- Darius McCollum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
This article about someone with Asperger's Syndrome involved in crime was deleted by User:Jbeach56 as "no claim of notability, WP:BLP concerns. There is an assertion of notability, notably a mention in the New York Times - as seen here. If there really is doubts about the notability of the subject, this should have been listed at AfD rather than deleted outright. Judging by the cached version, I didn't see anything that was a potential WP:BLP violation. --Solumeiras talk 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and rewrite to conform to BLP and WP:V policy. I was asked to comment on this DRV because I edit Asperger/autism-related articles. A subject mentioned at least 10 times in The New York Times and in Harper's is notable. However, there are some issues in the cached version of the article. Notability had not been established and there were BLP issues in the cached version. "McCollum has been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome" is not supported by the sources; the sources say he may have had Asperger syndrome, so the article needs to stick to the sources to avoid BLP issues. Second, there is an external link to a non-reliable source, neurodiversity. Third, the New York Times sources need to be included to establish notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion nn criminal, so what? Does everyone with a rap sheet get an article? Only if there's a reason to feel sorry for the guy? So he gets written up in his local paper - which because he's in NY ends up being the NY Times - little different than thousands of other people in jail & prison all over. Many serial criminals - whatever their medical conditions - get mentioned each time they are arrested, put on trial, up for parole, involved in the next crime, etc. Doesn't make them notable. WP is not Wiki Policeblotter. As to the BLP concerns: if the convictions are sourced, end of concern. Carlossuarez46 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion Minor, minor, minor, minor, minor (etc.) criminal. Sounds like a strange local character, which New York is frankly full of, but this is Wikipedia, not wackynewyorkfolks.com. While I'm sure this is interesting and/or amusing to some, it's really no more notable than a tagger, sidewalk drunk, highway speeder, or other uber-petty criminal. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. The above arguments for endorsement can be made at AfD. Even if the multiple articles by the New York Times are written off as local coverage, Google Archive[3] hits show that his story has been picked up by Harper's, Salon, Dallas Morning News, BBC News, San Diego Union Tribune, The Independent, Philadelphia Daily News, CBS News, and others. Adjectives include "infamous" and "semilegendary." Whether he deserves it or not, he has gotten enough coverage to clear the CSD hurdle. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn If notability outside NYC is needed, the article in Harpers provides it. And furthermore that articles says he "was contacted by members of several Asperger's support groups. Darius, whose arrests had been covered in newspapers for twenty years, had become well known among Asperger's experts and activists, and his case had been cited in at least one scholarly work." The potential BLP problem is not over any conviction, but the Asperger's syndrome]., It will be difficult to avoid it, since the Harpers article, free at http://web.archive.org/web/20030927155810/www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/1824_304/85882845/print.jhtml] discusses it in detail. We can quote what they say there, so it solves this one too. Go read the article in Harpers. He's clearly notable. DGG (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- This debate is rather irrelevant. BLP deletions don't need to come to DRV. If something is deleted under BLP, it is generally because every version contains unreferenced negative accusations. Anyone can recreate this, as long as they make it BLP compliant. Notability gets discussed at AfD. So, whoever wants this, write it making sure all the negative stuff is cited.--Docg 22:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, where it is submitted that at least some versions do not contain unreferenced negative accusations (or, rather, that there are at least some versions that are not categorically BLP violations), DRV is entirely appropriate (and, indeed, there may well develop here a consensus that there were no significant BLP issues here and that a notability debate is properly situated at AfD); we don't, after all, necessarily take as dispositive any particular assertion made by a single editor or admin. Joe 23:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse If a sentence lacks a footnote, it is fair to assume that the information is unsourced. The unfootnoted sentences in the deleted article certainly needed them to overcome WP:BLP concerns. No prejudice in recreating article from reliable source material that addresses the WP:BLP concerns. -- Jreferee t/c 01:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion under WP:BLP. Doc is wrong, however, the debate isn't totally irrelevant. The nominator thought there wasn't a BLP problem with the old draft. They are wrong in fact, but that is a legitimate DRV issue. No deletion rationale is self-proving, whether it be WP:CSD#A7 or WP:BLP. However, this article started in 2005 with no sources and essentially the final text. The Harper's article got linked, by the looks of it for the benefit of someone who might want to read it rather than to source anything. That someone later converted the link to a citation template doesn't mean that the article was a source. The article never received a rewrite with sourcing, and thus remained fundamentally unsourced for its entire existence. Since the deletion is correct under WP:BLP, the additional WP:CSD#A7 rationale is irrelevant. Doc is right that the debate is irrelevant for recreation; if an unsourced article is deleted for BLP reasons, there is no prejudice against creating a sourced replacement. GRBerry 03:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
