia community are concerned with the privacy interests of non-notable people who become temporarily famous through actions outside their control. Read my statement at the top of this page again. Maybe I made a good decision that will be endorsed, and maybe I made a bad decision that will be overturned, or maybe I made a decision that will be overtaken by additional information (see below). But if you really think that our showing greater sensitivity to this type of issue is a "scandal," then that is really, frankly, demoralizing. Newyorkbrad 17:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: As the person perpetrating the entire scandal in the first place I would hope you'd be "offended" when someone shows you what you actually did. The fact that you continue to support what you did is perfectly normal but exteremely offensive to those of us who believe in the process, and that the process should be allowed to play out. Shawn's actions were not "outside his control". The scandal is not "greater sensitivity" the scandal is that this story already exists, and you want Wikipedians to bury there head in the sand over your particular viewpoint of it. And you're willing to use your admin powers to compel that belief, instead of allowing the process to decide it. That is a perfect example of Admin Abuse. In fact I think I'd add a new chapter just for you. Wjhonson 17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: I have no objection to strong views plainly stated, but it would be worthwhile if you paid more attention to what is going on elsewhere on this page. Far from allowing the process to decide the issue, I have specifically urged that this debate be allowed to run to conclusion rather than close early; and far from urging that we bury our heads in the sand I've stated that I'm quite open to additional information that might come forward in this case. I don't know why there is this perception throughout Wikipedia that our arguments become stronger when we call one another various names. Newyorkbrad 19:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've contacted the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation and informed them of what was going on here. She said she'll have the family take a look at the deleted article and get back to me with any concerns. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmm, apparently it's already gone from google's cache so they won't be able to see it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It appears that the article may still be available on Wikipedia mirrors, such as Answers.com, etc. Alternately, you could request that an administrator make the content available to the Foundation, if they would find that helpful. JavaTenor 17:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I endorse this approach and was actually planning to ask whether it would make sense for an OTRS volunteer to reach out to the Hornbeck Foundation and solicit their views on this matter (including the views of Shawn Hornbeck himself, specifically) as part of our overall effort to build sensitivity to the needs and rights of crime victims to our approach to this type of article. I would have no objection to temporary reinstatement of the article for a day or two so they can look it it, if that is requested. Night Gyr, I would also appreciate your drawing the attention of whomever you are in touch with to the reasons that I gave for the deletion. I think that in fairness they should know that the basis for my concern was the privacy interest of victims, especially minors, even if a given person victim might be prepared to consider waiving such privacy interest in this particular case. Newyorkbrad 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and salt the earth per Brad's comments. I don't see why we need to be naming minors who have been victims of crime. Their names add absolutely nothing to the article. And I don't care what other websites and newspapers do. Thanks and respect to Brad for his wisdom, courage and strength of integrity. Sarah 17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Let me say, though, that we are getting toward the borderline here. This is not Brian Peppers we are talking about; these are people who participated (albeit horrifyingly against their will) in a event that was deemed quite newsworthy by the mainstream media. We want to be careful not to move WP:BLP to include much beyond this point; but I think that these people basically remain private citizens overall and thus entitled to be not harassed (which is was it amounts to) by having a Wikipedia article on them. If there's any question of this it's definitely resolved in their favor by the fact of their being minors. Herostratus 19:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • How private can a citizen be if they've gone on Oprah to discuss it? Seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't recall seeing "appeared on Oprah" in any of our notability quidelines. Appearing on Oprah is now part of everybody's fifteen minutes of fame. It is as ephemeral as making page one of a newspaper. Such persons in the past have sunk back into obscurity, and it is not the function of Wikipedia to prevent them from sinking back into obscurity as private persons. -- Donald Albury 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • • That's not the issue Donald. He's saying that if someone appears on Oprah, there are no privacy issues with mentioning their name. Notability is a totally different issue, but seeing as there's wide media coverage I don't see how they could be non-notable either. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • What would be enough for James Frey? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, being on Oprah shows an even larger interest than simple news observation. In terms of notability, however, there's no argument that these two are notable individuals. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
        • No, that is transient notoriety. Most people will have forgotten their names in a few months. These two boys are not notable in an encyclopedic sense, and deserve to return to private status. Permanently enshrining their names in Wikipedia is a disservice to them, and may cause them distress or harm in the future. Keeping the articles would in effect be punishing them for being victims. -- Donald Albury 22:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
          • There's no such thing as "private status" in cases like this, especially this one. Notability is not temporary, and parroting the "may cause distress or harm" line with no demonstration of it does not help the discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
          • 'Transient' is pretty subjective, and 'worth talking about' is a value judgement. WP:N goes by whether they're talked about, not if we think they should be. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Sarah/Brad/Herostratus. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - And how private is a person when they have an official website where the very issue is discussed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wjhonson (talk • contribs).
• Overturn. I think by the time you have a website and charity in your name, you're notable whether or not you intended to be. Oh, and I've found where I first heard of Hornbeck. He got an article in Reader's Digest, and I think it was the cover story. Why are we even debating this? -Amarkov moo! 22:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Restore the history, redirect and merge to Michael J. Devlin. A side note, one should not speedy something in which a rational argument for notability exists. That's the purpose of AfD. However, if it the assertion of notability is unsourced, it can be removed right away. Then it can be speedied.--Rayc 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Further comments and introspection by the deleting administrator:

As I think has become clear, I have been following this debate with very close attention. Many valid points have been made and continue to be made, both in support of endorsing and overturning my deletions. Of course I especially thank those like Cbrown1023 and Fred Bauder and Lar and Sarah and Moreschi and Nandesuka and the others who have said kind things about me personally, which has helped counter some other remarks that were temporarily demoralizing. I want to respond to some of the comments that have been made, and I ask in advance for forgiveness if my comments prove to be lengthy, for the issues are critical and there is much to be said.

My greatest regret from this affair is that there are editors who consider themselves advocates for the victims of crime and have inferred or implied that my deleting these articles shows an indifference or insensitivity to the welfare of victims. As I had hoped my opening comments would have made plain, that is far from the case; the whole point of these deletions, and the reason I handled them is I did, is precisely based on concern for the well-being of two teenagers who were subjected to horrific and criminal abuse. Editors of good faith may and often will disagree with the best means to balance the welfare of the subjects of our coverage with our encyclopedic mission, but I yield to no one in the depth of my concern for doing so.

In general, I am concerned with how not just Wikipedia but the modern mass media in general treat crime victims and others who achieve notoriety or notability, fleeting or otherwise, as the result of events wholly beyond their control. The case of one of these article subjects, Ben, is illustrative. He was kidnapped and horribly abused for four days. When he was rescued, he participated in some media coverage, such as a press conference called to thank his rescuers. Beyond that, he may have lingering obligations to relive his ordeal, such as at court proceedings if his alleged assailant goes to trial. But apart from that we, all of us, owe him the precious opportunity to retreat into childhood to the extent that he can and to resume being a 13-year-old boy again, without reminding him unduly that what was done to him is known to the world, lest we join in adding violation by the crowd to violation by the crime. Perhaps not a day, perhaps not an hour, goes by when this young man can escape the memory of what happened to him, but he is certainly allowed to try; and above all we must not allow ourselves to define this individual, to the extent he is known to us at all, by the metes and bounds of the tortures that were inflicted upon him. We know little else about Ben beyond what has been revealed about his victimization; and it is not our business to know more. The Wikipedia article on him, by necessity, conflated the victim with the crime.

