Talk:Saugeen Stripper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on December 29, 2005 and January 17, 2006. The result of both discussions was no consensus. An archived record of these discussions can be found here and here.

For the record, the results of the second vote were 40 to delete, 6 to redirect, 20 to keep... how that is supposed to not be consensus I don't really understand... With 46 to 20 to get rid of the article, the redirect clearly has consensus at least (despite the closing admin's very peculiar statement that votes can;t be used to show consensus... looks pretty irregular to me), so hopefully we won't have any disgruntled keep voters trying to get around that. DreamGuy 14:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

AfDs are immaterial when it comes to such disputes (for the long story, see User talk:Johnleemk and User talk:DreamGuy). The long and winding history of American terrorism (term) (which had an AfD I closed that led to a bloody cut and paste move war) shows that this is not something irregular -- it's perfectly normal and accepted. AfDs have no bearing on consensus once it's been determined whether or not to delete. DRV can undo consensus to delete; a talk discussion can undo "consensus" to keep and definitely any form of "no consensus". Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

AfDs are not immaterial to such disputes... WE HAVE CLEAR CONSENSUS HERE, 46 votes to 20, it's absolutely absurd to try to claim that a full out vote does not establish consensus, that's the entire purpose of the vote! IF at some FUTURE POINT a new consensus is created, THEN they can do whatever they want, but we CLEARLY have FULL CONSENSUS on this issue RIGHT NOW, so right now we MUST redirect, per the overwhelming consensus. To claim otherwise is to miss the entire point of consensus and let the small minority of voters overrule everyone else. DreamGuy 18:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no consensus at all. Article needs to be kept and expanded. -- JJay 18:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What little fantasy world are you living in where 46 to 20 isn't consensus? It didn't have consensus to be kept and expanded, it has consensus to be removed, if not completely deleted. You are dreaming if you thing less than 1/3 of a vote means you get your way. DreamGuy 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"What little fantasy world are you living in"- luckily not the hateful and spiteful one you live in where people get their "way" and scream and shout and type in all caps and generally make fools of themselves. -- JJay 00:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated the article at deletion review to obtain a clear mandate to delete; unfortunately, the article does need to stay until that happens. --OntarioQuizzer 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the nature of consensus. Consensus does not come about through a majority or even plurality of numbers alone. Consensus is formed by people agreeing on a course of action. This is how a wiki operates. When I make an edit and nobody reverts it, it has consensus to stay. If it's reverted, there's no consensus, and I must discuss things with the reverter until one of us agrees he is in the wrong. If consensus still cannot be reached, a rough consensus must then be formed by the community to overrule the objector(s). This rough consensus can never be reached by numbers alone; this is why wikipedia:consensus offers no way to quantify consensus. It's a subjective matter, not objective. And when some idiots have tried to quantify consensus, it's been generally agreed that "consensus" on AfD constitutes two-thirds of the "votes" going to delete. No such thing was accomplished here, so even if I was a moronic Wikilawyer who uses objective votecounting to determine consensus (instead of weighing the arguments like you're supposed to), I'd still close this as a no consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 06:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Certainly no hoax 2 Her real name? 3 Please Delete 4 DO NOT DELETE 5 Anonymous IPs 6 Redirect 7 WTF? 8 Background on Saugeen-Maitland Hall 9 Merge two Saugeen pages 10 It had to go 11 non-free sources are ok, blogs aren't 12 Is this encyclopedic? 13 Process question 14 To the anonymous editors... 15 Canada's Health Care System and Canadian nurses 16 The Pictures 17 Redirection, name. 18 Protection 19 Convince Me 20 Constructive resolution 21 Not sure if my opinion counts any more than anyone else's.... 22 Article Info 23 External links 24 The Latest Redirect 25 redirect should go to section anchor 26 Unprotected and un-redirected 27 NO CONSENSUS for redirect 28 I wrote this article originally 29 Unprotection

[edit] Certainly no hoax

Disagree with the hoax tag, not here to misinform anyone. All of the content in this article was pulled from existing news reports, and in some cases, blog reports. Some article URLs are:

London Free Press PaigeSix Blog Torontoist London Free Press The Star (CANADA)

Tokyojoe2002 18:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Her real name?

Incidentally, if anyone knows her real name it would certainly be a very important piece of information for this article. My preliminary scouring of sources have come up dry. "Nicole Charles" has been floated as a possibility on the web. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

Tokyojoe2002 19:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

------> Her name is Nicole Hunt.

It's certainly a "fact," but is it really "a very important piece of information"? Important enough to make it easy for stalkers? There is some precedent for not giving real names. You can call me Al 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That is helpful, although the real issue in question would be exactly what IS? Thats the best we got until someone provides better info. Tokyojoe2002 19:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think her name should not be posted. In fact, I don't think her picture should be posted. The Vince-alator 19:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no Nicole Hunt in the student database. There is, however, a Nicole Charles <ncharles@uwo.ca> registered in the Faculty of Social Science. Saugeen-Maitland Hall comprises a large number of students from that faculty. Packetloss 11:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Delete

Though there are many sources to prove this article, I believe this article should be deleted for moral reasons. Don't tell me editors of Wikipedia don't have morals. The Vince-alator 08:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles I would like to see deleted for moral reasons. Who am I to foist my morals on to others? You can call me Al 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Vince, he and I live in the building. This is a complete non event. Simply because it happened at a university, the rest of the world seems to feel it gives them license to act as if they were in highschool. Had this happened in a private residence, no one would have cared, or heard about it. The media coverage is as irresponsible as this article; the story is how big the story is/how quickly it has spread, which is directly related to articles such as this. Also there are factual errors in the article. Lets just leave the poor girl alone. Oxxiox 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's wending its way through the AfD process, which is the proper course of action. It'll be resolved in a few days. You can call me Al 19:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not censrored for the protection of minors or other "moral" reasons. Personally I feel that deleting information for such reasons is highly immoral. DES ^(talk) 22:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm all for free speech, power to the people, fuck authority and so on, but this is bordering on stalking. Would any of you like to have a page on Wikipedia personally identifying you without your consent? Even if Wikipedia is not censored, this is one of those cases in which we need to break the rules for the greater good. This girl's been through enough punishment for one mistake, we should delete this page. Down with censorship! Yay free speech! This isn't about either of those things. At the very least, remove her name!!! That's not right, people.

--STGM 07:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DO NOT DELETE

There are DOZENS of aricles that I have a moral problem with on Wikipedia. That does not mean they should not be here. Analingus anyone?

THis was a legitimate event that received national and international coverage. It was appropriately sourced, and has provider a pop culture moniker "Saugeen Stripper".

This is my first wikipedia entry, and I am disturbed by the potential censorship of real events chronicled in real publications. Do not delete this legitimate article.

Tokyojoe2002 21:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

We shouldn't set a precident here. This article has no usefulness and it just adds humiliation all-around. The Vince-alator 07:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The term "Saugeen Stripper" can be found on over 22,100 web sites at present. It made national and international news. If the precedent is to report what is happening in our world then the precedent was set long ago, and this article is relevant. Tokyojoe2002 19:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

TokyoJoe it seems you have too much ego invested in this. The girl sits in her room and cries because of people like you. Sorry that I can't provide a source for that, but I would hope that living less than 200 meters away from her is sufficient. Also, your argument by analogy of analingus is completely invalid, analingus is a sexual practice, and from what I understand, is rather mainstream, especially in gay communities (and frequently in hetero porn), it is a practice in no way limited to one person, this article, is about events that were instigated by 1 person and watched by several, the article is in no way comparable to analingus except that it is in some way sexual. All previous comments on how this is a practical non event blown out of proportion, however, are still completely valid. Why don't you go down to a strip club, take some pictures, post them on a blog then create a new wikipedia article about them? After all, it is a common stereotype that a lot of strippers _are_ university girls just looking to pay their tuition, how is that any less scandalous? Please just let it go and show the respect that she clearly forgot to show herself for one night. -Oxxiox 20:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no ego whatsoever invested in this. I am speaking purely from fact and from the perspective of reality and what fits into the Wikipedia model. YOU are the one who is speaking from emotion and in contrary to wikipedia standards. The incident made international news, yet this is where some sort of a moral line is crossed? This story was a legitimate news event according to several media organizations, and that has always been a qualifier for wikipedia inclusion. Tokyojoe2002 21:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Since when has a weblog qualified as "international media"? The Vince-alator 00:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition to hundreds of weblogs, a number of Canadian and American news organizations, including the Drudge Report, ran the story. Tokyojoe2002 00:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop talking about such stories existing generally, and start putting in specific references, if you have them. That means, a proper "References" section. Put a url to the story if possible, or if that's not available, have all the relevant data, such as article name, publication, date, writer, and page number. But please just stop telling people a bunch of places wrote about it. Read WP:CITE, get specific, get formal, and do it in the article. If you did that in the first place (e.g. wrote a properly sourced article) you would probably have fewer wishing it deleted (although frankly, its so trivial it warrants deletion regardless). BTW, a thousand weblogs mean zilch (hundreds mean less then zilch). --Rob 00:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

At the top of this discussion page are specific links to the articles. Tokyojoe2002 01:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous IPs

Someone or several someone keeps restoring information to the article that consensus has indicated should not be here. Is there precedent for protecting a page in AfD? You can call me Al 14:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who has restored. I got your message, and removed the photo link as that I see has been discussed and the group has decided should be removed. However, the removal of the photo does not seem to have a consensus decision, and frankly, I disagree with its removal as it is relevant to the term "Saugeen Stripper". Also, i removed the references needed tag because I added references.

