Victoria Leigh Soto – Reopen on AfD. Numerically, we have 8 endorses, 4 overturns (note that "endorse this review" really means "overturn"), and 6 relists. Since all sides have made valid points, and AfDs should not be closed early unless the circumstances are uncontroversial, this article deserves to be at AfD for the full seven days. –
King of♥♦♣ ♠
20:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Article was nominated for deletion on Dec 22 at 0100 hours and rushingly closed as an AfD and redirected on the same date by 1350 hours (a mere 12 hours timespan) in contravention of
WP:DELPRO and
WP:PROD. Early closure does not apply in this case. The article creator, its contributors, and the WikiProject overseeing the article where not notified of the AfD. Attempts were made to revert the AfD per
WP:IAR,
WP:VOTE,
WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, and
WP:WHATISCONSENSUS but the article was reverted and then protected by an administrator. A request was made for unprotection but it was declined. The article stands on its own per
WP:NOTABILITY,
WP:NOTPAPER,
WP:BIO,
WP:VICTIM, and
WP:BLP1E—these cases have been discussed extensively on Wikipedia several times and in depth. This particular individual, as
WP:VICTIM and
WP:BLP1E detail, has been covered in an exclusive manner by a reliable source in the context of a single event. Furthermore, we have precedents such as
William David Sanders,
Jamie Bishop, and
Jamie Bishop's AfD.
Regarding
WP:VICTIM the following statute applies:
The historic significance [of the victim] is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.
The following reliable sources cover
Victoria Leigh Soto in an exclusive manner:
Endorse; and, Ahnoneemoos, your "IAR" revert of the redirection was a very clear violation of our BLP policies. I see you are very good at enumerating Wikipedia's alphabet soup, perhaps you should be just as diligent in reading what they point to. —
Coren(talk)17:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Send to AfD and discuss. We with great difficulty established the consensus that the individual victims of an event like this do not generally warrant articles, unless there is something special. As the teacher, and on basis of the news coverage of which a small part is shown above, this at least needs a full discussion. The redirect was not made on the basis of BLP but OneEvent--BLP was not mentioned in the close or the discussion. And quite reasonably it was not mentioned, for the person is no longer alive, so BLP would applicable only in terms of the possible sensitivity of the survivors. I don't think that is relevant here--I cannot see how the presence of the article here does any harm to them, & preventing harm is the purpose of BLP. (I totally disagree with the view that it applies at all after a person has died, except of course to the extent a person's living immediate relatives are discussed, and the decision to insert in the policy needs to be re-examined, but that's not at issue here.) What might be of issue is Coren's unjustified charge of a BLP violation. DGG (
talk )
17:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Certainly BLP 1E is part of the BLP policy. But there is also
WP:ONEEVENT, the expansion in N(PEOPLE) of the NOT NEWS restriction in WP:NOT for a person notable for only a single isolated event and not otherwise, living or dead. As this person is not living, it seems clear to me which must have been intended. Do you propose to permit the out of process deletion of articles about recently deceased people, where there is no harm to the sensibilities of anyone living? If the deletion had been made explicitly on that basis, I would challenge it as an incorrect application of that part of the policy,but it wasn't. DGG (
talk )
20:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
There is an implicit understanding that BLP1E applies to the recently deceased as well. If they weren't notable before, then rarely is their death going to change that. --
MASEM (
t)
20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Wether they were notable before their death is irrelevant. What's relevant for a BLP is (1) if people would expect an independent article on the person and (2) if reliable sources have covered the person in an exclusive manner. In Soto's case both criteria are fulfilled. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
21:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
No, that's why we have BLP1E to avoid the subjective judgement on point 1. Soto's name (among the other teachers that tried to protect their students) all have wide coverage but only for doing one thing, which while part of a tragedy does not have otherwise any significant impact on the rest of the world. This is exactly a reason to avoid creating an article on the person per BLP1E as well as NOTMEMORIAL. --
MASEM (
t)
21:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
WP:BLP1E does not apply to BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:
Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.
And as I said, there are implicitly unstated applications of BLP1E to the recently deceased. (We don't throw up weakly-sourced slander about a person that just died, for example, that would have never gone up if they were alive). But BLP1E is not the only reason to not have an article about a person that is only notable in their death, as listed. --
MASEM (
t)
23:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The thing is that Soto's article was referenced with reliable sources (Fox News, Huffing Post, El Nuevo Día, LA News, etc). In addition, we do have a policy for this particular case per
WP:VICTIM which states:
The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.
So our job is to examine wether those two statements are true for Soto. Lets split them up:
The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event.
Did Soto have a "large role"? The answer would be, yes, Soto had a large role, since Soto has to be compared with all others involved in the event. Did the janitor have a large role? No. The school bus driver? No. Soto? Yes, she did have a large role. Not only was she a victim, she also had a significant role within the event's context: she voluntarily and selflessly put herself between the attacker and other victims.
Then we have to determine wether this was a "well-documented historic event". This is self-evident from the article itself and all other references posted on both the article and this DRV.
Now we have the second part:
The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.
Was Soto devoted "significant attention to her role in the event by reliably secondary sources"? Once again, yes, she was, by the references posted above.
So, in conclusion, wether we like it or not, Soto fulfills all criteria to have a stand-alone article.
We have no idea about persistent coverage - we can't, two weeks out from the event. And the logic given means we need 27 articles for all the victims, since even the children got coverage of this type. This is a bad way of approaching building an encyclopedia. Again, like the international reactions articles, this is great for Wikinews, but terrible content for WP outside of her roles within protecting the children. --
MASEM (
t)
03:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)reply
That's, like, your opinion, man. "Bad" and "terrible" are subjective adjectives and a personal opinion. We have presented evidence, facts, reliable sources, and policies on this matter. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Endorse this review. I do not endorse the conclusion of the "AFD/redirect", because I believe that it was decided prematurely. I was totally surprised when I awoke to find that the article had been speedy redirected. I did not even have an opportunity to defend the article. In my opinion the Victoria Leigh Soto article was not a memorial, she deserves an article. Notable? She saved the lives of the majority of her students and had been hailed as a hero by the international media. By saving the lives of children from being murdered she acted above and beyond of what is expected. Had she been a soldier, she would have been awarded the
Medal of Honor. Such reasoning as "Subject has no notability beyond this single event", does not even make any sense.