If Ben, in future years, does not become a starting linebacker for an NFL team or a first-chair cellist at the Philharmonic or the senior senator from Missouri, but remains otherwise non-notable as we define notability, the Wikipedia article on him 30 years from now may remain more-or-less frozen and define the now-middle-aged Ben Ownby largely in terms of what happened to him for four days when he was 13. We owe it to him not to do that. For the adult Wikipedians, imagine that this were your child; for the younger Wikipedians, imagine, God forbid, that this were someone known to you—is the story of a kidnapping and a series of assaults upon a young victim how you want to define the life of someone you cared about, the most important fact anyone will ever know about him? I see from some of the comments in this AfD that I am not alone in finding the thought horrifying.

Now unlike some people who think that the strength of a position is boosted by ignoring everything that is said on the other side, I want to concede the merits of, and frankly engage, the good-faith arguments in favor of keeping the Ben Ownby article. One argument that arises in discussions like this one, although it has been pressed harder in other BLP-related debates than in this one, is that the encyclopedic mission comes above all and that if a subject meets our standards of notability (an issue that in this case I have not addressed and is certainly debatable), nothing must stand in the way of immortalizing that person in Wikipedia, presumably forever. I have little to say to any Wikipedians who think in those terms, beyond commenting that their position has not prevailed in this community and I hope never will. We are proud encyclopedists and Wikipedians but also feeling human beings, and we are creating the encyclopedia for the benefit of the readership, and there must never be a class of innocent people whose lives are diminished simply because we exist. "Wikipedia," an influential editor once said, "is not here to make people sad." It especially is not here to make children sad. If I were a teenager and Wikipedia had a page about me that pretty much consisted of telling the world how I was unwillingly abused by a stranger for four days when I was 13, I would be sad.

A second argument is that we demean the work of our contributors when we delete it. I value the editors of Wikipedia beyond price; they are Wikipedia, and I became an administrator to serve and assist them, not to demoralize them or destroy their work. But this argument proves too much; it militates against any deletion, and Wikipedia has long passed the days when we kept virtually any content that could be contributed here. Still, dealing with deletion-related issues in a sensitive and caring way is important, and because I see that my actions hurt some good-faith editors, I have come to regret that I deleted these two articles so suddenly and without any warning or discussion. Some of these editors' rhetoric on this DRV, in return, was a bit harsh and over-the-top; if I can say so myself, there was and is no decent argument that I deserved to be reprimanded, or "punished," or suspended, or desysopped, or made the subject of an essay on "administrator abuse," based upon the fact that in accordance with emerging community values I deleted two articles about living minors who were the innocent victims of sex crimes. But as I say, I see now that the way I handled these deletions demoralized and offended several good-faith editors on important topics. I urge upon certain editors some introspection on how essential and desirable it really is, or is not, to provide detailed information on the child victims of crime within our pages, and also would ask them to give some thought to the value of civility in deletion debates. But I have done my own introspecting as well, and have concluded that I did not handle these deletions as well as I should have, and I apologize to the editors of these articles for that.

A third argument against deletion, emphasized above by Nardman ("N") in particular, is that we owe it to the victims of crime to preserve their memory. This contention may have some cogency in the case of well-known murder victims, where the victim has been lost and we, whether on or off Wikipedia, preserve the precious memory. The preservation of memory is less crucial in the case of living people who have survived brutal crimes, people restored to their lives and their families and who may very well not want society's memory of them to be the record of their victimization. The extreme example of Anne Frank has been mentioned, and I respond that if Anne Frank had survived the Nazi bestiality, it would have been well within her rights to decline to publicize her story until she was ready to, or to decline to do so in a personally identifiable way, and I for one would have fought to respect that. Now to be sure, different considerations may obtain where the crime victim chooses to speak out and be remembered as a pro-active advocate for the victims of criminality; but I see no evidence that beyond doing what he was practically required to do in the wake of being rescued Ben has done such a thing (in this regard, as I note below, Shawn may be a different case).

A fourth argument against deletion is epitomized by Serpent's Choice's point that the standard I point to would require the deletion or rewriting of many other articles as well. I have waffled on this one; on the one hand, it says to me that we have much work to be done to live up to our BLP standards, but on the other hand, it says to me that further discussion is needed as we decide precisely where the lines must be drawn. But we are having enough trouble deciding what to do with these two articles, so I shall leave the broader questions for another day.

The fifth and frankly by far the strongest argument for retaining these articles, and many others like them, is also offered by Serpent's Choice in this discussion, and harkens back to an argument that as far as I recall was first offered by User:Everyking in the otherwise unhappy context of the Brian Peppers DRV back in February, and has also been made by some contributors, particularly DeLarge, supporting undeletion in the "QZ" ("fat Chinese kid") deletion discussions. This is the point that once an individual, for whatever reason, attains a certain level of Internet presence and publicity, he or she is going to come up in Google or other searches for many years to come no matter what, and so the individual is better off if the most prominent Internet hit on his or her name is as the subject of what will hopefully be a well-written, sourced, accurate, NPOV, BLP-compliant Wikipedia article rather than what may be a half-baked piece or a hatchet job by a less reliable source. I generally identify with the BLP "hawks" (an exception to my otherwise "inclusionist" tendencies as an editor and an administrator), but for the most part we who have taken the lead on advocating against the articles against human "Internet memes," crime victims, and the like have not engaged with this argument. We need to do so, for it is a substantial and by no means a frivolous line of argument; and in some cases it might, after all, make a decisive difference. But in the case of Ben Ownby, my view is that this consideration does not outweigh the other, more powerful concerns I have expressed, and my view remains that I did the right thing by deleting that article and still urge the community to endorse that deletion.