If you're going to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest you create a user account. You can call me Al 16:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The photo is irrelevant because there is a Saugeen-Maitland Hall article which has a photo of the building. If people want to see where she came from, they can follow the links. The Vince-alator 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because people CAN go to another entry to see the photo, does not make the providing of a piece of relevant info, and a photo of the location that makes up 1/2 of the title of the article is indeed relevant, unwarranted. The photo belongs. Phantasmo 03:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you're the one with ego invested from creating the article... but you've also got a completely valid point! -Oxxiox 23:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

I'm sorry I didn't know about this article and the associated VFD or AFD or whatever the hell it is now earlier than today; it's completely unsurprising that someone actually wrote about it, so I should have checked earlier. However, regardless of the outcome of the AFD, this is hardly worth an entire separate article. It has a brief mention in the Saugeen article itself, and while I don't believe it's necessary to have articles about individual university residences either, mentioning the "stripper" there is good enough. Since I can't get away with outright deletion, I've redirected this article there (although I know that will be reverted soon enough). Adam Bishop 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not redirect this again -- in the light of the AfD that is ignoring consensus and a pretty clear example of WP:POINT. Wait a month or two and put this up on AfD again if you think it must go. DES ^(talk) 22:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

This was an incident? Considered newsworthy by the media? Everyone involved was over 18, right? A college girl stripped at a party in front of some college guys and some pictures were taken, right? Yawn. This must happen a dozen times every academic year. Geez, and the Canadians call the Americans prudish. --Angr (tɔk) 20:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In honour of it I have made the above template. Adam Bishop 21:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Adam, you have the right to your opinion, but not the right to consistently ignore process and wiki policy. Your opinion has been heard, doesnt mean you should delete the page or redirect it misleadingly. Tokyojoe2002 21:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm just trying to have some fun with this...but seriously, how is that a misleading redirect? It goes to a more relevant article. Some actual issues: "the local, extremely well respected London Channel 4 News" - there is no such thing. I think I know what was meant, but the fact that it is wrong in this specific way is just symptomatic of the whole ridiculous article in the first place. Secondly: blogs are not sources. Blogs are...see template. Thirdly: "The incident sparked a national debate in the Canadian media..." No it didn't! (And I hope I would know, since I work in "the Canadian media"...I suppose I could check on this in greater detail if you want.) Adam Bishop 22:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I respect your opinion. But the article is about the incident. Episode. Event. Whatever you choose to call it, not the hall. The hall is a peripheral topic. Redirecting to an article about the hall primiarily does not tell the story. I am not accusing you of anything malicious, but it was misleading. I welcome you to update the article with any factual information that you can offer, or remove anything that is specifically factually incorrect and can be sourced. I, as well as everyone who has built this article to date, truly appreciate any constructive additions as information is scarce and we've cobbled together the best that we can... Tokyojoe2002 22:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand...this is the peripheral topic. It doesn't matter whatsoever if there is factual information that can be sourced. Adam Bishop 23:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If we have an entire article about the hall, and her name is derived from the place in which she lived, then it seems appropriate to place her under the dorm article as a redirect. However in light of the recent AfD, that decision will have to wait a reasonable amount of time. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The fact is, the Saugeen Stripper has taken on a life of its own. Searches for the term Saugeen Stripper find between 18,000 and 30,000 hits depending on search engine. I have never found more than 800 hits for Saugeen Maitland Hall on any search engine. Secondarily, even if the dorm were equally or more renowned, this story has taken on its own identity. Should the Boston Strangler not have its own entry because it happened in Boston? The AfD process was JUST completed. I agree with you however, lets take a few weeks and let the dust settle rather than immediately fire off another AfD.Tokyojoe2002 01:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I said I would check up on this, and I had a moment, so I did: a brief search through Sun Media newspapers shows just the one story from the Free Press. I seem to recall it also appeared in the Woodstock Sentinel-Review, but it's not in the archive and they must have used the same story that was in the Free Press. I know it was also in the Toronto Star but according to a friend in UWO journalism school, some students there actually wrote that story. As a point of comparison, there are 202 stories about (or mentioning) Jane Creba (although many of these are also the same story printed in more than one paper). If I have time I'll see if I can do a more thorough search, but I'm sure you can see my point. Adam Bishop 04:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally someone agrees that blogs are not sources. This article IS stupid. The Vince-alator 09:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A search through the Toronto Star archives (which are even semi-publicly available, hurrah!) yields:

• Student's striptease posted online (Toronto Star, Dec. 13)
• Pointer to stripper misses point (Toronto Star, Dec. 17)
• Empowerment or dorm porn? (Toronto Star, Dec. 17)
• No one pays to see Girls Gone Mild (Toronto Star, Dec. 20)

So, four stories over the course of a week, then nothing. I don't remember how to search through Sun Media papers online, so you'll have to take my word on that. Oh, by the way, there are so far 97 stories in the Star archives about/mentioning Jane Creba.

The National Post's online archive has only one story about this that I can find Putting it all out there, Dec. 17, and, again, 31 that I can find about Jane Creba.

There is nothing in the Globe and Mail archive online. It doesn't say how many results there are for Jane Creba, but needless to say there are a lot. Adam Bishop 20:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background on Saugeen-Maitland Hall

In the late 1980s, Saugeen-Maitland Hall was identified by Playboy magazine as one of the best co-ed residences in North America at which to "party." This article was then picked up by numerous Canadian and U.S. media outlets, including the David Letterman Show. Given this context, I favour retaining the WP article. Barry Wells 01:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a rumour which I have heard countless times, but for some reason nobody can seem to prove it. I have also checked most of the David Letterman Top 10 Lists (that's where people say he listed it as a party school) but was unable to find it. The Vince-alator 09:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a cache of old Playboy's in which to peruse, but I live in London, Ontario, and my mother worked at Saugeen-Maitland Hall in an administrative position for more than 22 years, including during the late 1980s. I remember the incident well. I'll keep working on it. Barry Wells 16:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Even The Gazette doesn't believe these rumours: http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=Campus&articleID=50&month=11&day=4&year=2004 (it's possible that Saugeen appeared in a list on the old NBC show, but probably not...) Adam Bishop 17:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Adam, it would be the network that Letterman was on in the late 1980s -- that'd be what? NBC or CBS? Barry Wells 21:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, he was on NBC until 1993, but I don't think NBC has an archive of Top Ten Lists. I hate to use a blog to prove anything, but as this guy says, "If you've ever seen Letterman's top ten lists, they are usually one joke with ten punchlines. "UWO" isn't really a funny thing to say, especially for an American audience that's never heard of it. It just doesn't have the comedic appeal of "meat" being one of the "top ten words that almost rhyme with hat." What sort of Top Ten List could possibly have mentioned Saugeen? Adam Bishop 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I'm not saying it was on a Letterman Top 10 List. It could have been but I don't think so. I believe that it was talked about during the show. Barry Wells 21:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that the library at the Free Press would have the story. Barry Wells 21:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out that paragraph until we can get some confirmation whether or not it is true. Wrathchild 19:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In the late 1980s, Saugeen-Maitland Hall was identified by Playboy magazine as one of the best co-ed campus residences in North America at which to "party." This Playboy article was then picked up by numerous Canadian and U.S. media outlets, including the David Letterman Show, bringing Saugeen-Maitland Hall international acclaim.