Rosa Parks became notable because of a single event. Her single event was used by others to focus on the Civil Rights issues of the United States. Tell me, does anyone know of another teacher who stood between her students and their murderer? The fact that the Connecticut State University announced the creation of the "Victoria Leigh Soto Endowed Memorial Scholarship Fund" in her honor, tells us that she will be remembered for actions, not only by those affected, but by the students who will be the recipients of the scholarship. It is a question of time before a school or avenue be named after her.
Tony the Marine (
talk)
19:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Endorse this review and republishing the stricken article. I just got back from church services in Puerto Rico, where the bishop who was the main celebrant, made a special prayer for the "Maestra Heroina", the Teacher Heroine, to then find the insensitivity of eliminating Vicky's article, denying those who may want to research her life the opportunity to easily know more about her. It is insulting to say that "subject has no notability beyond this single event" because how a person dies can very well establish a greater level of notability than the years that someone may live. That's what heroism is all about! In Vicky's case, it wasn't simply that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but she chose, through a heroic act, to put herself at even greater risk in order to save the lives of untold others. That is a story worth telling, and a story worth not denying.
Pr4ever (
talk)
19:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Our principal purpose here is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed. An early closure requires some urgent or pressing need to close early. Without such a reason, the debate should last at least 168 hours so that everyone interested in the topic has a fair chance to have their say. Relist accordingly, although I would emphasize that the material has not been deleted out of process. I think it would be best for the redirect to remain in place until the debate is finished, since there's a good prima faciae case in favour of this nomination and the disputed content is visible in the history.—
S MarshallT/
C20:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Welcome to deletion review! I understand why you think precedents would matter; there's a basic expectation that we'll be consistent. But in fact, Wikipedia rules specifically disavow precedent (see
WP:OCE). The simple way of explaining why is that we take decisions one article at a time and we may not have got to those ones yet.—
S MarshallT/
C21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Oh yes. "Wikipedia guidelines are like scripture: somewhere in the labyrinthine network of rules, you can find support for any position." —
me. Still, latin isn't the same as lawyering.—
S MarshallT/
C22:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Endorse closure Given that we've not even created the article on the shooter yet, it is way too premature to be doing the same for any of the victims. (and while DRV is not AFD#2, there's a huge plethera of reasons to not have an article on the victims even if they had a notable part in trying to protect the children) --
MASEM (
t)
20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
In my humble opinion, I do not believe that it is not a good excuse to back up the "closure". If someone wants to write an article on the shooter, fine. The fact is that an article was written about a brave teacher which should not have been affected because no one wrote an article about the murderer. The administrator who closed the AFD discussion did so in hast and the editors who contributed to the article were unable to express themselves. .
Tony the Marine (
talk)
20:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The existence of an article on Wikipedia does not depend on the existence of another article. Just because we don't have an article on the perpetrator today is not a sufficient argument to not create an article on a victim. In addition to that, the only reason why there is not an article on the perpetrator is because Adam Lanza was preemptively protected by administrators without any discussion whatsoever. If it were unprotected I can assure you that contributors would be developing it, in the same way that we have an article on
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the
Columbine High School massacre. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
21:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
There was plenty of discussion that fully prot'd Lanza's article (after the initial mis-identification of the press to his brother). And the protection was recently re-affirmed to be appropriate for a few more weeks. --
MASEM (
t)
21:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Let's take that into my Talk page 'cuz I can't find the formal process that concluded such thing. The only thing that I can find is at
Talk:Adam Lanza and the edit summaries of the redirect itself. Everything else was just an open discussion rather than a formal process. Could you please post the links on my talk page? —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Links to be posted on your talk but all of it was at ANI; one on the day of the shooting, and another that just closed. --
MASEM (
t)
23:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Endorse this review and re-publishing the stricken article. The subject's notability is clearly established with articles and citations from the New York Times, the Huffington Post, television coverage, and international coverage from England's Guardian.
I also agree that "the killer should get an article first" is a bit ridiculous. That is not "Wikipedia policy." In fact, here is another Wiki article about a victim:
Kitty Genovese. Kitty Genovese was not notable before her death. Her death did make her notable.
48 years after Genovese's death, her killer is widely known, and an article has still not been written about him. So clearly, this notion that "the killer should get an article first," is not Wikipedia policy.
Nelsondenis248 (
talk)
21:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Genovese's article is about the crime and not just the victim; the crime is named after the victim and thus both are discussed there. The equivalent here is the article on the shooting - the crime itself. --
MASEM (
t)
23:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
I am confused. Is this (above) supposed to be a discussion of whether or not the article should be deleted (or kept)? Or is this (above) supposed to be a discussion of whether or not the article's AfD process was properly/improperly closed? Thanks.
Joseph A. Spadaro (
talk)
22:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but I am still confused. If it already underwent an AfD, then why are we here? Doesn't the result of that AfD stand? And, here (above), are we not just rehashing the arguments that were already presented in the AfD? Or is this being reviewed (DRV) because of a claim that the original AfD was improperly shut down?