As I have said from the outset of these discussions, the case of Shawn Hornbeck presents a much closer question. Partly because his kidnapping lasted for four years rather than four days, and partly by his and his family's choice, it is now clear to me that he and his family have affirmatively chosen to be outspoken voices publicizing the plight of missing and abused children and teens. Whether that is the right choice for them to have made is for them alone to decide, but having looked at the website and the press coverage of the Hornbeck Foundation and the like, it appears quite possible that the existence of a Wikipedia article about what was done to Shawn, and how his and his family's life was changed as a result, and what they are now doing to try to spare other families from like fates, would be consistent rather than inconsistent with the goals of maintaining Wikipedia as an encyclopedia devoted to notable persons and noteworthy institutions without deliberately doing gratuitous harm to any living human being and especially not to a minor. As I have noted above, under these unique circumstances, I endorse Night Gyr's special effort to reach out to the Hornbeck Foundation and to solicit their views (not just those of their Foundation, but hopefully of Shawn himself) on the matter, because if Shawn and his family want an appropriate article to be here, obviously I would lack standing to argue that it shouldn't be here based on considerations of Shawn's own well-being; and I believe in view of the massive coverage that has been pointed to, our other criteria for notability would be satisfied. Absent comment from that quarter, I am still of the view that deletion would be justified, but I will admit that I am not at all as confident of this as I was three days ago and if I had it to again might well have brought that article to AfD rather than speedied it. Speedying is for clear-cut cases. Ben's article was probably a clear-cut case; Shawn's, as I look back on it, probably was not.