I notice that the last paragraph that I put in about Saugeen-Maitland Hall has been removed. Whatever. I'm not interested in fighting with y'all. I've also read the The Gazette article which states the matter's been researched back to 1993 (The Gazette has never been known for its journalistic rigour). The Playboy article/ mention of Saugeen was in the late 1980s as stated above. This is no rumour or urban legend. And I never said that the Playboy/David Letterman mention of Saugeen-Maitland Hall was part of a university ranking a la Maclean's. It was cited as one of the easiest campus residences to "get laid," noting that Saugeen was the first co-ed residence at UWO. It opened circa 1969 (how appropriate). Barry Wells 20:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Further, Playboy used to feature babes from North American universities all the time, contrary to The Gazette article. This is a classic example of more recent Western students not knowing their history. The only way to confirm this would be to go through past editions of Playboy from the late 1980s. Barry Wells 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't disbelieve you. It's just been questioned and until it can be confirmed either way it shouldn't be in the article. We need more proof than your memory, as good as it might be. Wrathchild 21:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

For example, In October of 1989, Playboy had two features called (and I don't know if these were the articles where Saugeen was mentioned or featured) "Features: "College Women Talk About Campus Sex" by Janet Lever "The Playboy Advisor Goes (Back) to College" by James R. Petersen" This info was gleaned from www.usedmagzines.com. One would have to go through the years 1985-1989. And as I stated previously, my mother worked there for 22 years and I read the original Playboy article, as well as hearing about the Letterman mention and other media articles. It was the talk of London, Ontario, (radio, TV and print) for weeks and I've lived here since 1965. Barry Wells 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Saugeen was mentioned on Letterman and in Playboy, this would be information pertinent to the Saugeen article, not this one. That is just further proof that all of this stuff should be on the Saugeen page where it will make more sense; individual things that happen at Saugeen do not need separate articles. (Is it true that there used to be a goat living at Saugeen? That's another of the various rumours I've heard about it.) Adam Bishop 21:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I've just come across Playboy's (at www.usedmagazines.com) "Back to Campus issue" of October, 1987 wherein it featured the "Women of Top 10 Party Colleges." My guess is that here is where Saugeen was mentioned/ featured -- a Playboy Top 10, not a Letterman Top 10. City Lights Bookstore in downtown London might have a copy of it or a buddy of mine might. Regarding the goat story, I haven't heard that one, but if you Google "Saugeen-Maitland Hall," you'll find 12 or so pages of stuff about the residence and the recurring theme is that's it been a wild place for years. Barry Wells 22:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Well of course, but how does that justify having a Saugeen Stripper article? As I said, that belongs in the Saugeen article itself. Adam Bishop 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I agree that it should be included in the article on Saugeen-Maitland Hall (which is pretty skimpy on its history) but what I'm attempting to nail down currently is the Playboy mention at this point as I know it's true and others, including the less than reliable Gazette, are disputing this. A buddy of mine has a complete Playboy archive dating back 30 or so years. I've just e-mailed him and expect to hear back within a day or two. Funny how one can get caught up in this trivia, eh? Barry Wells 22:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just been Googling "Top 10 Party Schools" and it appears that Playboy did a Top 10 Party Schools or Colleges in 1987, 2002 and recently in 2005. They're seeking nominations for 2006. Problem is that it seems that they've just been U.S. univeriies, although they've widened it to include North American campuses for 2005 -- when McGill University was named a Top 10 Party School. So I don't think UWO and Saugeen were mentioned in the October, 1987, edition of Playboy but I'll check with my buddy who has all the old Playboys. Now I'm curious. Barry Wells 22:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that there is a complete archive of David Letterman's top ten lists if anyone wants to run through those. I tried once but I got distracted and stopped about 2/3 way through. The archive should be somewhere on the official website. The Vince-alator 08:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The official website only has his Top Ten lists during his tenure at CBS. As far as I know, the ones from when he was at NBC are not archived online. There were a couple of books published, but they didn't have every single list. I think it's a fruitless search anyway, as Letterman's Top Ten lists are not of that nature. I think Letterman's name has come up only because there was some sort of Top X list by someone, and he's very famous for his lists. This is a red herring, I think. Wrathchild 14:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge two Saugeen pages

Actually, I'd be in favour of merging the two Saugeen pages into one. Barry Wells 02:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That may be a good idea. Certainly this latest incident reinforces Playboy's assessment. The incident itself certainly isn't about the young lady. Wrathchild 04:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is about the girl, about the stripper, and about the incident. The article is NOT abiut the hall directly. It is very peripherally about the hall, as a location only. Come on. The story about the Suageen Stripper is FAR more well known than the story of the hall itself. I argue that the HALL article shoud be merged into THIS one.

But the incident doesn't merit it's own article. It would make far more sense if it was mentioned within the context of the article about the building (and mentioned only briefly, as it is now). Adam Bishop 17:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing goes back to Angr's comment which I couldn't agree more with: This was an incident? Considered newsworthy by the media? Everyone involved was over 18, right? A college girl stripped at a party in front of some college guys and some pictures were taken, right? Yawn. This must happen a dozen times every academic year. Geez, and the Canadians call the Americans prudish. Honestly I don't really care whether it has its own article or not, because somehow it did manage to become such a big story...which is what I can't believe ...how on earth did this the "incidient" manage to gain so "much" notoriety? I KNOW this happens all the time. Its not a big deal. Its not even a deal at all. Its not important. Why the heck does this stuff make news? Major "yawn" indeed. --Naha|^(talk) 18:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason that this stripping incident became newsworthy is because several digital pictures of this "stripping incident" were posted on the Internet by the (willing) participants. Toss in the fact that UWO is a major Canadian university and Saugeen, as a university-run residence, has earned a reputation over the years as a bit of a "fun palace." Note comment above about Saugeen being the very first co-ed residence at UWO circa 1969. Barry Wells 20:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Not good enough for me personally hehe. All of that which you just mentioned still happens all the time, at least in the U.S. and typically is never newsworthy. Now ..if you told me that this university was particularly seen as very conservative or in a very conservative community, then ..maybe I could see it. /shrug --Naha|^(talk) 00:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is such a minor story, and issue to begin with. In a year (perhaps less) this will have been forgotten by all save for the participents,and even they will likely wish to do so with time. Is this article encyclopedic? Does it edify and educate the reader somehow? What is the point of having a story about an individual who gets drunk and takes off their clothing in an encyclopedia? Gentle editors this is a article about NOTHING! It is a story that has already become old news. If this article is brought to AfD, again, I hope no one is too surprised. Hamster Sandwich 00:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hamster, this is pretty much a story that got a lot of attention on a slow news day, like the British woman who married an Israeli dolphin (don't ask). Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 01:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Enquiring minds need to know--Rob 02:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Uncyclopedia will accept this stuff. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 02:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, once again, I think that the stripper story should receive a mention in the too skimpy Saugeen-Maitland Hall page (more than is there now). To deem it un-newsworthy when it clearly has received coverage in several newspapers, including Canada's largest daily paper, the Toronto Star, is to rewrite history. Is that the purpose of WP? -- to rewrite history? I don't think so. Further, given the widely held reputation of Saugeen as a "fun place" to reside while attending UWO (Google Saugeen and see for yourselves 12 pages of "The Zoo's" reputation and memories), this incident adds context. And make no mistake about it. Senior officials at UWO have tried to alter's Saugeen's reputation over the years -- effectively banning the use of the nickname "The Zoo." Are there UWO officials on WP trying to squelch this story? Probably not. But I don't think that we should do their dirty work. Barry Wells 23:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting how two individuals that currently live in Saugeen (see above postings, User: The Vince-alator and the other user beginning with the letter "O") are strongly opposed to this page and presumably its inclusion in the Saugeen-Maitland Hall thread. Barry Wells 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The real significance of Saugeen-Maitland Hall lies in its history as the first co-ed residence on campus. Originally, in 1969, the men and women were separated -- the men were in the Saugeen portion and all women in the Maitland portion (locked doors between the two sections).

Then the men and women were put in alternating "units" (three floors made a "unit") in the respective two sections of the complex. Later still, men and women were put on the same floor. This is the real significance of Saugeen and the various hi-jinks and shenanigans/ memories and reputation of the place is part of that history. Barry Wells 03:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It had to go

I went ahead and removed the following paragraph because it was, at the very least, a gross exageration. There was no "national debate" about this non-event. I have yet to see it covered on any national TV news broadcast. It's really just a few blogs making a big deal about this.

The incident sparked a national debate among the Canadian media about just how much control, or in reality how little, institutions of higher learning actually have over what goes on in their buildings, particularly in instances such as this in which all participants were willing, and the activities were not explicitly forbidden in housing rules and regulations.