endorse deletion of current form but allow recreation with sourcing' per GRBerry. If there is concern that such an article still triggers BLP issues it should then be taken to AfD since it is would be well-sourced. JoshuaZ 13:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Synthesizing GRBerry and Groggy's comment below I'm changing my opinion to overturn, add footnote. If after that there are still concerns it can then be AfDed. JoshuaZ 17:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)- Comment. The endorsements appear to be moving away from the notability issue to BLP. I consider it excessively drastic to keep an article deleted over a BLP "problem" that can be solved by simply moving a footnote (from the end of the article to the end of the sentence with the "citation needed" tag). Is there any doubt that he has been arrested and sentenced several times? No, and that doesn't even seem to be the BLP issue. That leaves the Asperger's diagnosis, and is that even negative? For someone leading a quiet life, I can see how it could be; in this case, however, it provides a mitigating explanation for his acts. It is his friends and supporters who back this hypothesis, and McCollum himself seems open to it. (The main person with doubts about it seems to be the judge who threw the book at him.) And if the Harper's article is deemed insufficient, is there any question that there are lots of other reliable sources discussing his possible Asperger's? No. To my mind, BLP deletion should only be a recourse when information is suspected to be unsourceable, not when it is known that many other sources exist that could be added. It seems like an overbroad application of BLP to keep the article deleted when no one is disputing any of the underlying facts and no one doubts that there are many sources attesting to them, just because of dissatisfaction over the placement of a footnote. --Groggy Dice T | C 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- P.S.. I'd also like to speak out against a couple of ideas that have been advanced above, starting with the idea that BLP deletions are beyond appeal or review. I don't believe any admin action should be beyond community challenge. Also, if the community believes that an admin is resorting to BLP deletion overzealously, he needs to know that. Also, admins often invoke "BLP" vaguely, making it difficult to know what problem he had specifically with the article. Was it the criminal record? The Asperger's? What if his BLP concern wasn't potential inaccuracy or insufficient sourcing, but a belief that McCollum was another Brian Peppers or Tourette's Guy, whose condition was being exploited by a media freakshow? In that case, he would be opposed to recreation no matter how many sources it had, and the critiques that the nom should have simply recreated instead of bringing this to DRV would be missing the point. Speaking of which, I also think people shouldn't be too quick to resort to the position that an article can just be recreated later with better sourcing. That's easy for admins to say, when they can call up the old version, add a few footnotes, and restore. But for regular editors, who must either wikify the Google cache version or rewrite from scratch, it's a pain. That seems like excessive trouble, when a source is already in the article, some people just think it needs to be pointed out better. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- some admins, including myself, will almost always email such an article to anyone who wants to restore it in good faith (or userify it if BLP or copyvio is not an issue)
- And of course DelRev is exactly the spot provided for reviewing BLP deletions. Only way to avoid wheel war between one admin saying it is and one saying it isnt.DGG (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- More specifically, I agree with Groggy Dice that BLP was no reason for delete. If Harpers reports that someone has Asperger's, and that this was used in mitigation at a trial, and it is sourced to Harpers, recording it is not BLP. It's sourced positive information. BLP does not mean "no biographies of living people"DGG (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- A comment: As the individual who opened this DRV, I wasn't doing this to invoke a WP:POINT or to violate WP:BLP. It is true that sources do say he has Asperger's Syndrome, and there's no doubting that. I was trying to ensure that an neutral, sourced version could be written. As it is, I work in the field of medical/psychological and (sometimes) with individuals who have Asperger's Syndrome and autism. I also research a lot of material about the field of autism and Asperger's syndrome for my employment anyway, so I hope I am not violating WP:COI here. I do intend to edit articles relating to Asperger's syndrome/autism, even notable individuals who have it whilst keeping within WP:BLP, WP:NOTE and other policies. Everyone has made good arguments for both keeping and deleting it, and I think you've done well with this debate. Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 22:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well the version I deleted didn't have those sources Jbeach sup 23:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, if necessary list at AFD. The existence of an extensive article almost solely about the subject in a major national magazine suggests that at the least a community discussion is needed. As noted above, there was a footnoted reference that covered the BLP issues, it was merely awkwardly introduced. Footnote placement should not lead to a BLP speedy deletion. Sources for a balanced article may not be copious but they exist, both in NY papers and in books. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
|