I apologize again for having gone on at ridiculous length, and thank anyone who has read this far, but the issues raised here are of paramount importance to this project, and quite frankly to many members of the general public, and we need to get them right. They will continue to be hashed out on talkpages, and on deletion pages, and on policy pages, and on the mailing list, and it appears in coming days also in the crucible of what I hope will not be a bitter and contentious arbitration case (see generally, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Badlydrawnjeff, now teetering on the verge of acceptance for a hearing before the Arbitration Committee). If the participants in these discussions bring to the table the wisdom and good sense of most of the editors who have participated in this deletion debate, there is hope that we can move toward consensus on these issues without damaging our shared values of civility, community, and creating a reference work we can continue to be proud of. Newyorkbrad 01:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• • And thank you for taking being willing to take your lumps and endure the withering criticism in this forum. Your civility and focus on keeping this discussion on-topic is very much appreciated. Calwatch 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a weakness in the "it'll be on the Internet forever" argument is that Web pages do disappear (I keep having to deal with dead links that had been used as sources for articles). I certainly hope that Wikipedia will survive longer than most of what is on the Internet, and that could put us in the position of becoming the major factor in keeping attention focused on a victim who deserves the right to heal in obscurity. -- Donald Albury 08:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Undelete Shawn Hornbeck (at least redirect both). Their names can easily be found in the used sources for the article on the kidnapper, trying to hide them here won't add to their privacy and will make the relevant articles incomplete. On top of that, Hornbeck is actually looking to attract press attention, so deleting the article to protect his privacy when he (and his family) have no such qualms is not helpful. I'm suggesting redirecting because they're primarily notable for their kidnapping and not much else could be written about them (without sharing material that is private). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I just read that The Shawn Hornbeck Foundation was contacted for input and I would ask administrators to wait closing this until we have that input. It will provide value opinions of the actual subject involved. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • • Can someone tell me if there is some uncensored Wiki site running or being planned where sourced information cannot be censored at the whim of some moron's "moral values"? OJ's kids are traumitized by his being linked to a murder so you idiots need to take down his page too. John celona 14:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You should really be careful about who you call morons (Wikipedia:No personal attacks). -- Donald Albury 15:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted It is impossible to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about a person's life when the only reliable sources relate to a single incident, no matter how well documented. How sad that problems of these people have been so well documented that for the rest of their lives, potential employers, co-workers, suitors, neighbors, and anyone with a purient interest in the private lives of other people will be able to discover every detail of the abuse they suffered, and how disgusting that some Wikipedians think we should be a party to this with our top-ten web site simply because there are enough sources to keep us clear of libel laws. Thatcher131 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless of the extent to which I agree or disagree on any given point, well said, Brad. In part because I believe that I initially misjudged (that is, advocated AFD-listing) what should be done with these specific articles, I have been spending quite a bit of time looking into what could be written. I do not know how many of the commentors here carefully read the articles that have been deleted, but these articles were not the way to do it. Can we find a source for the number of times the police think a victim of sexual abuse was "forcibly sodomized"? Apparently, because we did. Does that have any business in an encyclopedia, whether the subject is living or dead? No. I think that all of these cases (Peppers, QZ, Hornbeck, Ownby) underscore the same very real problem. WP:BLP says that the things we say about living people must be sourced. It does not say, but should, that simply because we can source a thing does not mean that we should say it. I haven't spoken with Brad or the other editors involved in this issue, but I can say with certainty that is why these articles have been deleted. But I cannot agree that Wikipedia must remain silent — if we can speak in a way that does not fall prey to tabloid salaciousness. Shawn's four-year long kidnapping is unusual. It has raised substantial questions — evaluations of the accuracy or lack thereof of the concept of Stockholm Syndrome, questions about the procedural methods to search for kidnapped victims, questions about the role of law, and of the parents of vicitms in these roles, in addition to the news coverage of the crime itself. An article, I think, can be written from this. Ben Ownby? Not so much. There is nothing to say there outside of his role in Hornsby's story. That's why we have redirects. And I think that should be the standard. When we can write an article that does not devolve into taking base advantage of the horrors of an event, we should write it, with care, with caution, and with respect. When we cannot; we don't, we mustn't. I don't think there is any way remotely possible to write a mature, appropriate story about Brian Peppers, based on currently available material. I do think there is a way to write an article for QZ and one for Hornbeck. But for those articles to exist, we as a community need to recognize that, in a real sense, we are failing at more than WP:BLP. We are failing at WP:NPOV. At the time I write this, Wikipedia:Editorial discretion is a red link, and we should all be humbled and saddened for that. Serpent's Choice 19:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The two articles should not be considered as equivalent. Ben Ownby is a minor footnote in the history of kidnapped children. There is nothing particularly notable about him which raises the bar above that. Shawn Hornbeck is a completely different kettle of fish. The Foundation named for Shawn has had literally hundreds of public appearences. Bloggers don't seem to care that much to discuss Ben, however they all want to discuss Shawn. The subject of Shawn's four-year disappearence has been on dozens of forum discussion boards. Shawn has appeared many times more often in the media than Ben. Ben gets 41 thousand Googs, while Shawn get over a hundred thousand. Many more intimate details are known about Shawn, then Ben. Ben is a cypher. Therefore I recommend, that any further discussion should discuss the two articles seperately. Wjhonson 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the two discussions together. That will only unnecessarily complicate the discussion further. Out of the last three opinions on both, we seem to be more in favor of deleting the both of them. Don't complicate this further for nothing. Cbrown1023 talk 20:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn with possible relist at AfD - per aboveWjhonson 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Write an article about the foundation that briefly discusses why it was founded. Do not maintain a redirect from the person's name. Thatcher131 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - as per Thatcher131, an article about the foundation might be appropriate. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted and start a new Wiki site where self-appointed censors can't delete legitimately sourced information based on their own "superior" moral values. If the source says that "11 year old Jimmy Jones, born March 1, 1990, got kidnapped and anally raped 654 times" the new site prints the information, in total. Let those who want the censored version go to Wikipedia-or the Chinese internet. John celona 23:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is deeply sick, and I trust that you are simply trolling at this point. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Elizabeth Smart, a child sex victim, still has a page complete with date of birth and photo. Get to work censors!John celona 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know that I see anything deeply sick about that, and I would imagine that to make the contention that John intends to make—viz., that the effects of editing and publishing on those in the real world ought not to be of much/any concern to those who write an encyclopedia (a perfectly reasonable argument, if not one that commands a consensus here at present)—one would want to choose an extreme example to illustrate the absoluteness of his contention. John's tone is, to be sure, probably unnecessarily confrontational, but only in its use of the appellative superior (and, of course moron, in an above comment) and its conflation of what some might perceive as the censorship by BLP with what most would perceive as censorship by the Chinese government (which, whether an accurate submission or not, is likely to serve to inflame more than to engender discussion), not in its putting forth an extreme (and to some off-putting) example. It is not, in any case, trolling for one to attempt to make a constructive point (or to protest that which he views as contrary to policy/good sense where he aims not to disrupt but to improve the project) in a substandard way, and I would likely submit that John's comment is more likely to be regarded as trollish than any equally unconstructively adversarial comment in this DRV that goes to a contrary proposition only because the latter should a principle that most will generally recognize as more moral than that suggested by, for one, John. Joe 05:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. This guy was a cover story in Reader's Digest. He has a foundation set up in his name. At some point, we have to say that someone's a public figure whether or not they intended to be, and this certainly passes that point. -Amarkov moo! 04:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Even if other outlets violate journalistic standards by publishing minor sexual assault victims, wikipedia does not. --Tbeatty 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Yes Wikipedia must hold it's head high above that trashy yellow-press Reader's Digest. Can't sink to their level. Wjhonson 06:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted For the reasons I gave above. -- Donald Albury 10:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Newyorkbrad. --Aude (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and send back to WP:AFD, regarding Newyorkbrad's assertions, and the necessity of forging wider input and concensus. --Haemo 08:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at AfD, as per my previous post above. Brad's reply to John celona is, in my opinion, unqualifiable. Stammer 10:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at AFD We have an AFD process, and we should respect it. In an AFD I would probably favor deleting the two articles. But Wikipedia has guidelines and they should not be overruled by an individual's supposedly superior moral compass. Someone else's compass might say delete -out of process - articles contrary to their political or religious views. If we encourage admins to delete things which they find distasteful or which they think might cause embarrassment, we have made a dramatic change in the nature of Wikipedia. Policy changes should not be arbitrary acts by individuals, but should be done on the policy pages themselves. Put the new WP:POORTASTE provision out for debate and if it passes, fine. If there should be a provision in WP:N or WP:BIO which says that articles which could embarrass minor victims of crime (like these two) or minors in general (like QZ) than by all means add it and fight the battle there, so it is an enduring standard to cite in all future AFDs. In legal theory they say "Hard cases make bad law." It is better to alter the rules when cases such as this seem to dictate to some editors that changes are indicated. The goal was to prevent the individuals from future embarrassment as well as embarrassment while they are still minors, so you'd better run and delete (out of process) Lina Medina, an article about a girl who gave birth at age 5 (and was thus the victim of statutory rape). The fact that she is now 73 years old should not be a barrier, by that principle. Otherwise someone could mark their calendar and recreate the Hornbeck/Ownby articles the day they turn 21. Also, when did we start giving the subjects of articles veto power over the existence or content of the articles? Seems to fly in the face of WP:COI. Previously I have argued for deletion of such articles as the Hornbeck and Ownby ones on the basis that we are an encyclopedia, and the criteria which lead newspaper editors and TV news producers to include something as a story are not the same as those which encyclopedia editors use, and a failed guideline lingers on as the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Some of the views expressed here seem congruent with it. Just because something has substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, we don't necessarily need an encyclopedia article about it forever. Edison 16:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I see now changes made May 28 in the policies WP:BLP and WP:NOT which allow greater latitude for deleting articles such as these two, on the basis that Wikipedia is not a newspaper and that we should be careful not to embarrass such youthful crime victims as these two. Not clear if that extends to Elizabeth Smart and other persons not previously notable who got news coverage because of some event beyond their control. But the policy toolnow exists for greater freedom to delete these articles. Seems like it could still be done via AFD, given that no irreparable harm is likely to occur during the 5 day AFD period, based on how long the articles previously existed. Edison 22:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It doesn't really give any greater latitude. There were also long-needed changes made to the deletion policy where you're gonna need more than strengtrh of numbers to keep this deleted - the arguments to keep this deleted haven't been strong so far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - per aboveWjhonson 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per my above. Thatcher131 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Even if other outlets violate journalistic standards by publishing minor sexual assault victims, wikipedia does not. --Tbeatty 05:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • • See Elizabeth Smart. Where exactly in Wikipedia is it stated "minor sex victims cannot be named even if well sourced"? I await the answer. John celona 13:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted For the reasons I gave above. -- Donald Albury 10:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • • Then you are going to censor the Elizabeth Smart article also, which contains name, date of birth and photo of a child rape victim?John celona 17:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In accordance with the ruling by administrator Newyorkbrad I have put up Elizabeth Smart for deletion. This article contains not only the name, but the birthdate and photo of a minor rape victim.John celona 23:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Newyorkbrad. --Aude (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• CommentIs there a link to the previous AFD for this article? We are reviewwing an apparently out of process speedy deletion, so information about past judgements on the article would be helpful. Edison 17:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Response: There was no prior AfD on this article (there was for Shawn's, but not for Ben's). Newyorkbrad 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:LaToyaJackson.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The image was deleted despite the fact that a legitimate fair use rationale was provided as required by Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale, and a full page discussion as to why the image was irreplaceable was held on the image's talk page. Rhythmnation2004 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: deletion discussion was at Image talk:LaToyaJackson.jpg. ··coelacan 23:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The issue was also raised at [39] and I agree with the 5 administrators who reviewed the image; it is a replaceable fair use. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse no level of proof was offered for the assertion that it would be impossible to replace the image. IrishGuy ^talk 23:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, the image is not irreplaceable. Corvus cornix 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting quite tired of saying this, but I have proven EXTENSIVELY on that page that this image is irreplaceable. See my messages dated:

10:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

16:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

12:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

My messages have also explained IN DETAIL that I have made dozens of attempt to contact La Toya Jackson's agency to request a free-license image and have not received any reply, regardless of the fact that I have tried contacting them by e-mail, mail, and telephone. In addition, the fact that I provided a valid fair use rationale proves that the removal of this image is unjustifiable and that in its deletion, the administration of Wikipedia has shown that they believe themselves to be "above the policies" set forth by Wikipedia's guidelines on the fair use of promotional images. Rhythmnation2004 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated assertion is not the same thing as repeated proof. The fact that you are not getting a response from her agency does not mean that you can't get a picture of her, it only means that you can't get it from them. You could stand outside any function she appears at and snap one. Corvus cornix 01:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse - images of living people, with rare exception (ie, Osama Bin Laden, William Morva, etc), are replaceable. As long as we are content to use a non-free image, we will never get a free one. Why should the agency respond to an email as long as the article has a photo? If we are going to use it whether they release it under the GFDL or not, what possible reason would they have to make that release? Having a non-free image inhibits getting a free one. --BigDT 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Codependent Collegian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Seems the keep comments were conditional on sources verifying significance; these were not added. So we have unsupported assertions of significance only. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reopen for further discussion, should have been bumped for other eyes to look at instead of closing based on the comment that was there. Corvus cornix 00:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist I guess... but it already had 12 days on AFD. I wish there was a better way to get participation on the less captivating AFDs. --W.marsh 02:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist it, I guess. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. There was not enough participation to gauch concensus. Both contributors had conditional "votes". Happy to delete if it is shown attempts have been made to find sources. -- Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - consensus not established, not enough comments to establish even no consensus. The Evil Spartan 18:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of trends in music (2000-present) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article was deleted for containing too much OR, but this reason doesn't make sense, because it is a notable subject, and similar articles (e.g. 1990s in music) exist. If the article United States was unsourced and contained tons of OR, would that make it acceptable to delete it? The article should be cleaned up, not just deleted.--Azer Red Si? 14:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - process seems to have been followed correctly. Similar articles existing doesn't mean anything e.g. WP:INN and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the content of United States was considered unsalvagable for some reason, then yes deletion and starting from scratch would seem to make sense. --pgk 15:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason that the article was deleted was because of a lack of sources, so no, how about finding sources instead of deleting it (which will just result in it getting recreated again without sources, being nominated for deletion because it has no sources, being recreated again, etc.)--Azer Red Si? 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it'll just get speedy deleted G4 if anyone tries that, and ultimately protected from recreation. If you want to create a well sourced article meeting the required standards, no one is stopping you. --pgk 20:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that the contents of article were speedily deleted before I even knew it was nom'ed is stopping me from being able to improve it.--Azer Red Si? 21:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse AFD seems pretty conclusive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I just nominated Timeline of trends in music (1990-1999) for AFD Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'll say what I said at the new AfD - there's an encyclopedic article in there somewhere, but this ain't it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid AFD. I agree with Jeff; this isn't the right way to approach this subject. --Coredesat 18:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Here are the two criteria listed in Wikipedia's deletion policy that deal with sources:

1. Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
2. All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed--Azer Red Si? 20:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Valid result, no credible reason to overturn. Wikilawyering ain't going to help when even our most inclusionist inclusionist identifies that the content is hopeless. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Overturn it and renominate it if you want, but don't speedily delete it. If I had known about the nom, I might have been willing to improve it. This is why deletionism is a bad policy. The concept of Wikipedia is that articles don't start out perfect, but get better over time. By deleting articles like this overnight before they've even had time to improve, all that is being done is destroying others' hard work with no net gain to justify it.--Azer Red Si? 01:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Endorse Deletion. I was the nominator for that enormous monstrosity. There was one cited item in the entire article, which was over 50K before someone starting hacking away at it. This was not a speedy delete, either, FWIW; it ran for the full five days before it was closed with not a single editor asking for it to be retained. 11 editors all agreed that it was absolute garbage. Sorry if you take offense to it, but there was absolutely nothing in that article that was in any way encyclopedic. Horologium talk - contrib 04:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion, with Prejudice. No one spent more time looking at that article's hideousness than me. No one had more edits on it than me. That article was the academic equivalent of graffiti, where every prepubescent owner of an iPod could and did insert whatever personal thoughts popped into his or her head. And take note: It was not only up for a full five days of AfD, but every single statement in there but one had been tagged as needing sourcing for a full month! It was not an article, it was garbage, and there was nothing in there worth saving. And all of us do understand that articles often start out weak and get better. But look at the record, friend, exactly the opposite was happening to that article. It got worse and worse over time. Unschool 09:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Could an admin please recreate the largest revision here so I could look over it and see what I could make of it? I remember looking over it a while back, and I doubt it's as bad as everyone says it is.--Azer Red Si? 19:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done as asked. Remember that it's supposed to say there only while you are working on it with a reasonable chance of improving it enough. Based on the above comments, I suggest you copy it to your own computer and work on it off-line. DGG 20:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - it hasn't been recreated in my userspace.--Azer Red Si? 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• AFD Notice Per discussion at the latest AFD, the entire series has now been listed here Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy to project or userpage of whoever wants to take it on. It doesn't has just one source, but at least 3 I can count. I've seen worse messes. It might be harder to verify, but the information included is usually referenced elsewhere in linked articles, so it should be relatively easy to fix. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per Horologium Bulldog123 16:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

List of songs whose title includes personal names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AFD)

Overturn and delete - This DRV includes the sub-lists by letter as well. Closing admin acknowledges that the delete arguments are stronger than the keep arguments yet claims that opinion is "not settled" about the articles. It appears however that opinion is fairly well-settled in the deletion of a number of articles of a similar stripe recently that these sorts of lists are not encyclopedic because of their disregard of policy. Several of the AFDs for those articles were linked into this AFD and there appears to be no reason offered as to why those many precedents should be ignored (I realize that precedent is not 100% binding but it is certainly important to consider how similar articles have been treated in the past). Arguments for keeping, if I may paraphrase, amounted to it's interesting, people put a lot of work into it, it made it through an AFD once before (two years ago) and people like stuff with their names in it. None of that is particularly compelling and none of it overcomes the strong policy-based objections. The only substantive keep argument, that the songs are thematically related because they all contain a name, was pretty handily refuted by a number of people. Otto4711 13:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Saying that the delete arguments may have been better than the keep arguments does not automatically mean that there's a consensus or reason to delete. If consensus continues to shift in the delete direction in given time, then the next time this gets listed may work out in a delete direction, but there's no current consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Otto4711 appears to have neglected to bother talking to the closing admin at all before whistling over here (although someone else did, to which my reply was [40], which forms part of my response here). Anyway. Closing admin acknowledges that the deleters argue better but does not consider that they argue so very much better that a highly split debate motivates a consensual deletion. Nominator here is openly asking for a non-consensual deletion. The keepers argued that the list was well-constructed and well-defined with clearly present barriers to entry adn the nominator here glosses over that completely. The deleters failed, in my opinion, to successfully deconstruct that opinion and did not persuaded any of the keepers of the case. DRV is not an end-run around AfD, and this is simply an attempt to capitalise on the debate further down to that effect. Precedent on unrelated articles of different natures with different criteria and different debates does not translate into a license to shoot every list someone dislikes. Endorse my own close, if that wasn't obvious. Nominator should try AfD again later with a better argument and with time to fix the articles to see if that's possible. Splash - tk 13:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• If someone has already asked you about your closure, you've responded and I disagree with your response, why on earth would you want me to ask you the same question again? Would your response to the second asking have been markedly different from the first one? If not, then why criticise me for not redundantly asking?