While it wasn't a "national" debate, there certainly was debate (I listened to several live radio shows on the matter) and the rest of the paragraph describes the debate quite well. To remove the paragraph in its entirety is both a mistake and a disservice. I think that the paragraph with a few minor edits should remain in. Barry Wells 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"Debate" seems a bit hyberbolic. National "comment" may be more appropraiate, in that one can recieve the Globe delivered, from coast to coast. Hamster Sandwich 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] non-free sources are ok, blogs aren't

I reverted this edit. Even if a news story is not freely available, its still a legitimate source to cite. Unfortunately, most news articles written are not permanently publicly freely available (most news stories have never, and will never be online). We can't remove references, just because they're not free anymore. Also, we should faovr free blogs, which are invalid references. I probably should have removed the blog, but I just "demoted" it, to "External links". Hopefully nothing in the article is dependent on the blog. If it is, it needs to be removed. --Rob 10:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

We have given other, free sources, which are as a consequence of being free, much more readily available for verifying what the article says. The links are effectively commercial. If you want to link the article, please put in an appropriate reference that does not cite a URL that demands money. I've reverted you accordingly.James James 12:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no rule against linking to a commercial site, and when the best way to verify a cited story is to link to a commercial online site, this is acceptable, posibly even mandatory. it is also acceptable to use as a citation an offline source, by giving proper bibliographic information. In a case like this, where much of the point is the degree of press attention the incident caused, citations (in whatever form) to multiple press accoutns are a good thing. Please don't remove such citations. Trasforming commercial links into proper off-line bibliographic citations might be reasonable. DES ^(talk) 17:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

And I might also ad, revert wars are a bad idea, and please read WP:3RR|the three revert rule policy]]. DES ^(talk) 17:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The article cites the headway that the incident made on the internet, particiualrly via blogs. Would a reference blog not be a good reference to that ctatement? I surely think so....

Blogs are explicitly discouraged under WP:V and WP:CITE, except in exceptional cases where they're a reputable authority (actually those documents change daily, so it's more accurate to say, they're usually discouraged, and occasionally prohibited). Note, I didn't actually remove them completely. They're in the article, just not termed "References". My point is to make clear their not a proper reference, and they should not be relied on. Also, putting something in "References" is a statement that the article rests on it, to such an extent, that it can never be removed without removing content from the article (or finding an alternate source). If something is in "External links", that's telling future editors, that they're welcome to remove it *if* it ever the link goes dead. Hopefully, you agree the blog only has value while it is online. But, we hope Wikipedia will outlast most blogs. --Rob 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, a "Reference" is a citation (which may be a link) that supports a statement in an article. In many cases a particular statemetn will be supported by more than one reference, nor have we yet reached the point where statements with no cited references must be removed instantly, although they may be removed if challanged. A satement of the form "Blog X commented on the incident" is best refenced by a link to Blog X, if possible a permalink or a link to an archived mirror less likely to go down then the blog itself -- in any case with an access date and other bibliographic info so that the citaion still has some value even if the link goes down. Blogs are not, in general, good referenences for the truth of the facts that they assert -- they may be very good references for what the blogger said or for the PoV of the group that the blogger represents. DES ^(talk) 18:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this encyclopedic?

I've been away for a while, but felt I needed to address this issue since I was the admin that closed the AfD. I'll try to address some of the points that were raised in earlier discussions:

1. This should be deleted for moral reasons. This will never happen in Wikipedia, for any article that is not pure vandalism or a hate speech. Period.
2. Everything in the article is factually correct, with sources. That is a necessary condition for an article, but it is not sufficient for inclusion. There are many things about which we can write that would be factually correct, but are irrelevant and unencyclopedic. (Hey, it's 2 degrees Celsius in Toronto right now! Should we have an article about this - everyone talks about the weather, and it's in the news daily - let's write the It's 2 degrees Celsius in Toronto at 18:58 UTC on 10 January 2006 article)
3. This story is about the stripper, not the residence. If that's the case, then it should have an appropriate title (specifically, the woman's name). As it stands, this article is about a stripper in some place called Saugeen. I disagree with this interpretation, by the way, and believe some of this content should be merged to Saugeen-Maitland Hall, and this article redirected there, as Adam Bishop tried to do. This is an event that exemplifies the type of behaviour that occurs in that residence, and for which it has become known - this event would help to flesh out that article. Ditto for the info about being one of the top 10 party schools, residences or whatever in some Playboy listing.
4. This story appeared in widely-read media throughout Canada. Yes, indeed it did, but this does not justify the article's inclusion in Wikipedia. However, it may justify an article in WikiNews, which was designed specifically to provide this service. Simply because one or several major media outlets carry a story does not imply that it has any encyclopedic merit. Indeed, the media presents many articles on a daily basis which have no encyclopedic value whatsoever. The fact that it appeared in the Toronto Star or Globe and Mail is of no consequence - it is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion.
5. This is a significant story. I don't believe it is, and it appears many agree with me. The story is, essentially: a bunch of friends in a university dorm paid a fellow student to strip, took some pictures, and posted them on the internet. None of those things is significant by themselves, and they aren't encyclopedic collectively.
6. There was a lot of debate about this. Not really, as Hamster Sandwich points out there were only a few sensational stories and the typical, lowest-common-denominator radio call-in chatter. There was no introspection about society and its values - this is something that society knows about, and more or less ignores. The only real issue discussed was the role of the university in all of this, and that belongs in the Saugeen-Maitland Hall article.

Well, that was lengthy. Did I miss anything? Mindmatrix 19:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Mindmatrix (IMO) that was a pretty good over view of the discussion and facts concerning this article. The fact that Saugeen-Maitland has a reputation as a "Zoo", and that some of the (verifiable) notorious acts that have taken place there are worthy of documentation, but in the article concerning the place. With all due respect to the original editor that offered this article, the story of the Saugeen Stripper is so minor as to maybe warrent a short paragraph in the Saugeen-Maitland Hall article. Hamster Sandwich 20:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Some good points, but the article cannot be named after the girl's real name because those who have that information will not provide it. Is her name Nicole Charles or Nicole Hunt as mentioned above? Or something completely different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.196.100 (talk • contribs) 15:32, January 10, 2006

By the way, I think that a recent AfD about a mouse setting a house on fire is similar in nature to this article (it currently has a clear delete consensus). Note that there is a story about it in WikiNews that won't be challenged. Mindmatrix 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Process question

What is the process here? The article went through AfD and was kept due to no consensus. Shouldnt there be at least as brief rest before talk of deletion or merging is discussed? it seems that much of the above is vindictive and sour grapes. There should be a temporary moratorium on this after an AfD, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.196.100 (talk • contribs) 15:32, January 10, 2006

It's not really sour grapes. CSD and AfD between them eliminate a lot of junk, and sometimes legitimate articles, but the process fails for subjects like this one. There's no malicious intent here, the users discussing this have an interest in ensuring that Wikipedia contain only encyclopedic articles. We're trying to assess whether this article meets that qualification, something which the AfD didn't do. Mindmatrix 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The process answer (and i am noted for being a supporter of process, see Wikipedia:Process is Important) is that there is no rule against proposing a merge right after an AfD, particualrly an Afd which did not reach a clear consensus, but that if a merge does not have consensus support it will not be carried out or will be reverted. Likewise there is no rule agaisnt renominating an article for deletion, although doing so too soon after a previous AfD is frowned on, as is doing so over and over when it is clear that there is no consensus to delete (see GNAA for the extreme case). I would advise those who think this article should be deleted to wait a month at least, then see how things stand. There is surely no rule agains discussing the posibility of deletion at any time.DES ^(talk) 21:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Has the term Mouse Fire Guy or whatever he would be called become part of our internet nomenclature as "The Saugeen Stripper" has? I think we will find the answer is no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.196.61 (talk • contribs)

[edit] To the anonymous editors...

The last paragraph (which may or may not be intact as you read this) has been discussed, in the spaces above, in some detail. If you can provide a proof that an actual debate took place, within the national media, rather than mere reportage, or commentary, its inclusion would be supported by myself, and perhaps other editors concerned with this article (as it exists at the present time). My personal opinion is that its days are numbered here in WP, and it will soon be re-directed as a single paragraph mention in Saugeen-Maitland Hall, or die the death of deletion, outright. Until such citation or suitable proofs are offered, the paragraph should remain omitted as per WP:NOR dictates. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Hamster Sandwich 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, glad to see the Wiki AfD process is being given such consideration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.230.196.100 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-10 15:44:13 (UTC)

The message by Hamster Sandwich was about an edit in the main article, not this talk page, and has nothing to do with the AfD. Mindmatrix 21:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus to delete it, so merging it seems to be a bit inflammatory. No problem with editing the article to make it NPOV, but backdoor deletion has to be a no-no. James James 06:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canada's Health Care System and Canadian nurses

For those users, contributors and editors from outside Canada viewing the Saugeen Stripper and discussion pages, please be advised that all Canadians are guaranteed free access to health care and comfort administered by an attractive nurse (in the gender of your choice) wearing a skimpy nurse's uniform. It's one of the reasons that Canada is such a fantabulous country! Thank you Tommy Douglas (the founder of Canada's health care system), thank you! Shirley Douglas, his daughter, isn't too bad either. Barry Wells 22:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Pictures

Considering this whole thing revolves around some pictures isn't it important to have a link to them in some way or another? The PageSix blog's link is outdated. This is the best collection of the pics I have found: Click here all the known pics are there and most are the originals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.110.109 (talk • contribs) 10:10, January 11, 2006

I completely agree that a link to the pictures is necessary, but the morality police have spoken. Good luck getting that to stick. 165.230.196.34 15:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I see. They should go police http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shock_sites while they're at it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barry Wells (talk • contribs) 16:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC-5)

Note that the link is still up. IMO thre is no "morality police" on wikipedia, and attempts to create one in the past have failed. DES ^(talk) 21:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection, name.