Joseph A. Spadaro (
talk)
01:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The complaint (taking out that DRV is not AFD#2) is that the AFD was "speedily" closed as a delete within 12 hr of its creation, though appearing to be outside the normal requirements of a speedy close. However, the closure appears to be based on an IAR consideration of the subject matter. --
MASEM (
t)
03:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Consensus was achieved in the AfD. Plenty of eyes saw that it was up for deletion, far more than for the usual article. I am amazed that the proper decision was made to redirect, given the emotions swirling around the event. Deletion Review should not undo the closer's brave decision. Abductive (
reasoning)04:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)reply
endorse own close As I have already mentioned I am fully aware that this was an unusual step to take. This is an unusual circumstance, so I bent the rules a little bit. The attitude so far amongst those of us who have been trying to keep an eye on issues revolving around this incident is one of proceeding slowly and conservatively for the time being (as opposed to rushing into things, edit warring, angrily reverting the close of an AFd, etc.) While there may be a consensus at some point that some of he individual victims should have their own articles there as no such consensus when this aricle was created and there certainly was not one at the AFD, which headed rapidly into
WP:SNOW territory. Indeed, out of the eight users who participated only one favored keeping, ironically because they also thought it was too soon to say one way or the other. So, all participants agreed it was too soon, but one disagreed about what that meant. It has not been deleted and if, in time, a consensus develops that we should have an article it will be extremely simple to restore it. I realize that is not the normal way we do things but would again stress that this is not a normal situation.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
04:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)reply
How exactly is this not a "normal" situation? Who exactly is determining this is not a "normal" situation? What authority does this person have to determine that this is not a "normal" situation? What statute from the
WP:WMF gives this person such authority? What policy, rule, or guideline is this person following to assess that this is not a "normal" situation? This *is* a normal situation, per
WP:VICTIM,
William David Sanders,
Jamie Bishop, and
Jamie Bishop's AfD. This has happened before and will continue to happen. Wikipedia has already discussed this extensively and has already established policies and processes on how to manage them. It seems that this is just a group of people labeling this as abnormal and treating it as a special circumstance when it is not. You need to understand that
WP:NOTADEMOCRACY and even when there is a
WP:VOTE that favors a particular outcome overwhelmingly, that
WP:POLL is worthless since
Wikipedia is not driven by popular vote and
WP:IAR stands above all else. You invoked
WP:IAR in
WP:GOODFAITH but you forget that everybody else has the same right and power. The problem here however is that an administrator intervened and protected it, something that cannot be undone by non-administrators. I'm sorry but logic here is clear, read
WP:VICTIM, Soto satisfies all criteria for a stand-alone article. Wether it is too soon or not is a subjective matter and an opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work based on opinions, feelings, nor emotions, we work based on facts and evidence. We have provided facts, evidence, references, reliable sources, and policies on why Soto should and can have a stand alone article. No one else has done the contrary. Keep your feelings, emotions, and personal opinions to yourself.
WP:NPOV this. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Two things: Please read my follow up comment below where clarify how I believe there was a pre-existing consensus to proceed extremely cautiously. That is what I refer to when I say this is not a normal situation. Second, please calm down and stop throwing fifty WP:WHATEVER links into every single post you make. Or maybe read
WP:SPIDER since you seem to attach such value to any such link.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
23:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment It was said earlier that "there are implicitly unstated applications of BLP1E to the recently deceased.". There is not, and it would be irrational to have it. What are we trying to accomplish? Why are our content rules on BLP different from our content rules on any other subject? There is only one justification for treating living people differently--and that is the possibility of doing harm to them, and our feeling of general brotherhood and humaneness that should prevent us from doing this. It's not an encyclopedic issue directly--it has nothing specifically to do with an encyclopedia; it's a moral issue, about how we treat others. That's why we care so much, that's why we enforce it so strictly. Who among us would want to be associated with an enterprise that considered other people fair game for shaming, any more than we would for physical hurting? The rules are intended to ensure that we do not do this--but that if the harm is already done beyond what we can a significantly add to it, or if the person is in one of the special classes of public individuals who are presumed to be indifferent to such matters or at least willing to tolerate them for the sake of their self-chosen careers, such as politicians and entertainers. An argument can be made that it can apply to the immediate survivors of the recently dead: that for example we do not include information about the suicide or minor criminality of a private individual until some time had past, unless it was of great worldwide notoriety. I only agree with this, unless the time period is very limited, but I defer to the feelings of those who are sure it is wrong, because this too is a moral matter. But where this is not involved--as it is surely not involved here--none of the provisions of BLP are applicable. Not just the specific BLP rules for what is appropriate to cover, but the rules against reversing administrative or other actions and edits. Those who interpret BLP policy to include this are not differentiating the letter from the purpose.BLP is not a moral issue here; the integrity of decision making process is the issue, and the willing of people to foreclose it on the basis of mistaken emotion. DGG (
talk )
02:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Living persons can sue WP for defamation, that's why the rule exists. BLP1E applies to the very recently deceased is further protection from lawsuits from relatives or other relations for defamation as well. Arguably, any material that is defamatory is going to be considered as contentious, and therefore must be sourced to a well-known reliable one, but that said, I would say that there are sources out there that would be fine to assert that a person that died 50 years ago was possibly gay that would fail a normal BLP allowance and by the same logic that of a person that died within a month or so.
But that's not the only issue here. BLP1E's basic tenent is that one event rarely elevates a person that was non-notable to a notable one - more than likely the event itself takes center stage and thus that person can be discussed there. As noted above, if there is enduring coverage of the person after the event, that would elevate them past that point, but that's not yet shown and the only scenarios I can see are CRYSTAL-ball based (eg a gun control law being named after her). It doesn't matter that the person died doing that act regardless how heroic and self-sacrificing it was, that's the only thing to date they would be considered notable for, and thus not appropriate as a separate article at this time. Once you get past 1-3 months or more, you can actually then access the continued coverage in sources, and make a better accessment if a new article is needed. --
MASEM (
t)
07:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)reply
BLP1E does not apply to deceased people. Per
WP:BLP1E itself, and for your own convenience:
Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.
Regarding wether it is too soon or not, that's an opinion and a subjective matter.
WP:TOOSOON is merely an essay, not a rule nor a policy.
WP:VICTIM, however, is a policy and is very clear on this matter and concludes that Soto can have a standalone article since she satisfies all criteria. Base your argument on facts and keep all concerns and emotions out and you will conclude the same.