• This would depend what you said to me. Splash - tk 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well gee, I probably would've said something like asking you to explain your decision more clearly. Presumably you would have said pretty much the same thing; I assume your reasons aren't so fluid as to change in the course of a few hours. Otto4711 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• As for your suggesting that I glossed over the "well-constructed" aspect of the keeps, I noted the work that went into the lists which I consider as addressing that argument. How well-constructed an article that IMHO fails policy is strikes me as irrelevant. Additionally, two different editors noted how the list was not well-constructed or well-defined or restricted. Risker stated I will also note that many of the songs listed contain a word in their title that is sometimes used as a person's name (e.g., Rose, Candy) but the song is not about a person at all. and I stated Some of them aren't even about people of that name, for instance, a number of the songs listed with the name "Angel" are about actual angels, not people named Angel. All of the lists mentioned as precedent were equally restricted by subject matter yet were still determined to be unsuitable for Wikipedia. No one is suggesting that precedent translates into a "license" to shoot anything but one would think that an admin would recognize some value in looking at how similar AFDs for similar lists raising similar arguments on both sides were handled. It seems to me that a closing admin should be able to justify why he believes precedent should be ignored instead of simply dismissing it with a poor gun metaphor.

• Each of the AfDs listed in the debate were stonking, overwhelmingly, massively and almost totally in favour of deletion, to the point of unanimity in some cases. They bear no relation to a debate such as this, where opinion is clearly split, as we both agree. The only exception is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes a phone number (3rd nomination), and a single debate is no precedent. In any case, 'precedent' applies largely in courts and on Wikipedia is very close to an inverse of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You have to make your case in this debate on this article, not other debates about other articles. Splash - tk 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• As for the debate being "highly split," my count has it at 10 for deletion and 6 for keep, which is pretty close to a two-thirds majority for deletion. While of course AFD is not a vote, there have been plenty of AFDs closed with a delete with a similar count.

