Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 27

Gucci Gang controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Discussion was closed as Keep. I asked the closer to take a second look. The arguments for and against boil down to WP:NOT#NEWS versus WP:N. While there are several references on the page, almost all of them are gossip items, rumors, and unproven allegations. The event seems to have triggered a flurry of !news articles that lasted from the 10th to the 16th, with no further activity and no further references to the incident(s) - see a Google News search for the past week. I feel this was a flash-in-the-pan event and is not encyclopedic. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Closing admin comment: As seen in the discussion on my talk page, I closed the discussion as "keep" for several reasons:
  1. The article expands beyond the basic coverage of the event, taking note of the legal and social issues involved with the event and criticisms on freedom of speech, thus going beyond the scope of WP:NOT#NEWS.
  2. There is sufficient referencing, in more than one reliable source, to justify the notability of the event.
  3. There is precedent to allow such articles, as was established in the AfD discussion.
  4. Despite the use of several single-purpose accounts, there was clear consensus to keep the article.

As I was the closing admin in the AfD discussion, I offer no opinion towards this discussion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure The argument that the article fitted WP:NOT#NEWS was considered at the AFD and a sufficient consensus decided that it did not. The closing admin considered this and correctly decided there was a consensus to keep. I see no new evidence that was not raised in the AFD so as we are considering the process and not rearguing the AFD this seems to be a clear endorse. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• My question about that is the "sufficient consensus" that decided that it did not fit NOT#NEWS. Three or four editors seem to have hit on the same issue - that this was simply a news story and didn't have encyclopedic value. See the comments by Calton, MCB, and Snthdiueoa, besides my own. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would probably have closed it as no consensus (which defaults to keep anyway) but there was sufficient weight of opinion disagreeing with the arguments raised by the editors you quote to make a keep closure reasonable and I do not see the point in overturning a keep closure to a no consensus closure. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't strike you as a BLP1E? I know I seem like I'm beating a dead horse, but I honestly don't see how a bunch of rumors, printed in four papers and forgotten about a week later, could be considered encyclopedic? I also don't see how this is in the same league as the supposed "precedents" mentioned in the AfD? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

BLP suggests covering the event and not the person which this article seems to, but anyway I don't want to reargue the AFD here as these arguments were considered there and I consider the closure reasonably interpreted the debate. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• sustain close disagreeing with the decision is not sufficient reason if the close represented consensus,as it did. DGG (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

re-examining the article,it seems that there are indeed some BLP concerns, but they could be dealt with by editing. I suppose we could write it without naming the person being accused of swindling, since the important part is not the accusations at the base but the free speech part of it.DGG (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just a comment as I'm not familiar with the specifics of this case, whether there's any real legal significance, or rather this really garnered much attention. I wanted to mention that W.marsh used to make the argument that there's a difference between News Stories which should go on Wikinews, and encyclopedic accounts of news events, no matter if they're fleeting, which do indeed belong here. He made the argument more elegantly than I have, but I think I have conveyed the gist of it. I think it's worth considering. --JayHenry (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete This brings us back to a fundamental tension at AfD. The conflation of news with notability is a longstanding and erroneous position taken by many editors. Hence we developed the WP:NOT#NEWS policy. It is, or should be, the closing admin's task to, what's that word, oh yea administer policy, not just count votes. It could be argued that this aspires to something more than news, but those arguments are highly unconvincing, as a quick perusal of this gussied up News of the World Article readily demonstrates. So this was closed properly if AfD is about counting up votes. It was closed improperly if the purpose of AfD is to subject articles to the light of our policies and practices. In my view, this should be deleted. Eusebeus (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse — while there is definitely a tension between WP:N and WP:NOT#NEWS, the arguments in the discussion specifically addressed this, and the close was reasonable in light of that. --Haemo (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support article as a keep, news does indicate notability. Britannica, The World Almanac, etc. all have articles, especially in the yearly editions that are composed of news coverage. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Those bits are annual supplements (i.e.; have a defined shelf-life), and the sort of thing you're talking about do NOT go into later revisions of the main volume, do they? --Calton | Talk 12:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete. Today's news is tomorrow's fishwrap, and local news =/= global encyclopedic worth and/or impact. Seems to me that the closing admin forgot the difference between a local newspaper and a global encyclopedia, wherein the latter really must take a long view. --Calton | Talk 01:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Please define "local" news. Just because it is printed in a mere third-world country does not make it "local". Your argument is a perfect example of WP:BIAS. Starczamora (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• The meaning of "local", your attempt at a combination wikilawyering/guilt-tripping notwithstanding, is fairly self-evident. Hint 1: my use of "global" in opposition to the the term "local". Hint 2: being printed ONLY within small area, as you say, DOES, in fact makes it "local news", whatever handwaving you indulge in. --Calton | Talk 12:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure; AfD is all about asking Wikipedians to decide based on policy issues. In this case, the issue of WP:NOT#NEWS was brought up, and consensus was this is not prohibited by that article. DRV shouldn't be second-guessing that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. I was neutral before in the AfD, but this "news" is definitely getting more attention past the arbitrary one-week criteria mentioned by the AfD nominator. For example, there's been an episode of the panel discussion show Media in Focus on ANC last week talking specifically about the legal implications of this blog ([1]). The article is not a news article since it provides context and analysis as well. --seav (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I would also like to add that ZDNetAsia.com has also picked up the story ([2]), as well as TV Patrol which is the Philippines' most-watched news program ([3]). Looks like this news is not going to be fishwrap soon. Starczamora (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)