WP:NPOV it.
as usual David has raised an interesting point. . I would therefore like to be abundantly clear that while some of those advocating redirecting or deleting may have been doing so on moral or emotional grounds, my close, as an action unto itself, was not made on such a basis. On the talk page of the main article and the various conversations at AN I believe a consensus has already been established to proceed very carefully and only add hat we are sure must add and is appropriately verified. It was those discussions that influenced me to take the unusual action of invoking SNOW after so short a time. Clearly, Wikipedians are not sure we should have this article. Again, not the way things are usually done, and not the way they should usually be done. Just what "local" consensus around this incident has been so far.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
04:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Wikipedians are very sure about Soto having a stand-alone article per
WP:VICTIM,
William David Sanders,
Jamie Bishop, and
Jamie Bishop's AfD. If you
WP:NPOV this DRV you will see that there is no reason whatsoever to not allow Soto to have her own article. We have provided facts, evidence, references, reliable sources, and policies on how Soto satisfies all criteria to have a standalone article. No one else has done the contrary. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Send back to AFD There was no possible justification for ending an AFD early for this. Let it run the full seven days like its suppose to.
DreamFocus02:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Let's get something straight and clear here. The issue is not about if the subject was notable or not. The issue is that due process was not followed. The subject here is that the AFD nomination was closed in haste (12 hours) and with only the limited participation of editors who live in a certain Time Zones. Editors from other Time Zones were not allowed to express themselves. Who are we kidding by stating that a consensus was reached when the process was closed before others could react or express themselves? How would any of you like it if you created an article and when you woke up in the morning you found out, in your "talk page", that your article was nominated for "AFD", only then to find out that the discussion was already closed without allowing you, the creator, and others, who may have wished to express themselves, the option of doing so? Not every one spends 24 hours in Wikipedia, people do sleep. The nomination should be re-opened and enough time be allowed so that editors living in all Time Zones could have the opportunity to participate. Only then, regardless of the result or outcome, can it be claimed that a true and fair consensus was reached.
Tony the Marine (
talk)
23:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)reply
I seem to be having trouble getting folks to understand this point: I believe there was a pre-existing consensus, formed at the talk page of the main article and in the four or five threads at
WP:AN on this subject to proceed very cautiously and not rush into anything here. That consensus and the unanimous feeling at the AFD that it was too soon led to me taking the unusual step of closing the debate early. You may disagree with that but I hope it is at least understood as being the motivation for my actions. I would also remind you that the article is merely redirected for now, the content is all still there in the page history. I am also open to the idea of userfying the previous version if there is a desire to continue drafting it while we wait for some time to pass and a broader perspective on these events to become clear.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
19:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, I have closed hundreds of contentious AFDs. I tend to do a lot of stuff other admins don't want to deal with because they can't handle the inevitable hassle that will come of it. At the risk of repeating myself I felt that this was a special circumstance based on the numerous discussions that preceded it. The unanimity I refer to (if you take care to read my entire comment and not just focus on that one word0 was the feeling that, whether they felt we should keep or delete the article, it was probably too soon to be able to say. While not everyone was explicit in saying this, the lone user arguing to keep certainly was.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
04:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)reply
I respect Beeblebrox's position here; there has been a lot of discussion on the talk page about this spin off. So I don't fault that close as some oversight or maliciousness. However, I do think it's much more widely visible, and useful if the afd discussion is allowed to proceed. I'm starting to see a lot of people make reference in AfDs to other "consensus" that's been reached as a justification for prematurely closing AfDs and I don't think that's a great trend.
Shadowjams (
talk)
23:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no result (and revert the last edit[s] by Bwilkins) The closer was correct to find a reason to close this AfD about a topic whose notability is in flux, and where no deletion was proposed. The problem is the use of color of office to enact the redirect, when this action was functionally an editorial action, not that of an admin. As SmokeyJoe explains the need, this decision is and remains a matter for editorial control, not AfD and DRV control. Editors should not think that they need to get "permission" from DRV if the main article becomes too big.
Unscintillating (
talk)
04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)reply
What you are advocating is allowing any user to overturn an AFD if they did not like the result. Whether my close was proper or not that is not a road we want to go down. We have DRV for a good reason. This is not about getting permission from admins, it is about getting consensus from the community. Of a consensus to have this article becomes clear you can trust that neither I nor BWilkins would abuse our admin tools to thwart that consensus.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
04:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Putting words in my mouth doesn't advance the discussion. The community consensus of which you speak is something to develop on the talk page of the article. SmokeyJoe has advanced the discussion by talking about spinouts, but spinouts are something to discuss on the talk page, not here. I see no possibility of developing a consensus for deletion here and now...notability is in flux, the articles are in flux, and no one is even considering a deletion of either the redirect or of the edit history. I would say that there is a solid consensus that no deletion discussion is needed.
Unscintillating (
talk)
05:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't believe deleting this article is or ever was actually the subject under discussion here, despite the venue. Consensus can form anywhere, and as I have said we already had a consensus formes through various discussion on multiple pages to proceed with caution. The article is curerntly a protected redirect. If a clear consensus develops to have a full article, be it here, the article talk page, or at a relisted AFD I or any other admin can remove the protection and restore the article in a matter of seconds. As you say though, it is all in flux. That was one of the concerns expressed at the initial discussion, that it is too soon to tell if we ultimately should have a full article on this individual.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
05:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The fact you acknowledge it's in flux should bode against closing it after 12 hours. I don't think you did anything particularly wrong here Beeblebrox, but you pushing this point this strenuously is not encouraging. I think, as do most others here, that you made a mistake doing what can only be described as an IAR close on a controversial subject, and you should let this DRV run its course.
Shadowjams (
talk)
08:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Overturn [send back to AfD], prematurely closing a controversial nomination serves no purpose other than to inflame people and spill a barrel of ink here. Even if it seems obvious that the issue will resolve one way, this doesn't meet the SNOW or any other criteria to close it prematurely. It's one thing if it ran for 5 days, but closing it after 12 hours... no.