• As you say, it's not a vote. If it were, and if 2/3 were a threshold, it wouldn't get deleted anyway. Splash - tk 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Since there is no threshold, your comment about that hypothetical threshold is irrelevant. The point still stands that this debate was not so closely divided as your claim would suggest. Otto4711 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• As for your claim that I'm trying an "end run" around AFD, I am struck by your obvious failure to assume good faith. To be blunt, you made a mistake. We have a 62.5%-37.5% in favor of deletion with delete arguments that the closing admin acknowledges are stronger than the keeps yet the AFD still closes as no consensus. You gave credence to weak arguments that should have been discounted and your explanation for your closure, both in the AFD and on your own page, were weak and unpersuasive. I strongly disagree with your assertion that the delete arguments failed to deconstruct the poor arguments of the keepers, I disagree with your stated reasons for closure, I disagree with the implication that keepers should have to recant their opinions within the AFD for admins to discount their arguments. This is the forum for reviewing the actions of closing administrators. Otto4711 15:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• You are claiming there is a consensus present in that debate to delete the article. You are claiming so clear is the consensus that it could not possibly have been a 'no consensus' debate. This is not the case. Acknowledging that one side argues more strongly is not an implication that I found the other side totally unpersuasive, which would have to have been the case to mandate a deletion in the kind of divided debate you have identified. Splash - tk 15:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I am claiming that when one side argues policy, debunks the other side's claims and has a nearly 2-1 majority while the other side makes arguments based in pretty much nothing and fails to refute the policy claims of the majority and indeed barely even addresses them that this is a strong indicator of consensus. Otto4711 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Both sides argued policy. Neither side refuted the others claims so totally that we need to disregard them totally in order to manufacture a consensus. We already agreed that the numbers do not matter. Splash - tk 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't claim to be the most knowledgable person when it comes to policy but I think I have a pretty good grasp on it, but in looking at the keep arguments again I'm realy not seeing any policy arguments. What keep arguments exactly are you saying are based on policy? Otto4711 17:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• By the way: it's not that I want you to make the keepers 'recant', although that's surely the ideal course of a debate, but that the deletion arguments did not even manage to persuade those who came to the debate after they had all been made, and after what deconstruction of the keepers arguments there was had also been attempted. Life doens't always go your way. You can renominate later. Splash - tk 15:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• This makes no sense whatsoever. If Person A says "keep, I like it and it's fun" and then Person B says "delete for policy reasons XYZ" you're giving mrore weight to the person who comes in later and repeats "keep it, it's fun"? That's ridiculous. Otto4711 16:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well you made up the bad example, not me! Anyway, your example doesn't match what I described or the algebraic format of the debate in question, or the reasons I have given for my closure, so I'm not sure that it's useful. It's common to find a divided beginning to an AfD followed by a well-argued point or two, followed by a clear trend among later participants to supporting those points. This is less good than everyone winding up agreeing of course, but we can't really expect that very often. Of course, the later editors do not get a free-pass through policy but rarely do people line up convincingly behind such weak positions, which is why you conclude your own example to be ridiculous. Splash - tk 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. The thread above is a conversation that could (and should) have occurred on the closing admin's talk page before creating this listing, making this DRV out of process. Regardless, this was a reasoned closure accurately reflecting the AFD discussion, with the reasoning carefully explained (starting in the AFD closure notes). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The keeps can be summed up by one of the comments: These lists provide an entertaining look at music across time, across genres, with the unifying theme of proper names in their titles. Entertainment is a side-product, it's not a core encyclopaedic purpose, and the "unifying theme" has no encyclopaedic basis: there is no encyclopaedic topic "songs whose title contain a propoer name". This is a list whose defining criterion is completely arbitrary, and it will by its nature include so many songs as to make the list useless for navigation, which is what Wikipedia lists are for. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, every "keep" that I see in the discussion is in essence WP:ILIKEIT, while those arguing to delete provided some pretty good, well-founded arguments. AfD is not a vote. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse closure Indeed, AFD is not a vote, so one wonders why some people keep insisting on counting heads - and DRV - especially for articles that are not deleted - isn't supposed to be used as a second go at the same argument, moments after a closure, just because you don't like the decision. When an AFd results in deletion, there's obviously more at stake than when the result is no change. WHat exactly was the rush in this case? Was something new uncovered that demands deletion? Also - I recall seeing one specific complaint in the AFD - about "Angel" - and that complaint was addressed by removal of those songs pending examination of which if any were legitimately included. If there are other specific concerns that I missed or no one stated, why not try stating them and giving the editors a chance to correct them. Finally, despite the characterization here, the arguments for keep included the value this type of list has as a resource that Wikipedia is uniquely qualified to provide for writers and researchers into popular culture, which no one refuted or even bothered to address. I find this use of DRV to be a cynical attempt to denigrate the comments of people who were in favor of keeping the articles, and to substitute one admin's judgment for another's and that's not appropriate. Tvoz |talk 02:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per Otto and Seraphim. Again an instance of pressure groups pushing no consensus closures. There is a severe bias towards keeping articles if people like it. Afd is not a vote but sometimes the numbers can be overwhelming for a closing admin. It's true. Bulldog123 09:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. With respect to Splash, but in my opinion, this was a clear supermajority in favor of deletion. That's not everything, but this debate boils down to those who like the lists vs. those who don't, both have reasons based in policy for their positions... but to call the debate a stalemate because neither position is superior is a mistake when the numbers are strongly on one side. I counted 10-6 in favor of deletion, which is a 62.5% majority, nearly 2/3. Especially when the closer felt the delete arguments were better, which I also think. Yes, Otto should have talked with Splash first, but in the end, this wasn't a good closure, I think. Mangojuice^talk 15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's unusual to find a non-voting operation characterised in four numerical ways, to include a decimal point of accuracy! The closer thinks the deleters argued their case better, but not so much better that the position of the debate was enough to mandate riding roughshod over the opinions of the keepers. If editorialising the debate (as Guy and Bulldog123 do) or counting votes (as you and the nominator do) is the only way to manufacture a consensus then I conclude that there is not one present. Splash - tk 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Vote counting should not be demonized this much. AfD is not just a vote, but in circumstances where it comes down to editor opinions (like this one), it is appropriate to go with the winner of the vote count, so long as there's a supermajority in place. Mangojuice^talk 13:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Even for those who think otherwise, the decision was not so very wrong as to call for overturning. Others may have done it differently, but it was a reasonable. 10-6, with the arguments being laid out in great detail, is in my opinion not consensus enough to delete a long series of articles. The closing wasn't keep, it was no consensus--it was clear there , and is clear here from the above discussion, that there was no consensus and still is none. It's the safest decision, after all.--it neither establishes a precedent for keep, nor does it delete the articles. DGG 20:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, I have to disagree with that philosophy. "No consensus" closures should be given when a solution cannot be found, not when there is a perfectly reasonable one. They should be an option to be avoided unless it's impossible to avoid it, because it's like invalidating the discussion. One should never stretch a case that has a pretty good consensus, like this one, into a "no consensus", especially when the default of keeping reverses the result of the pretty good consensus. Mangojuice^talk 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No consensus closures are appropriate when the debate has failed to reach a clear conclusion among its participants. We're not looking for 'solutions', as we're not solving problems. We're trying to work out whether the subset of the community that participated intelligently has reached an end-point or not. If they have not, then thinking continues for a while and the issue may be revisited later. 'No consensus' does not invalidate the discussion in any way, since discussions can fail to reach agreement and still be quite valid, as occurred here. And let's not now embark on the path where someone says "but none of the keepers are intelligent", for I shall refer to them a bluelink if they dare. Splash - tk 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Except, consensus doesn't mean that everyone has to agree, either. Debates sometimes come down to community opinion, and then it does matter what the numbers are, and this is that kind of debate. If it was 11-6, would you have closed for deletion? 10-5? 12-6? In many debates, those in the minority don't end up agreeing with those in the majority, but that doesn't mean there isn't a consensus. For that matter, if you thought there wasn't enough of a consensus for your comfort, why close the debate at all: why not simply leave it open or relist? It is better to have an outcome than to have no outcome. AfD is supposed to give answers to these questions, that is the purpose of AfD. Mangojuice^talk 23:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not asking for total agreement, and really I'm very aware that unanimity is not the standard for deletion (I sort of picked that up after my first few thousand closures). 'No consensus' is, and always has been, a perfectly functional outcome of an AfD debate. Relisting is only necessary when the debate is so insipid that simply no determination can be made; not delete, not keep, nor even a conclusion that there is no consensus on the immediate disposition of the article.
        • I will not answer questions that require me to votecount in the absence of actual information; but you're preaching to someone who is well aware of how AfD works and has, once or twice, deleted articles from there. I was satisifed that the situation had been discussed and that the resulting situation was not clear enough to mandate a deletion. I don't see why DRV should be used to force some other outcome in the patent absence of such a situation.
        • 'No consensus' is very precisely not the same as 'no outcome' (which is a result I have also very rarely assigned to debates; I rather suspect I may be the only admin who has done so). If you'd like to talk about the philosophical aspects of that, then maybe my talk page? It's rather off topic to this debate. Splash - tk 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weakly endorse. I thought I saw consensus in the AFD discussion, but, then again, I was the nominator. I inquired on the closing admin's talk page. He provided a sufficiently adequate response for me to leave the issue alone. For my part, I still think this material should go, but that's why involved editors don't close discussions. I've suggested a possible direction to improve the article(s) on the page's Talk. Maybe it'll acquire some context and relevance. If so, I might even support it later on. If not, we can always ship it back to AFD in 6 months with "no effort to resolve the previous concerns" appended. There's no rush; Wikipedia has no deadline, and this content isn't so problematic as to make urgency more important than preserving what decorum AFD still has. Serpent's Choice 05:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete per the above, and per WP:NOT indiscriminate. >Radiant< 10:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If we go via strict numerical guidelines, there was no consensus to delete the page to begin with. However, as we don't vote on deletion, we have to look at arguments, and in this case, both sides have reasonable ideas grounded on Wikipedia policy, so no consensus is the only reasonable outcome. Besides, this is a no consensus closure, not a keep; that means that this can be revisited in the future, without even having to wait the customary six months due to the "immunity" (for lack of a better word) granted to articles kept in AFD. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. I can see how this could be an easy navigational aid, but that's what search engines were made for. It's a textbook example of a unmaintainable list that will never be comprehensive. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Titoxd. Although the 6-month-safe-period thing after a keep decision is basically the Wikipedia equivalent of an urban legend... "keep" and "no consensus" are only as different as people let them be. --W.marsh 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete badly fails the core policy of WP:NOT and should be deleted absent a clear showing that is not present either here or in the AfD. Eluchil404 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per Titoxd & Rick Block; isn't it obvious that there's no consensus on this one? Carlossuarez46 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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

previously considered 'blatant advertising' - now another contributor wants to resubmit a new text with several reliable independent sources. please consider and advise of new steps Seital 09:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

They should create it under their userspace (e.g. User:Seital/fring) then ask for a review when done. --pgk 11:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close, yes, just rewrite the article in userspace first. You'll need to bring us something to look at so we can assess whether to restore the article or not. --Coredesat 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Make it good, eh? Eight deletions by numerous different admins is usually an indicator that the subject is inherently problematic. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul McCarthy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