I couldn't care less what goes on in student dorms, and I'm rather surprised that a consensus to delete this couldn't be mustered, but it wasn't, so please, can we not redirect it? That's deletion by the back door and clearly isn't supported. However, I don't think we should state the name of the woman involved. What source have we given for that? I don't see any and until there is one, her name should definitely be left out. James James 06:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirection isn't really deletion. The relevant information has been merged into the article about the building. Adam Bishop 06:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not favor a redirect. I do not know why your mission has become to operate out of process, but it is not appropriate. 70.21.144.18 20:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note: Wikipedia:No binding decisions. This redirection seems reasonable. — TheKMan^talk 16:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the redirect, and unless I see significantly more consenes for it, i will revert. The reasons for the redirect see exacvtly the same as those rasied in the AfD, and so do the reasons to oppose it. DES ^(talk) 23:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't made up my mind, but I think Adam Bishop should recuse himself considering his past actions here. --Wrathchild ^(talk) 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There may be no binding decisions but simply ignoring what was decided a couple of days ago is objectionable on several grounds. Per DESiegel, I don't see that anything new is being offered, so the same old outcome should be expected. James James 03:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The content of this page is not as important as respect for Wikipedia process, and the AfD clearly did not rule in favor of a redirect. Please make your case here as to why the AfD should be disregarded, until then I will also restore the article if it gets redirected. Turnstep 04:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

AFD votes do not override editorial judgement in merges and redirects. A keep decision does not forbid an editor from merging and redirecting in his editorial capacity. FCYTravis 04:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have ignored process precisely because the content of this page is not important. I have interpreted discussion here to favour a redirect, if the information must be kept at all. Some people have mistaken Wikipedia for a news directory, a blog, or something else, I don't know - but one must always remember that it is an encyclopedia. I am not concerned with the multitude of other pages that should also be deleted, I can't fix them all, but this is not encyclopedic information and simply should not exist (but the compromise has been to merge it into the residence article, which you have completely ignored). Adam Bishop 04:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been counting the hours until I could advance this "article" back to AfD.I don't know how solid the footing is for a redirect, but better there than here. Hamster Sandwich 04:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"I have ignored process precisely because the content of this page is not important" - Well, that kind of says it all right there. Turnstep 15:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Adam Bishop 16:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The content of this page is not as important as respect for Wikipedia process, and the AfD clearly did not rule in favor of a redirect. On the contrary, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not become wage-slaves to process. AfD's keep/delete process is mainly important because deleting a page removes it from view. Page moves/merges can be done easier and quicker, and more importantly, undone if need be, without a huge fuss. Don't let process distract you from making a good encyclopaedia. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• I still see no good reasons for a redirect her. i am going to revert to the last good articel state. DES ^(talk) 20:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Hey! Who protected it? James James 05:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Alkivar did. Adam Bishop 05:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I've left him a note asking him to unprotect it. He must have done it as some kind of error because he's involved in the edit conflict. Come on guys. You can't get a consensus for your view here or on AfD, so you have to live with this page. You could keep creating a redirect over and over if that makes you happy. But you can't lock the page on to it. Play fair. James James 05:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that a consensus to merge and redirect the article has emerged, been put into action, and been completed, apparently without James James and some others ever noticing... Adam Bishop 06:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but sadly it only emerged in your bedroom, Adam. Perhaps you'd like to spread it a bit further by convincing us of your reasoning? James James 06:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you try fucking reading the rest of this talk page? Adam Bishop 07:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, man, I go all deaf when people get rude. James James 08:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Convince Me

How is this encylopedic enough for its own article? Why is a merge with Saugeen-Maitland Hall so intolerable? Thanks. — TheKMan^talk 06:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Let's focus on the second question for now. — TheKMan^talk 07:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

  I think that articles in Wikipedia should contain what a reader would expect to find if he or she looked up the title. Is it reasonable to expect to find a full article on this? Well, evidently someone thinks so. Is it reasonable to find a redirect? Yes, that would also be reasonable. The full article was here first. I'm sorry, man, it really doesn't get any deeper than that for me. There's just no good reason to remove the article. I think you need to provide one. James James 08:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's incumbent on you to show why it shouldn't have an article. The most recent attempt to do so failed. If you have new arguments, I'd like to see them. James James 06:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, seriously, I'm asking serious questions, and expecting serious answers. — TheKMan^talk 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I've answered. "Encyclopaedic" for me means "in the encyclopaedia". I try not to make judgements on the merits of it but stick to making what's in it as good as I can. I'm surprised this was included but here it is. You want to show that it should be "not in", you have to show it. That's seriously my answer. James James 07:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Your failure to understand the meaning of "encyclopedia" has no bearing here. Adam Bishop 07:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

From the number of people redirecting I think we can be forging a consensus to have it redirected. The only thing having a separate article does is provide a chance to link to blog sites, which is not encyclopedic. Anybody who wants to find out about this non-story can Google it. The relevant sections are in the other article. This article is just gratuitous. DreamGuy 08:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. That is how you "forge" a consensus. I didn't realise. James James 09:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly not seeing a consensus based on the number of people redirecting, nor based on this talk page, and Adam Bishop's actions before, during, and after the AfD are not doing the redirectionists any favors. Turnstep 12:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

How are you not? When one editor argues for something, it's POV pushing. When a variety of unconnected editors argue for something, isn't that the start of (rough) consensus? -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constructive resolution

Well, looking over this, it seems to me the issue is whether or not to have a separate article here, and for me, that question hinges on the degree of attention this has attracted, on a scale significant enough that it is more than just a detail in the history of the dorm. What can we say about the level of attention, from the perspective of the campus itself, the local area, the region and the rest of the nation? Also, how much Internet interest has it gotten? I think that's how you'd go about resolving this thing constructively. Everyking 08:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

From my POV, Everyking, I think the dorm article is about the dorm and this is not specifically about the dorm but about some incident that could have happened anywhere. It's not a significant part of the dorm's history, in my view, but made a kerfuffle in its own right. Whether that kind of kerfuffle merits inclusion in an encyclopaedia is a question for AfD, which formed no consensus. But it's clearly nothing actually to do with the dorm. I fully understand why the editors concerned don't think it's proper for an encyclopaedia but they haven't bothered even trying to convince other editors. I "read the fucking talkpage" but I still don't see anything particularly compelling, and as I explained, my philosophy is not to fix what isn't in itself broken. James James 09:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems like they are using the argument that all the info here is already in the dorm article. You could potentially counter that by adding enough info here that it would be unreasonable to include it all in the dorm article. Everyking 09:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I could but I can't be arsed. James James 10:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that this "story" is not even significant enough to include in the Saugeen article. It's not a significant part of the dorm's history, as James James said, but it's not a significant part of the history of anything else either. I think we've already proven how little media attention this received (but of course everyone ignored that). Merging and redirecting is a result of the bizarre belief that once you write something on Wikipedia, it is sacred and must never be removed, but that's a horrible solution. It should be deleted entirely. Adam Bishop 16:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That can be done, anytime you can get agreement to it on an AfD. It has been proposed once, but the result was Keep. (Not merge, not redirect, but keep). Now an AfD with a keep result does not forbid a subsequent merge, but it is surely not an argulemt in favor of one. It looks to me as if the merge is being pushed by people who really want this delted, adn hope that it will be less noticable in the dorm article, and perhaps that it can eventually be removed from there. Other people think that this is significant enough that there ought to be a separate artile about it, and the group in favor of the merge does not seem to me to have bee4n makign any headway in trying convince those opposed to it. Nor are statements like "read the fucking talkpage" helpful in this regard. While a merge would not,in the abstract, be unreasonable IMO, in this case, given the desire on the part of some editors to delte or minmimize wikipedia coverage of this matter, i think retention of a separate article is the better course, at least for the time being. DES ^(talk) 16:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's disingenuous, DES. The AfD resulted not in a clear Keep, but in no consensus, with the default therefore being to keep it. This is why it makes all the more sense to hash out the fate of this article here, rather than continue to refer to an inconclusive AfD as sacred writ (not accusing you of doing that, just seems to be some confusion on the issue). -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I should have written more clearly, yes. Your description of the first AfD is accurate. I am not in any way opposed to "hashing out the fate of this article" on this talk page, I am oppsoe to people who seem to want to act in advance of that discussiuon or who seem to think that stating their position, and finding that some agree with it (while others do not), is all the discusion required. However the articel has now been nominated for Deletion again, so we will see what the result ofm the second AfD discussion is. DES ^(talk) 17:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just coming back here to note that AfD... thanks. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not sure if my opinion counts any more than anyone else's....