Shadowjams (
talk)
23:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Overturn and send it back to AFD. I think the outcome is correct, and that's what I'd !vote for, but there is no compelling reason to short-circuit the usual lifespan of an AFD here. Lets do it by the book.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)05:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC).reply
Victoria Leigh Soto – Reopen on AfD. Numerically, we have 8 endorses, 4 overturns (note that "endorse this review" really means "overturn"), and 6 relists. Since all sides have made valid points, and AfDs should not be closed early unless the circumstances are uncontroversial, this article deserves to be at AfD for the full seven days. –
King of♥♦♣ ♠
20:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The following is an archived debate of the
deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Article was nominated for deletion on Dec 22 at 0100 hours and rushingly closed as an AfD and redirected on the same date by 1350 hours (a mere 12 hours timespan) in contravention of
WP:DELPRO and
WP:PROD. Early closure does not apply in this case. The article creator, its contributors, and the WikiProject overseeing the article where not notified of the AfD. Attempts were made to revert the AfD per
WP:IAR,
WP:VOTE,
WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, and
WP:WHATISCONSENSUS but the article was reverted and then protected by an administrator. A request was made for unprotection but it was declined. The article stands on its own per
WP:NOTABILITY,
WP:NOTPAPER,
WP:BIO,
WP:VICTIM, and
WP:BLP1E—these cases have been discussed extensively on Wikipedia several times and in depth. This particular individual, as
WP:VICTIM and
WP:BLP1E detail, has been covered in an exclusive manner by a reliable source in the context of a single event. Furthermore, we have precedents such as
William David Sanders,
Jamie Bishop, and
Jamie Bishop's AfD.
Regarding
WP:VICTIM the following statute applies:
The historic significance [of the victim] is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.
The following reliable sources cover
Victoria Leigh Soto in an exclusive manner:
Endorse; and, Ahnoneemoos, your "IAR" revert of the redirection was a very clear violation of our BLP policies. I see you are very good at enumerating Wikipedia's alphabet soup, perhaps you should be just as diligent in reading what they point to. —
Coren(talk)17:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Send to AfD and discuss. We with great difficulty established the consensus that the individual victims of an event like this do not generally warrant articles, unless there is something special. As the teacher, and on basis of the news coverage of which a small part is shown above, this at least needs a full discussion. The redirect was not made on the basis of BLP but OneEvent--BLP was not mentioned in the close or the discussion. And quite reasonably it was not mentioned, for the person is no longer alive, so BLP would applicable only in terms of the possible sensitivity of the survivors. I don't think that is relevant here--I cannot see how the presence of the article here does any harm to them, & preventing harm is the purpose of BLP. (I totally disagree with the view that it applies at all after a person has died, except of course to the extent a person's living immediate relatives are discussed, and the decision to insert in the policy needs to be re-examined, but that's not at issue here.) What might be of issue is Coren's unjustified charge of a BLP violation. DGG (
talk )
17:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Certainly BLP 1E is part of the BLP policy. But there is also
WP:ONEEVENT, the expansion in N(PEOPLE) of the NOT NEWS restriction in WP:NOT for a person notable for only a single isolated event and not otherwise, living or dead. As this person is not living, it seems clear to me which must have been intended. Do you propose to permit the out of process deletion of articles about recently deceased people, where there is no harm to the sensibilities of anyone living? If the deletion had been made explicitly on that basis, I would challenge it as an incorrect application of that part of the policy,but it wasn't. DGG (
talk )
20:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
There is an implicit understanding that BLP1E applies to the recently deceased as well. If they weren't notable before, then rarely is their death going to change that. --
MASEM (
t)
20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Wether they were notable before their death is irrelevant. What's relevant for a BLP is (1) if people would expect an independent article on the person and (2) if reliable sources have covered the person in an exclusive manner. In Soto's case both criteria are fulfilled. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
21:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
No, that's why we have BLP1E to avoid the subjective judgement on point 1. Soto's name (among the other teachers that tried to protect their students) all have wide coverage but only for doing one thing, which while part of a tragedy does not have otherwise any significant impact on the rest of the world. This is exactly a reason to avoid creating an article on the person per BLP1E as well as NOTMEMORIAL. --
MASEM (
t)
21:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
WP:BLP1E does not apply to BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:
Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.
And as I said, there are implicitly unstated applications of BLP1E to the recently deceased. (We don't throw up weakly-sourced slander about a person that just died, for example, that would have never gone up if they were alive). But BLP1E is not the only reason to not have an article about a person that is only notable in their death, as listed. --
MASEM (
t)
23:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The thing is that Soto's article was referenced with reliable sources (Fox News, Huffing Post, El Nuevo Día, LA News, etc). In addition, we do have a policy for this particular case per
WP:VICTIM which states:
The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.
So our job is to examine wether those two statements are true for Soto. Lets split them up:
The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event.
Did Soto have a "large role"? The answer would be, yes, Soto had a large role, since Soto has to be compared with all others involved in the event. Did the janitor have a large role? No. The school bus driver? No. Soto? Yes, she did have a large role. Not only was she a victim, she also had a significant role within the event's context: she voluntarily and selflessly put herself between the attacker and other victims.
Then we have to determine wether this was a "well-documented historic event". This is self-evident from the article itself and all other references posted on both the article and this DRV.
Now we have the second part:
The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.
Was Soto devoted "significant attention to her role in the event by reliably secondary sources"? Once again, yes, she was, by the references posted above.
So, in conclusion, wether we like it or not, Soto fulfills all criteria to have a stand-alone article.
We have no idea about persistent coverage - we can't, two weeks out from the event. And the logic given means we need 27 articles for all the victims, since even the children got coverage of this type. This is a bad way of approaching building an encyclopedia. Again, like the international reactions articles, this is great for Wikinews, but terrible content for WP outside of her roles within protecting the children. --
MASEM (
t)
03:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)reply
That's, like, your opinion, man. "Bad" and "terrible" are subjective adjectives and a personal opinion. We have presented evidence, facts, reliable sources, and policies on this matter. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Endorse this review. I do not endorse the conclusion of the "AFD/redirect", because I believe that it was decided prematurely. I was totally surprised when I awoke to find that the article had been speedy redirected. I did not even have an opportunity to defend the article. In my opinion the Victoria Leigh Soto article was not a memorial, she deserves an article. Notable? She saved the lives of the majority of her students and had been hailed as a hero by the international media. By saving the lives of children from being murdered she acted above and beyond of what is expected. Had she been a soldier, she would have been awarded the
Medal of Honor. Such reasoning as "Subject has no notability beyond this single event", does not even make any sense.