McCarthy is a major, internationally recognized artist. The article seems to have been deleted for lacking notability. A simple google search will confirm this is far from true. Freshacconci 01:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• As the deleting admin, I was asked to give my opinion. Personally, I don't have one either way. It was a tagged prod with the rationale of "facts are unsubstantiated, no verifiability," essentially an un-sourced BLP. If someone wants it overturned and have it properly sourced, more power to them. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at the cache, I agree this was a poor article. But deleting it seemed harsh for an artist who has been in the Whitney Biennale, Museum of Modern Art and Tate Modern (amongst scores of other international galleries and museums). It strikes me that a tag of some sort would have been better, and that the original prod was from someone who simply doesn't like McCarthy. I haven't been on wikipedia that long, so I wasn't sure of the procedures around this. Could this be restored, tagged with the appropriate tags and then I'll work on it? Freshacconci 02:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete - I think I have a couple books from my art history class last semester that discuss him (we spent a day or so discussing his work). I'll add what I can in a week when I'm with my books again. There are at least four independent books about him on Amazon, so notability certainly is not lacking. Maybe a restore and remove a bunch of the more controversial info for the interim? Wickethewok 02:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• At first, I was going to ask why someone would delete an article about one of the Beatles. ;) As a now-contested prod, it can be undeleted on demand ... HOWEVER ... based on the content of this article and the claims it makes about this man, I really don't think it should be undeleted unless/until sources are provided. --BigDT 02:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Contested prod, moved to AfD. Chick Bowen 02:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:uw-deletionpolicy1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache)

I am tired of the out of process deletions, in contravention of Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. So I created warning templates, {{uw-deletionpolicy1}}, {{uw-deletionpolicy2}}, {{uw-deletionpolicy3}}, {{uw-deletionpolicy4}} to warn perpetrators of this form of vandalism. While the vandalism policy says good faith edits are not vandalism, WP:AGF says that in the presence of repeated abuses you may stop assuming good faith. Given the massive out of process deletions, refusal to accept DRV as a legitimate forum, and flat-out violations of Wikipedia:Deletion policy I felt that a 4 level warning system consistent with other forms of vandalism was appropriate. However these templates were deleted out of process as "trolling". I assure you, I am not trolling. I consider these deletions to be directly damaging to the project by violating core Wikipedia policies, improperly deleting properly sourced, notable, accurate articles, when our stated goal is to form an Encyclopedia. -N 01:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - valid T1. For one thing, leaving a standard template on a veteran user's talk page is insulting - you should leave a personal message. For another thing ... the text of the templates is just plain nonsense. --BigDT 01:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm going to be gracious and not speedy close this; I haven't refuted anything on a point-by-point basis in a couple of hours, so here it goes. First of all, Wikipedia:Process is important is an essay. Pointing to it with claims of some sort of improper action holds no water, because essays, by definition, can give no binding instructions. With regards to your link to Wikipedia:Consensus, you can't honestly believe these would be kept at TfD, can you? An equally ludicrous template with regards to the spate of Main Page deletions was deleted there too, and these would be no different. The deletions can therefore be viewed as a sort of snowball-in-hell close of the TfD that would have happened otherwise. With regards to this deletion contravening deletion policy: alright, maybe "CSD T1" should have been entered in the deletion summary instead. But I'll let you in on a secret, Nardman: CSD T1 is just a polite acronym for trolling. (The Cabal was even so bold as to make sure it started with T.)
• With regards to your accusation of vandalism, I say hogwash, and suggest you assume good faith. From the opening sentence of Wikipedia:Vandalism, a policy: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Not one of these deletions have been made "in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia," and I challenge you to prove me otherwise. To look at this a different way, why the hell would multiple longtime administrators "vandalize" Wikipedia like this? We've joked about horrendous forms of vandalism, namely in the MediaWiki namespace, and yet none of these so-called vandals has done so. Why not? Because they are not vandals.
• With regards to your assurance that you are not trolling: alright, I will take you at your word. (Why not do the same for our good BLP-enforcing sysops, eh?) And finally, when you say "I consider these deletions to be directly damaging to the project by violating core Wikipedia policies, improperly deleting properly sourced, notable, accurate articles, when our stated goal is to form an Encyclopedia," I have just one response. I consider these deletion reviews to be directly damaging to the project by violating core common sense principles, improperly challenging the deletion of improperly sourced, nonnotable, inaccurate articles, when our stated goal is to form an Encyclopedia. To sum that up, I endorse deletion. Picaroon (Talk) 02:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding your first paragraph, I would strongly suggest that nobody speedy close this. The whole reason a lot of people are ticked off lately is the speedy closing of some controversial DRVs. --BigDT 02:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I second BigDT's suggestion. I think that a quick refresher of the original intent of speedy closures is in order, given the above and events of late: Speedy closures are there to combat disruptive vandals who are attempting to tie us in knots using our own processes, such as (say) by nominating Earth (AfD discussion) for deletion in the hopes that we'll labouriously trudge through a full week of AFD discussion. They are there to combat bad faith. An editor who creates boilerplate texts for user talk pages may be exceedingly misguided, employing a wholly erroneous interpretation of what constitutes vandalism, communicating with other editors in a very counterproductive manner, and so on. But those are not the same as acting in bad faith.

    There are also snowball closures. Those are for when it is glaringly obvious what the consensus will be. Sometimes this is simply because of the sheer unanimity of expressed opinion of a large number of different editors. Sometimes this is because discussion rapidly reaches an appropriate solution that everyone is happy about. Even then, it is important to ensure that there has been opportunity for any dissent to have been expressed. It is sometimes beneficial, for example, to place a notice saying that unless anyone comes forward to disagree with the conclusion within 24 hours, the discussion will be closed early. (We don't all live a single timezone, remember.)

    Please reserve speedy closures for cases of bad faith. Uncle G 14:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Should I feel honoured to have had one of these startling piece of process-at-the-expense-of-product applied to my talk page? - David Gerard 02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Undelete and BJAODN for preservation - David Gerard 02:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Nardman, even if you do have a valid point, this is not the way to go about it, is a violation of WP:POINT, and is not helping your cause. Chick Bowen 03:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Pure bad faith, designed to stir up bad feelings. Corvus cornix 03:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Disruptive administrators need to be held accountable. Having seen these templates, this wasn't the way to do it. Unfortunately inflammatory. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Templating admins is a seriously bad idea. While they have their place in warning newbies and boilerplate stuff like image problems, templates are a very poor way of sending a message. I have never heard of an experienced user responding postively to a templated user warning. Whats wrong with actually writing a specific message and having a conversation?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Canned templates like this are a bad idea and serve no useful purpose except to fan the flames. Krimpet (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - amusing, but sheer balls. When Jeff endorses deletion, you know it's pretty bad (with all respect). Ouch!!. Moreschi ^Talk 09:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Don't use templates on experienced users; it creates bad feeling. ElinorD (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would suggest don't use templates on any users - they're not personal, they're bureaucratic rubber-stamping. But perhaps that's just me. Rewrite in one's own words - David Gerard 13:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, stupid. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per all above, and let me note that the recommendation to test deletion on sandbox may result in database lags that will make Wikipedia read-only for several minutes. MaxSem 12:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If an admin wants to test deletion, they should create a subpage of their user space to mess with - David Gerard 13:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw nom. I will admit it appears I'm climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. -N 15:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

List of jazz clubs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)