But as the original author of this article who still feels it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, I believe that a redirect is a fair compromise provided the article contains all content from this article including photo, AND has a unique subsection and section header. Perfect world, i'd rather keep it as a standalone article as I believe that to the rest of the world outside the UWO community the Saugeen Stripper is a far bigger story than the hall itself (and because it survived the AfD process and I thought that this meant the article would be kept...but apparently processes are meant to be ignored here). But that said, this discussion has gotten out of hand with admin reverts and unreverts and all sorts of craziness, and as a means to an end (and hopefully to prevent another AfD which would possibly remove all of this info from wiki altogether), I could agree to the merge WITH, as I said above, all of the info from the article included. Tokyojoe2002 15:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the redirect, and given the recent number of editors reverting back to it, and WP:FORK, we should probably leave this as a redirect.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 16:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A redirect is the obvious answer. What's the opposition to this? -R. fiend 17:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it's the belief that there is considerable opposition to a redirect. Though, I think the only people who are opposed to a redirection are those who think there is considerable opposition to a redirect. — TheKMan^talk 17:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

let me clarify my post above. I do not favor a redirect. But, I can live with a redirect for the sake of civility. But, if a redirect is, as DES says above, the first step to deletion of this content, then I do not support that. Tokyojoe2002 17:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; I am not in Adam Bishop's camp of "delete this nonsense from the Wiki entirely", but redirecting it with most/all of the information here intact seems like a compromise I can support. I'll even keep it on my watchlist to ensure it doesn't get deleted out in 5 months' time. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(Unindent) I plan on walking this dog back to AfD, as soon as 30 days has passed since its last visit. Just a heads up, I suppose. As far as a consensus to redirect, I am for a redirect, just so there is no confusion. Redirect, or die of deletion, thats what I personally would like to see happen to this rather stale, "last page" news item. Wikipedia is not a student newspaper. Hamster Sandwich 19:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Just noticed the AfD is already taking place. Sorry. Hamster Sandwich 20:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Info

Well this article has certainly sparked some controversy amongst wikipedians, a lot of good points have been made though. People have asked for dates and names pertaining to the article. I've heard three names passed around, Nicole Charles, Nicole Hunt and Nicole Martucci of Bolton, Ontario. Personally I don't think a name should listed on the article, possibly a first name only. As for the date, the story gained notoriety in early December but the incident was said to have taken place in October. Some of the photos (23, 27, 32) on this page appear to have the original camera exif data which put the date at 2005-10-11 23:35 -4:00. London is -5:00 but those dates seem like they would be about right. I think the article should stay, it's become a popular meme, one of the most read stories on the torontostar website and has pretty much eclipsed Saugeen-Maitland Hall and Western University. Clearly people are interested in it, for whatever reason. 69.197.110.109 04:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well certainly we should not keep something based on it's controversy within Wikipedia. Also, since when is "internet meme" a legitimate reason to keep anything? If it's so popular on the Internet, you can find it somewhere else, no need to sully the good name of an encyclopedia with it. Adam Bishop 04:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it be kept due to the controversy. I agree that this article isn't standard encyclopedia fare but then again wikipedia isn't exactly your standard encyclopedia. Wiping out all the articles that you wouldn't find in britannica would be a big percentage of wikipedia gone, not a good thing IMO. It's nice to be able to search wikipedia for a current event and get the information you want- much better info than you'd find with google. Anyway, not going to argue, I guess we'll just have to wait for the AfD vote. 69.197.110.109 04:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. The redirection/merge was fine IMO.

[edit] External links

I've removed some links from the page, but they were replaced with the edit summary "These are relevant and not webspam... in fact at least one of the blogs has asked wiki to not direct link due to bandwidth issues." [1] Leaving aside the fact that we should probably not be linking to sites that ask us not to, none of these meet the guidelines for Wikipedia:External links and several also fail Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

• PaigeSix Blog
  • Average blog, adds no information, nor is "Paige" a reliable source.
• Torontoist article
  • Average blog, adds no information, is an editorial by a guy who works at a record label and uses Paige as his source.
• Revolution This! Blog
  • Average blog, add no information, nor a reliable source. Quote, "Actually, the point of this blog was to get the words Saugeen Stripper onto my blog cause I know how search engines go. Hooah!"
• HottieWatch Blog (Warning: Contains nudity.)
  • Pseudo-amateur commercial porn feed, adds no information, nor a reliable source. Has the complete set of pictures though.

I've removed them all again and brought them here for discussion. brenneman^(t)(c) 11:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Except of coure that DreamGuy beat me to it. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You had me at "webspam" LOL. DreamGuy 14:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've reredeleted these links. They are pretty blatently not suitable, and if anyone has a different opinon on that they should bring it here. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing them. The Vince-alator 00:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added the link to the photos, which are obviously necessary to understand the story. -- JJay 00:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Other than additional revenue to a couple of commercial porn sites, I'm struggling to see what it adds. The article's title has the word "stripper" in it, and there is nothing terribly illuminating about those photos. (I had to examine them in great detail at maximum enlargment over several hours to determine this, by the way.) If there is some prose that can be written about what's going on in an encyclopedic manner, that's what should be done. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The sacrifices you are willing to make in order to better serve the encyclopedia are nothing short of amazing! ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"obviously necessary to understand the story" -- Dude, do you take peoplpe for idiots? Somebody stripped, that's easy to understand. Linking to the photos serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. If it were indeed "obvious" then there'd be nobody arguing otherwise. "Obvious" to you evidently means "well, I want to do it", which is not how things work. 06:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Unlike you, I do not take people for idiots or dudes. The photos are a documentary record of the event and we can obviously not host them here. They define the situation far more eloquently than any additional verbiage that could be added to the article. They are a unique resource in the sense of the guidelines and linking to them does not violate any policy. I am also somewhat astounded by the apparent prudishness expressed above. -- JJay 10:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is not "prudishness" that what makes me not want to link a commercial porn funnel-sites so that we can see garden-variety amateur stripping. If nothing else, is there not a free site that hosts these photos? How did we choose this one? Are these all the photos? Have they been doctored? etc etc etc. - brenneman^(t)(c) 11:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Ditto on the "removing unencyclopedic spam" not equaling "prudishness" -- I have controbuted to articles on porn stars in the past, provided links there to appropriate sites that may have nudity but served an encyclopedic purpose of some sort. These are just sites distributing amateur porn by violating the copyrights of the people who took the photos for commercial purposes and/or amateruish blog chat from just some guy. There is absolutelt no reason to link to any of these sites. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, we don't just link willy nilly, there has to be a real encyclopedic purpose and the source has to make sense. DreamGuy 11:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As per the guidelines, the link is proper because it provides "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion" directly in the article. Please read Wikipedia:External links if you are not familiar with these guidelines. "Not a free site"- I was not asked to pay anything to view the photos. I also did not see any advertising. Furthermore, I was not funneled anywhere. It is also not spam, because I added the link- solely in the interest of documenting the story. "garden-variety amateur stripping"- you are entitled to your opinion, but I wonder why you feel the need to denigrate this widely recognized art form. -- JJay 11:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I again direct you to my concerns regarding WP:NPOV. Since this site is not a Wikipedia:Reliable source how do we know these pictures are telling the whole story? Maybe the bits where she's crying and being forced to shotgun beers are edited out? Or (conversly) the bits where they are paying here and they are having full sex? Including these supports one version of the truth withou allowing that other versions may exist... in addition to being a link to a commercial site.
brenneman^(t)(c) 12:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Message for DreamGuy- the aggression displayed in your edit summary is not necessary. Furthermore, your habit of believing that "consensus" is found wherever you happen to be on an issue is tiresome. Since you seem to be an expert on blocks, edit warring, and personal attacks, I will take your threat seriously. I have no doubt that one of the other users will revert your unjustified removal-- JJay 12:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I would further point out to DreamGuy that he has now reverted the article 4 times in just over 12 hours. In the interest of maintaining his valuable input here, I would suggest that he cease these actions. -- JJay 12:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Are the links vital to the understanding of the story? No. Would a link to the photo series that the article discusses make total sense as far as providing the most background for the article? Yes. That said, I think there is a way to try to get that info out, which is important, without providing a direct link from the wiki article, which is something a few here have a clear objection to. I tried to achieve that with my edit. Hoping that this may end the edit war on this issue? Phantasmo 19:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Latest Redirect