Rosa Parks became notable because of a single event. Her single event was used by others to focus on the Civil Rights issues of the United States. Tell me, does anyone know of another teacher who stood between her students and their murderer? The fact that the Connecticut State University announced the creation of the "Victoria Leigh Soto Endowed Memorial Scholarship Fund" in her honor, tells us that she will be remembered for actions, not only by those affected, but by the students who will be the recipients of the scholarship. It is a question of time before a school or avenue be named after her.
Tony the Marine (
talk)
19:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Endorse this review and republishing the stricken article. I just got back from church services in Puerto Rico, where the bishop who was the main celebrant, made a special prayer for the "Maestra Heroina", the Teacher Heroine, to then find the insensitivity of eliminating Vicky's article, denying those who may want to research her life the opportunity to easily know more about her. It is insulting to say that "subject has no notability beyond this single event" because how a person dies can very well establish a greater level of notability than the years that someone may live. That's what heroism is all about! In Vicky's case, it wasn't simply that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but she chose, through a heroic act, to put herself at even greater risk in order to save the lives of untold others. That is a story worth telling, and a story worth not denying.
Pr4ever (
talk)
19:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Our principal purpose here is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed. An early closure requires some urgent or pressing need to close early. Without such a reason, the debate should last at least 168 hours so that everyone interested in the topic has a fair chance to have their say. Relist accordingly, although I would emphasize that the material has not been deleted out of process. I think it would be best for the redirect to remain in place until the debate is finished, since there's a good prima faciae case in favour of this nomination and the disputed content is visible in the history.—
S MarshallT/
C20:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Welcome to deletion review! I understand why you think precedents would matter; there's a basic expectation that we'll be consistent. But in fact, Wikipedia rules specifically disavow precedent (see
WP:OCE). The simple way of explaining why is that we take decisions one article at a time and we may not have got to those ones yet.—
S MarshallT/
C21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Oh yes. "Wikipedia guidelines are like scripture: somewhere in the labyrinthine network of rules, you can find support for any position." —
me. Still, latin isn't the same as lawyering.—
S MarshallT/
C22:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Endorse closure Given that we've not even created the article on the shooter yet, it is way too premature to be doing the same for any of the victims. (and while DRV is not AFD#2, there's a huge plethera of reasons to not have an article on the victims even if they had a notable part in trying to protect the children) --
MASEM (
t)
20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
In my humble opinion, I do not believe that it is not a good excuse to back up the "closure". If someone wants to write an article on the shooter, fine. The fact is that an article was written about a brave teacher which should not have been affected because no one wrote an article about the murderer. The administrator who closed the AFD discussion did so in hast and the editors who contributed to the article were unable to express themselves. .
Tony the Marine (
talk)
20:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The existence of an article on Wikipedia does not depend on the existence of another article. Just because we don't have an article on the perpetrator today is not a sufficient argument to not create an article on a victim. In addition to that, the only reason why there is not an article on the perpetrator is because Adam Lanza was preemptively protected by administrators without any discussion whatsoever. If it were unprotected I can assure you that contributors would be developing it, in the same way that we have an article on
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the
Columbine High School massacre. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
21:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
There was plenty of discussion that fully prot'd Lanza's article (after the initial mis-identification of the press to his brother). And the protection was recently re-affirmed to be appropriate for a few more weeks. --
MASEM (
t)
21:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Let's take that into my Talk page 'cuz I can't find the formal process that concluded such thing. The only thing that I can find is at
Talk:Adam Lanza and the edit summaries of the redirect itself. Everything else was just an open discussion rather than a formal process. Could you please post the links on my talk page? —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Links to be posted on your talk but all of it was at ANI; one on the day of the shooting, and another that just closed. --
MASEM (
t)
23:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Endorse this review and re-publishing the stricken article. The subject's notability is clearly established with articles and citations from the New York Times, the Huffington Post, television coverage, and international coverage from England's Guardian.
I also agree that "the killer should get an article first" is a bit ridiculous. That is not "Wikipedia policy." In fact, here is another Wiki article about a victim:
Kitty Genovese. Kitty Genovese was not notable before her death. Her death did make her notable.
48 years after Genovese's death, her killer is widely known, and an article has still not been written about him. So clearly, this notion that "the killer should get an article first," is not Wikipedia policy.
Nelsondenis248 (
talk)
21:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Genovese's article is about the crime and not just the victim; the crime is named after the victim and thus both are discussed there. The equivalent here is the article on the shooting - the crime itself. --
MASEM (
t)
23:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
I am confused. Is this (above) supposed to be a discussion of whether or not the article should be deleted (or kept)? Or is this (above) supposed to be a discussion of whether or not the article's AfD process was properly/improperly closed? Thanks.
Joseph A. Spadaro (
talk)
22:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but I am still confused. If it already underwent an AfD, then why are we here? Doesn't the result of that AfD stand? And, here (above), are we not just rehashing the arguments that were already presented in the AfD? Or is this being reviewed (DRV) because of a claim that the original AfD was improperly shut down?
Joseph A. Spadaro (
talk)
01:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The complaint (taking out that DRV is not AFD#2) is that the AFD was "speedily" closed as a delete within 12 hr of its creation, though appearing to be outside the normal requirements of a speedy close. However, the closure appears to be based on an IAR consideration of the subject matter. --
MASEM (
t)
03:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Endorse. Consensus was achieved in the AfD. Plenty of eyes saw that it was up for deletion, far more than for the usual article. I am amazed that the proper decision was made to redirect, given the emotions swirling around the event. Deletion Review should not undo the closer's brave decision. Abductive (
reasoning)04:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)reply
endorse own close As I have already mentioned I am fully aware that this was an unusual step to take. This is an unusual circumstance, so I bent the rules a little bit. The attitude so far amongst those of us who have been trying to keep an eye on issues revolving around this incident is one of proceeding slowly and conservatively for the time being (as opposed to rushing into things, edit warring, angrily reverting the close of an AFd, etc.) While there may be a consensus at some point that some of he individual victims should have their own articles there as no such consensus when this aricle was created and there certainly was not one at the AFD, which headed rapidly into
WP:SNOW territory. Indeed, out of the eight users who participated only one favored keeping, ironically because they also thought it was too soon to say one way or the other. So, all participants agreed it was too soon, but one disagreed about what that meant. It has not been deleted and if, in time, a consensus develops that we should have an article it will be extremely simple to restore it. I realize that is not the normal way we do things but would again stress that this is not a normal situation.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
04:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)reply
How exactly is this not a "normal" situation? Who exactly is determining this is not a "normal" situation? What authority does this person have to determine that this is not a "normal" situation? What statute from the
WP:WMF gives this person such authority? What policy, rule, or guideline is this person following to assess that this is not a "normal" situation? This *is* a normal situation, per
WP:VICTIM,
William David Sanders,
Jamie Bishop, and
Jamie Bishop's AfD. This has happened before and will continue to happen. Wikipedia has already discussed this extensively and has already established policies and processes on how to manage them. It seems that this is just a group of people labeling this as abnormal and treating it as a special circumstance when it is not. You need to understand that
WP:NOTADEMOCRACY and even when there is a
WP:VOTE that favors a particular outcome overwhelmingly, that
WP:POLL is worthless since
Wikipedia is not driven by popular vote and
WP:IAR stands above all else. You invoked
WP:IAR in
WP:GOODFAITH but you forget that everybody else has the same right and power. The problem here however is that an administrator intervened and protected it, something that cannot be undone by non-administrators. I'm sorry but logic here is clear, read
WP:VICTIM, Soto satisfies all criteria for a stand-alone article. Wether it is too soon or not is a subjective matter and an opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work based on opinions, feelings, nor emotions, we work based on facts and evidence. We have provided facts, evidence, references, reliable sources, and policies on why Soto should and can have a stand alone article. No one else has done the contrary. Keep your feelings, emotions, and personal opinions to yourself.
WP:NPOV this. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Two things: Please read my follow up comment below where clarify how I believe there was a pre-existing consensus to proceed extremely cautiously. That is what I refer to when I say this is not a normal situation. Second, please calm down and stop throwing fifty WP:WHATEVER links into every single post you make. Or maybe read
WP:SPIDER since you seem to attach such value to any such link.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
23:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment It was said earlier that "there are implicitly unstated applications of BLP1E to the recently deceased.". There is not, and it would be irrational to have it. What are we trying to accomplish? Why are our content rules on BLP different from our content rules on any other subject? There is only one justification for treating living people differently--and that is the possibility of doing harm to them, and our feeling of general brotherhood and humaneness that should prevent us from doing this. It's not an encyclopedic issue directly--it has nothing specifically to do with an encyclopedia; it's a moral issue, about how we treat others. That's why we care so much, that's why we enforce it so strictly. Who among us would want to be associated with an enterprise that considered other people fair game for shaming, any more than we would for physical hurting? The rules are intended to ensure that we do not do this--but that if the harm is already done beyond what we can a significantly add to it, or if the person is in one of the special classes of public individuals who are presumed to be indifferent to such matters or at least willing to tolerate them for the sake of their self-chosen careers, such as politicians and entertainers. An argument can be made that it can apply to the immediate survivors of the recently dead: that for example we do not include information about the suicide or minor criminality of a private individual until some time had past, unless it was of great worldwide notoriety. I only agree with this, unless the time period is very limited, but I defer to the feelings of those who are sure it is wrong, because this too is a moral matter. But where this is not involved--as it is surely not involved here--none of the provisions of BLP are applicable. Not just the specific BLP rules for what is appropriate to cover, but the rules against reversing administrative or other actions and edits. Those who interpret BLP policy to include this are not differentiating the letter from the purpose.BLP is not a moral issue here; the integrity of decision making process is the issue, and the willing of people to foreclose it on the basis of mistaken emotion. DGG (
talk )
02:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Living persons can sue WP for defamation, that's why the rule exists. BLP1E applies to the very recently deceased is further protection from lawsuits from relatives or other relations for defamation as well. Arguably, any material that is defamatory is going to be considered as contentious, and therefore must be sourced to a well-known reliable one, but that said, I would say that there are sources out there that would be fine to assert that a person that died 50 years ago was possibly gay that would fail a normal BLP allowance and by the same logic that of a person that died within a month or so.
But that's not the only issue here. BLP1E's basic tenent is that one event rarely elevates a person that was non-notable to a notable one - more than likely the event itself takes center stage and thus that person can be discussed there. As noted above, if there is enduring coverage of the person after the event, that would elevate them past that point, but that's not yet shown and the only scenarios I can see are CRYSTAL-ball based (eg a gun control law being named after her). It doesn't matter that the person died doing that act regardless how heroic and self-sacrificing it was, that's the only thing to date they would be considered notable for, and thus not appropriate as a separate article at this time. Once you get past 1-3 months or more, you can actually then access the continued coverage in sources, and make a better accessment if a new article is needed. --
MASEM (
t)
07:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)reply
BLP1E does not apply to deceased people. Per
WP:BLP1E itself, and for your own convenience:
Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.
Regarding wether it is too soon or not, that's an opinion and a subjective matter.
WP:TOOSOON is merely an essay, not a rule nor a policy.
WP:VICTIM, however, is a policy and is very clear on this matter and concludes that Soto can have a standalone article since she satisfies all criteria. Base your argument on facts and keep all concerns and emotions out and you will conclude the same.