I think the fact that we have editors and admins with no previous input into the article coming and helping matters is the breath of fresh air that we all need to maybe step back and relax a little bit. --OntarioQuizzer 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OntarioQuizzer is one who has been arguing deletion all ALONG, and even he understands that there is a process that must be followed. Shame some editors and admins don't. Phantasmo 20:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and that process involves discussion on the talk page of what to do next. You guys don't need AfD or DRV to decide whether to merge, redirect or keep it as is. Having been on AfD once or even twice doesn't make an article so special that decisions regarding it should be made through some bureaucratic and fucked up process (namely the *fDs and DRV). Normal articles have a decision to merge and/or redirect made on their talk page. There's absolutely no need for you guys to outsource this decision elsewhere, whether that elsewhere is on ANI, AfD or DRV. Even article RfCs don't create a separate subpage to discuss an article. Johnleemk | Talk 06:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this highlights a difficult issue, which is that we have a process for deciding deletion, but when the question is over whether to redirect or keep, it's harder to resolve. Personally I would favor leaving it as a separate article until/unless we can get a firm consensus for redirecting. Everyking 05:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This article was merged into the article for Saugeen-Maitland Hall. Saugeen-Maitland Hall is barely notable enough to merit its own article. -- goatasaur 04:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is true. The incident itself is far more notable than the hall. That is why I think it would make sense to have its own article. Oh well. Phantasmo 16:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Phantasmo above, but I think the current situation is probably as good as we are going to get: redirect to the hall, with a specific section on the incident. I care nothing about either article, but it was a shame to see process abused by people who should know better. Turnstep 16:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that a specific section in the main Saugeen article is fine. I merely have a problem with the way the processes were abused and manipulated. There are specific policies that were violated, and others that had the spirit of them trampled on. Phantasmo 17:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As long as the page has been abusively protected there is no point in asking if "we are done". The answer can't really be known until the page is unprotected. -- JJay 16:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

While I don't believe that the information should be in Wikipedia at all, if it is here, it really doesn't deserve its own article - I think the redirect is a good idea. Especially since the information will probably be duplicated in both articles, and especially considering that in a year's time, it'll be a small footnote in the history of Saugeen-Maitland. --Andy Saunders 00:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Then maybe it should be redirected in a year's time when your prediction has come true. -- JJay 00:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is this redirected again?? Everyone seems to have given up and allowed this redirect to happen. -Andrew 19:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:BOLD (Be bold!) --Andy Saunders 19:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And also a little thing called CONSENSUS. Of course we "allowed" the redirect to happen, as that's what well more than 2/3 of the people wanted. A couple of complaining editors who refuse to go along with that doesn't change anything. Some people just have no business working in a collaborative project I guess. DreamGuy 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to infer that people who voted for the deletion of an article are then automatically in favour of a redirect, when the Afd fails.. Correct me if I'm wrong though -- Andrew 22:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, one thing that is certain is that they do not want this article to exist as is. So insisting that, by some sort of default mechanism, it must be so, is just ridiculous. -R. fiend 05:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should redirect to the hall at this point. And I voted Delete in the AFD discussion. -- Andy Saunders 23:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Count me as another that supports redirection to SMH, and continued inclusion there (as opposed to redirection and excising in 2-3 weeks when no one's looking). This just isn't memorable enough by itself. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] redirect should go to section anchor

{tl|editprotected} This redirect should actually point to the section in the target article, Saugeen-Maitland_Hall#The_Saugeen_stripper. 64.126.24.11 15:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Has already been done SGGH ^speak! 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected and un-redirected

This topic is clearly deserving of a separate article. I have requested unprotection and reverted the article, as well as improved and added inline citations. Nobody of consequence 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A dispute has started over again - so I've reprotected it. Some discussion is needed here to see whether or not it should have it own article once again. If consensus is reached, we can put it back to its own article. However, in my opinion, doesn't seem meeting enough the guidelines for a separate page, nor that it is notable enough, but I'm leaving the discussion here. --JForget 17:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the limit to its notability is to illustrate Saugeen's reputation as a "party hall". Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, I believe that the best spot for it is the Saugeen article, if it needs to be mentioned on Wikipedia at all. Andy Saunders 18:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that there was ever any consensus to redirect it. There was an AFD debate that closed as "noconsensus", then two admins got into a wheel war, with one of them protecting it and leaving it that way for over a year. In my opinion, this event received more coverage on the internet and in the media than the college dorm has, therefore it is notable enough to have its own article. I also think it's unfortunate that the article was reverted to the redirect version and THEN protected. How does it not meet notability? The event was covered by multiple, reliable sources. Per the Notability and Verifiability policies, this is the best way to establish both. Nobody of consequence 19:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd check the big section directly above this one. I read a reasonably clear consensus there. Andy Saunders 16:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the section "The Latest Redirect", there's no way anyone could interpret that discussion as resulting in consensus. A number of people there, and throughout this talk page, disagree with the protected redirect. The only reason anyone outside of the University itself knows anything about that residence hall is because of this event. The residence hall's notability is secondary to this event, so how is the event that made the hall notable to the greater public only deserving of a subcategory in an article about an otherwise non-notable residence hall? Nobody of consequence 17:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I addressed most of the relevant arguments in the Is this encyclopedic? section above. Verifiability is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for inclusion in Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Established references also help establish notability. Additonally, the title is sufficient, as this is the name she is known under throughout the media and internet. Her real legal name isn't relevant or mandatory Nobody of consequence 21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NO CONSENSUS for redirect

There is no consensus for this eternally protected redirect. Not to mention the fact that consensus can change. As I've stated multiple times here, the provided references establish notability. Please unprotect the redirect and let me make this a stand-alone article, which it deserves. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This claim is the most absurd thing that I've ever seen. The recent discussion has had three contributors; how on earth can a change of consensus from the status quo be claimed when there have been only three opinions -- two of which that differ from yours? Andy Saunders (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There was NEVER a consensus to begin with. Your insistence that there was is what is absurd. Stop twisting my words. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nah. It's staying a redirect. There was never a consensus for an article on this topic. It's been over a year since this event and it ain't becoming any more notable. Quite the contrary really. If you don't like the redirect I can always delete the whole thing entirely. No real loss to Wikipedia. -R. fiend (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious and is this some kind of threat? It's not up to you to delete articles out of hand. It's also not up to you to make broad determinations. You don't require consensus to create article,s you only need three things: a willing contributor, verifiability, and notability. We have plenty of independent thrid party sources to establish the latter two, and clearly we had the first point as well. So, really, who are you or anyone else to threaten to delete the article? Much less force a redirect and then protect it? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actyally, forget it. Do whatever you want. I don't care. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I wrote this article originally

The article was appropriate. Frankly it still is. The Saugeen Stripper is a pop culture reference that is extremely well known across college aged Canadian students as well as across American youths. Google it. It was and remains all over the place. Far more notable than the Hall. Doesn't matter any more. Just wanted to say that.

The fact is, Wikipedia has certain guidelines in place to protect its content. But it also is a living being that is able to be edited and manipulated by anyone. and in theory, there are supposed the be people with the power to make "final calls" on this stuff that are responsible and abide by those rules. But in this case that did not happen. What you had are renegade admins who chose to disregard or reinvent the concept of non-consensus and make their own decisions as to what do with this entry.

here's the thing. "consensus' has a definition in the Webster's dictionary, and it has a definition in the Wikipedia dictionary. And in the Webster's dictionary, the consensus was that this probably should be merged or deleted. But according the the Wikipedia definition of consensus, no consensus was reached. I know that in the world you and i function in a consensus may have been achieved. But according to Wikipedia it wasn't. period. See the words "no consensus" at the top of the talk page? That's what that means. And according to Wikipedia guidelines, that means article stays.

But it didn't. A couple of renegade admins decided to rewrite guidelines and redefine consensus. And decided to use their power to redirect and protect the page even though according to Wikipedia guidelines no consensus to do so was achieved.

I've been so disgusted by the rampant misuse of power here in this instance that I haven't posted a thing to Wikipedia in almost 2 years. I've checked the article every now and then (usually whenenver I would see the Saugeen Stripper referenced either on tv or on the internet) and noticed that this protect redirect was still there months and months and years later. I never bothered to complain but now see that there have been some action and discussion on this, I felt the need to weigh in at this late date. Incidentally, unfortunate to see that admins on power trips are still here 2 years later.

Rules and guidelines exist for a reason. Wikipedia does not exist to serve as a vessel for those who have no power in real life to flex their e-muscle.

-- Tokyojoe2002 20:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is tiresome, and referring to admins as being on "power trips" just because they redirect a junk article to a more appropriate place isn't a useful statement. The reasoning for it is outlined above, but since you don't accept those arguments, then let's refer directly to the policies and policy precedents, in particular Wikipedia:Notability (people).

Although she received attention from national media, the criteria used for the inclusion of people in Wikipedia is "Widespread coverage over time in the media". Also, "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Please look at some of the specific examples provided at that link.