WP:NPOV it.
as usual David has raised an interesting point. . I would therefore like to be abundantly clear that while some of those advocating redirecting or deleting may have been doing so on moral or emotional grounds, my close, as an action unto itself, was not made on such a basis. On the talk page of the main article and the various conversations at AN I believe a consensus has already been established to proceed very carefully and only add hat we are sure must add and is appropriately verified. It was those discussions that influenced me to take the unusual action of invoking SNOW after so short a time. Clearly, Wikipedians are not sure we should have this article. Again, not the way things are usually done, and not the way they should usually be done. Just what "local" consensus around this incident has been so far.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
04:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Wikipedians are very sure about Soto having a stand-alone article per
WP:VICTIM,
William David Sanders,
Jamie Bishop, and
Jamie Bishop's AfD. If you
WP:NPOV this DRV you will see that there is no reason whatsoever to not allow Soto to have her own article. We have provided facts, evidence, references, reliable sources, and policies on how Soto satisfies all criteria to have a standalone article. No one else has done the contrary. —
Ahnoneemoos (
talk)
19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Send back to AFD There was no possible justification for ending an AFD early for this. Let it run the full seven days like its suppose to.
DreamFocus02:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Let's get something straight and clear here. The issue is not about if the subject was notable or not. The issue is that due process was not followed. The subject here is that the AFD nomination was closed in haste (12 hours) and with only the limited participation of editors who live in a certain Time Zones. Editors from other Time Zones were not allowed to express themselves. Who are we kidding by stating that a consensus was reached when the process was closed before others could react or express themselves? How would any of you like it if you created an article and when you woke up in the morning you found out, in your "talk page", that your article was nominated for "AFD", only then to find out that the discussion was already closed without allowing you, the creator, and others, who may have wished to express themselves, the option of doing so? Not every one spends 24 hours in Wikipedia, people do sleep. The nomination should be re-opened and enough time be allowed so that editors living in all Time Zones could have the opportunity to participate. Only then, regardless of the result or outcome, can it be claimed that a true and fair consensus was reached.
Tony the Marine (
talk)
23:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)reply
I seem to be having trouble getting folks to understand this point: I believe there was a pre-existing consensus, formed at the talk page of the main article and in the four or five threads at
WP:AN on this subject to proceed very cautiously and not rush into anything here. That consensus and the unanimous feeling at the AFD that it was too soon led to me taking the unusual step of closing the debate early. You may disagree with that but I hope it is at least understood as being the motivation for my actions. I would also remind you that the article is merely redirected for now, the content is all still there in the page history. I am also open to the idea of userfying the previous version if there is a desire to continue drafting it while we wait for some time to pass and a broader perspective on these events to become clear.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
19:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes, I have closed hundreds of contentious AFDs. I tend to do a lot of stuff other admins don't want to deal with because they can't handle the inevitable hassle that will come of it. At the risk of repeating myself I felt that this was a special circumstance based on the numerous discussions that preceded it. The unanimity I refer to (if you take care to read my entire comment and not just focus on that one word0 was the feeling that, whether they felt we should keep or delete the article, it was probably too soon to be able to say. While not everyone was explicit in saying this, the lone user arguing to keep certainly was.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
04:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)reply
I respect Beeblebrox's position here; there has been a lot of discussion on the talk page about this spin off. So I don't fault that close as some oversight or maliciousness. However, I do think it's much more widely visible, and useful if the afd discussion is allowed to proceed. I'm starting to see a lot of people make reference in AfDs to other "consensus" that's been reached as a justification for prematurely closing AfDs and I don't think that's a great trend.
Shadowjams (
talk)
23:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Overturn to no result (and revert the last edit[s] by Bwilkins) The closer was correct to find a reason to close this AfD about a topic whose notability is in flux, and where no deletion was proposed. The problem is the use of color of office to enact the redirect, when this action was functionally an editorial action, not that of an admin. As SmokeyJoe explains the need, this decision is and remains a matter for editorial control, not AfD and DRV control. Editors should not think that they need to get "permission" from DRV if the main article becomes too big.
Unscintillating (
talk)
04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)reply
What you are advocating is allowing any user to overturn an AFD if they did not like the result. Whether my close was proper or not that is not a road we want to go down. We have DRV for a good reason. This is not about getting permission from admins, it is about getting consensus from the community. Of a consensus to have this article becomes clear you can trust that neither I nor BWilkins would abuse our admin tools to thwart that consensus.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
04:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Putting words in my mouth doesn't advance the discussion. The community consensus of which you speak is something to develop on the talk page of the article. SmokeyJoe has advanced the discussion by talking about spinouts, but spinouts are something to discuss on the talk page, not here. I see no possibility of developing a consensus for deletion here and now...notability is in flux, the articles are in flux, and no one is even considering a deletion of either the redirect or of the edit history. I would say that there is a solid consensus that no deletion discussion is needed.
Unscintillating (
talk)
05:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't believe deleting this article is or ever was actually the subject under discussion here, despite the venue. Consensus can form anywhere, and as I have said we already had a consensus formes through various discussion on multiple pages to proceed with caution. The article is curerntly a protected redirect. If a clear consensus develops to have a full article, be it here, the article talk page, or at a relisted AFD I or any other admin can remove the protection and restore the article in a matter of seconds. As you say though, it is all in flux. That was one of the concerns expressed at the initial discussion, that it is too soon to tell if we ultimately should have a full article on this individual.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
05:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The fact you acknowledge it's in flux should bode against closing it after 12 hours. I don't think you did anything particularly wrong here Beeblebrox, but you pushing this point this strenuously is not encouraging. I think, as do most others here, that you made a mistake doing what can only be described as an IAR close on a controversial subject, and you should let this DRV run its course.
Shadowjams (
talk)
08:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Overturn [send back to AfD], prematurely closing a controversial nomination serves no purpose other than to inflame people and spill a barrel of ink here. Even if it seems obvious that the issue will resolve one way, this doesn't meet the SNOW or any other criteria to close it prematurely. It's one thing if it ran for 5 days, but closing it after 12 hours... no.
Shadowjams (
talk)
23:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Overturn and send it back to AFD. I think the outcome is correct, and that's what I'd !vote for, but there is no compelling reason to short-circuit the usual lifespan of an AFD here. Lets do it by the book.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)05:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC).reply