If you're unhappy with the way this was resolved, or the discussion occurring here, then take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There, you're more than welcome to complain about my actions, or those of any other admin dealing with this issue. Frankly, admins on Wikipedia deal with a barrage of junk, and generally deal with it in a fair manner. In the few cases they don't, the dispute mechanisms usually resolve them. Mindmatrix 22:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the first response above, again, you are missing the basis for my dissatisfaction here entirely. Whether or not this person fits into the notability criteria is so not the point to my argument that I it is borderline absurd. That is an issue for the Wikipedia community to decide upon. My exact point is that in two different debates regarding deletion, it was determined that there was no consensus on whether the article fulfilled notability requirements and as such if was a default keep. Did more people technically vote for deletion or redirect? Absolutely. Does that merit a consensus via Wikipedia guidelines? No. And the admin who closed the AfD determined a non consensus which means no action is to be taken. Then, a couple of renegade admins decided to go against the result of those AfDs and redirect them anyway. Then, they decided to lock it up indefinitely so that their singular viewpoint was the final one. That is a complete and utter misuse of power and that is my point. Whether it is notable or not is clearly a debate. I think it is. And if if one of its two initial AfDs displayed a Wikipedia-determined consensus to delete, I would have been fine with it. But they didn't. End of story. Or at least it should have been. And that is wrong. And lastly, regarding some of my terminology ("power trips", etc.), look, I tried to play by the rules. But people with the power not to do so, well, didn't. It angered me at the time. And now, 2 years later, upon reflection, I still think that this was a complete and blatant misuse of power, to the point where I do question the motivation.

In regards to your point Matrix, I've gone that route already. However, it was fruitless. Its been a long time, and I cant remember specifics, but a couple admins were vocal in their support that the Wikipedia process be honored, and a couple other folks kept trying to skirt the process, and I think that those folks won, as the article was redirected and protected for the past 2 years. Given te past, I have little doubt that the process as Wikipedia has laid out will not be adhered to either way, so what is the point of trying that route again.

Tokyojoe2002 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of policy. Any article that survives an AFD does not go into automatic keep completely unchanged mode. It means it is simply not deleted. And it wasn't, so you have no basis for complaint. A redirect can be done by anyone at any time without a vote. You subverted your own point when you admitted that more people voted for deletion or redirect than keep. The article was trimmed of trivia and kept in the context of a larger article. That is perfectly in line with policy. You want your bit on someone taking off their clothes in a college dorm room? You got it, it just doesn't have a complete article devoted to it. -R. fiend 17:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say YOU have the misunderstanding of policy. Consensus is not a majority vote. You just admitted that the redirect had nothing to do with consensus. So why has it been redirected and protected for over two years? And then when I requested unprotection to make it back into a proper article, why was I reverted and then the redirect once again protected? Sounds like gross abuse of admin powers to me. WP:DUCK Nobody of Consequence 18:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the The Parsnip!, the AFD resulted in a no consensus to delete, that doesn't mean your circumvent the lack of consensus to delete by turning the article in to a redirect. The page protection was inappropriate, and the unprotection (with the subsequent reversion and then reprotection) was also inappropriate. FWIW, I believe this is relevant enough to have it's own article, and if people are really that bent out of shape over this having an article, they can try to have it deleted again at AfD (where, as I recall, it's also possible to suggest redirection as the result). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

{{editprotected}} I believe the behavior on this article by admins in reverting and then reprotecting was inappropriate. I also believe that leaving this protected to force the redirect this entire time (since 2006) was inappropriate. I'm requesting this page be unprotected so editors interested in the topic can proceed with development of an article worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. If any admins involved in the dispute continue to disrupt this article, I'll make a note at WP:AN/I asking for further intervention. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll probably have to make a formal request at WP:RFP. Nobody of Consequence 17:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid that since the initial protection was inappropriate to begin with (clearly there was no consensus to delete the article, so protecting a redirect is pretty much like deleting it). I'll give it another day, then try that. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The admin was acting on a request from a user. This user. I also believe that the actions of the admin were fully appropriate and that I do not believe that there is consensus here to change the status quo (the status quo being a redirect). As there was no stated issue with the redirect when it happened two years ago, it obviously must be deemed to be consensus. Therefore, consensus must be reached in order to change the status quo. Andy Saunders —Preceding comment was added at 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No stated issue? Read above. There were many people against the redirect, at least as many as were for it. Now not all of them came at the same time each time it was brought up, but you can read over a month or two worth of comments and see that there really wasn't any consensus for a redirect, let alone protecting the page as it was and pseudo-deleting it in the process. The status quo was wrong, is wrong, and until you get consensus for it, will remain wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A Soviet-style status quo. One in which a few people, at least one of them with administrative powers, decide what is best and then prevent any change. This was redirected and protected out of process. There is no consensus for a permanent redirect, which is essentially what this is. Protection is meant as a preventative measure, to stop mass vandalism or to prevent long-term disruptive edit wars until a consensus is reached. Once consensus is reached, you remove protection. The two actions of claiming a current-state article (or lack thereof) meets consensus and then leaving it protected for years are not consistent with each other. The fact that it has to be protected to prevent other editors, in good faith, from making it back into an article proves that there either is no existing consensus or that consensus has changed. Nobody of Consequence 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly consistent. The redirect reflects consensus; the protection protects it from the rogue editors that wish to enforce their own "consensus" - one that is different from the consensus that was reached. Andy Saunders 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The only people who acted out of protocol here were those who took it on themselves to redirect the article and then indefinitely protect it. There were two AfD votes and according to the closings of those, there was no consensus. There was a discussion about redirect and then boom, despite arguments going both way, and despute the two AfD, some renegade admins decided to force the issue and then protect the page. Come on. Just say, we got the power and you dont and this is the way we want it and this is how its gonna be. Don't pretend there was consensus. This is exactly why I stopped posting here a couple years ago. There is no accoutnability here. There is no one who is willing to enforce the rules. Its like the lunatics running the asylum. Tokyojoe2002 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a little for me here: where was this "consensus" at? Because I read above in the threads from over a year ago and all I see are a handful of editors trying, repeatedly, to make this a redirect, and a slightly larger handful saying no. So break it down for me, when was consensus reached? Two AfD debates said to keep it, but you're saying a handful of editors vehemently opposed to this remaining an article decided unilaterally to decide this should be a redirect so as to fulfill their backhanded wish to delete the article? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It was an implied consensus based upon nobody beating the doors down trying to get this redirect reversed two years ago when it originally happened. Had this discussion took place immediately following the protected redirect, I'd be much more apt to agree with you. However, the lack of opposition implied that this was what the community as a whole wanted. While consensus can change, there actually has to be a consensus to change the status quo -- and I'm not seeing that here right now. Andy Saunders 17:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, if this were the case and nobody disagreed with the redirect, why did it need to be protected? How many people were familiar with the old article but simply haven't been back to look at it since then? (Me, for one). I think it should be put back the way it was and two other people here do too. Nobody of Consequence 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did it need to be protected? To protect against vandalism and rogue editors that try to force an article against consensus. Regarding your last sentence: We've already had one admin come in here, look at the discussion, and say that we lack consensus at the moment. Ergo, three people are obviously not enough. Andy Saunders 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Oh please *rolls eyes*. Vandalism? Rogue editors? If people were trying to make it back into a full article after it was redirected, does this not meet your original point about "people should have spoken up right away"? Looking through the extensive edit history of this page shows a number of people (I counted 5 before I stopped) who place edit summaries saying that there is no consensus and do not believe this should be a redirect. You're digging yourself into a hole here. Consensus is not formed by the opinion of two or three people and Neil is not familiar with the history of this mess. However, I do agree with him that the quickest way to resolve this is probably to file a report at DRV and get feedback from a much broader range of people. Nobody of Consequence 18:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet nobody reported either Adam Bishop *or* the admin that did the protection for their actions after the redirect-and-protect. Therefore, an implied consensus was eventually reached that the state of the aritcle as it lay in February 2006 was acceptable. Now that it is December 2007, a consensus of "this article should not be a redirect" needs to be reached. I also don't believe that DRV is the proper channel -- as we are not discussing deleted content. Andy Saunders 19:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The forced and locked redirect is effectively the same as a deletion. People tend to give up when they're steamrolled by admins. And just because someone didn't raise a stink about it does not mean those actions were proper (if someone robs a liquor store and the clerk doesn't call the police, does that mean the robber was in the right?) I won't try to explain why people didn't file reports as I wasn't here (although if I had been, a report would have been up at AN/I) What is wrong with DRV? Neil suggested that. If we need a stronger consensus, we should obtain it at DRV, or AN/I, or RfC, or somewhere. This talk page is not adequate to obtain a fair and broad consensus based on policy and process rather than on POV. Nobody of Consequence 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Editprotected request N Not done - you will need to get something a bit more consensus-y here. I suggest WP:DRV (as this content has effectively been deleted). Neil ☎ 09:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, the whole point is it hasn't been deleted, it's right there in the context of a larger article (it's been trimmed of excess trivia and possible libel, but that's a good thing), so DRV is not the place to take it. -R. fiend 15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)